Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MIckStephenson (talk | contribs) at 07:07, 19 June 2007 (→‎screen-viewable versions of FPs (proposal): gah!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

3d guidelines

Wikipedia:3D Illustrations is trying to work out details of a policy on the use of 3D images on Wikipedia. Contributors here may be especially qualified to comment. Rmhermen 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying the top of this page

Would anyone object to me redoing the top of this page to look more like the top of Wikipedia:Featured articles? (I'm trying to standardize the look and feel across the featured content pages) It would mean a lot of pruning, but I think the result would be much sleeker. Raul654 07:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured picture is the first animated image I have seen on the main page. Have there been any others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenb215 (talk • contribs)

It's the first on the main page, but not the first animated FP. BrokenSegue 17:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

likely copyvio

I think it's very likely that Image:Opening Ceremony Athens 2004 Fire rings.jpg. This photo of Bjork was also found at stock xchng, also credited to Lucretious, and yet now cannot be found on stock xchng (the link there is dead - this one doesn't even have a link). I searched "Athens" on stock xchng and there are no Olmypics photos now. I nominated the Bjork photo for deletion on commons (commons:COM:DEL) and I am going to nominate this one the same, so please add any comments about this issue to that page. And in the meantime... do we have a de-FP process? Thanks, pfctdayelise 03:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Sub-section?

Should a new sub-section be created for Image:Backlit mushroom.jpg since it is a fungus, and not a plant? --liquidGhoul 08:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the featured articles template:

Featured article star Featured pictures is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/{{{2}}}|identified]] as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

it is quite useful to have a link to the article's "Feature Article candidate" page. Would it be possible to include a similar link on:

Featured picture star This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article. If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it.

???

as it is quite interesting to read through the pictures support/object history.

I second that. I find it really annoying that I have to sift through the "what links here" list to find the FPC nom. Borisblue 05:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead image?

This is hardly worth putting on WP:FPC, but FP lists Hurricane Katrina's eye at Hurricane Katrina from NOAA, a dead link deleted over a month ago by User:Tomf688 with reason "replaced with commons img"... no commons image has existed with that filename according to the deletion log. I don't know what the featured picture was, but on the article Hurricane Katrina there are two photos of the eye, one also from NOAA, the other from NASA, both local to Wikipedia not the commons. There are also a whole bunch of others including the ones hosted locally here at commons:Category:Hurricane Katrina from space. So which one was promoted, if any? BigBlueFish 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers, I fixed it. Someone overwrote the version on commons with the modified version that got promoted, but then deleted the modifed one here without updating this link. Not their fault: text links to images are not shown on the 'what links here' lists ~ Veledan • Talk 09:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Featured* Picture

I'm not sure if this belongs here, but I thought this would be of interest to the FP community in general:

http://rapidshare.de/files/19734337/P1011308.MOV.html <-Just watch that.

Now that's a featured picture. =D PiccoloNamek 05:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Piccolo, is that really your plasma pic? It's hard to tell from the movie. That's really cool if it's your pic. ~ Veledan • Talk 09:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that is my pic. :D PiccoloNamek 16:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, GFDL violation anyone? ed g2s • talk 11:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. It isn't as if I signed the copyright over to them.PiccoloNamek 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not on your part, I think ed_g2s suspects a violation by the TV producers. Did you have any agreement with them? --Dschwen 14:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They contacted me and asked if they could use it, and I said sure. I didn't give them ownership of the image, however. The gist of the agreement was "You still own the image, but you're letting us use it whenever we want. But other people can still use it too."PiccoloNamek 14:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So all is fine and everyone played by the rules :-) --Dschwen 14:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. They can use the image, but everybody else's right (especially Wikimedia's right, heh) to use the image is not hindered or changed at all.PiccoloNamek 15:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does all the FPs be displayed at Today's featured picture. I mean on a queue basis. Or there is a further selection from the FPs to pick the ones that would go in the 'Today's featured picture' section.

Where can I see the display schedule for the FP for 'Today's featured picture' ?

thanks,

Pratheepps 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

show images

Could it be possible to show thumbnails of all the images for easy access, rather than guessing what the image looks like and then clicking to find out?

Altered photos

Hi,

The Wikipedia:No Original Research policy states that altered photographs shouldn't be used to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I believe it follows from this policy that they shouldn't be promoted to Featured status. Image:Boxing080905 photoshop.jpg and Image:Water drop animation enhanced small.gif are two altered (or, in the latter case, perhaps "synthetic") photographs that Shawnc pointed me to, the former photo being his work.

This isn't a slam at all on photo retouching as an art, or on the beauty of the two images listed above. However, they purport to depict something that is false, and therefore are a form of banned "original research".

I'm planning to expand the WP:NOR page's section on altered photographs to explain why. If you have any comments or questions, discussion belongs over at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Altered photos; I just wanted to be sure to point to the discussion from here. Tempshill 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halleluhja, the reinforcements have finally arrived ;-). Check the archives for prior lengthy discussions on this ..lets say.. controversial subject. --Dschwen 19:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an alteration introduces new information or unrealisticly alters existing information then yes it is not encyclopedic.

However, if the alteration brings forth more real detail, such as rotation, exposure adjustment, or in the case of an animated GIF spacial synching, then it is very encyclopedic and not original research. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main page featured picture

I find it quite frustrating to see a featured picture on the main page with a description of something somewhat related but without any direct reference to the image. For example, the current Euro image shows a variety of measurement lines around it but the blurb talks about the currency. violet/riga (t) 20:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MotoX Picture

Perhaps it should be moved from its current category (Entertainment and Lifestyle) to Sport. Motor Racing is classified as a sport, so in my humble opinion it would make sense to add it to the sport category.

Chopin Picture

I'm not sure why, but for some reason the Chopin picture link was wrong, was: Frederic_Chopin_photo2.jpeg, corrected to Frederic_Chopin_photo.jpeg. 68.60.11.247 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)pheonix2og[reply]

FP and Failed FP description boxes on image pages

I propose that the {{FeaturedPicture}} template on the description page of every featured picture be changed to include a link to the nomination discussion, as is the case with featured articles. It is often useful to re-read these discussions when you find a featured picture, and the current way is not easy-to-use.

I further propose that failed featured pictures have a "failed featured picture" template as per failed feature articles to clearly identify those that have failed the FP nom process so they are not re-nominated.

I'm not exactly sure where this belongs so am posting it here and on the FP candidates talk page. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a {{FPCfailed}} template, if you want. You add {{FPCfailed|discussion name}} to the image page. I'll post it on FPC talk and see what they think of it. NauticaShades 09:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypervelocity

Great picture - but - the abstract makes no sense - shouldn't that be 'hypervelocity impact' not 'hypervelocity'. Maybe someone will be able to change it quickly?HappyVR 01:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vectorization

I am looking for assistance in vectorizing an image, as User:Gustavb had for the featured picture a few days ago (Image:Piratey, vector version.svg). Is there an image noticeboard where someone might be able to help, or is anyone here willing to take a bit of time to vectorize the image at right that is used in hundreds of different articles at varying sizes? Thanks so much. — Scm83x hook 'em 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Root canal illustration is listed as being a featured image, but is not tagged as such (no bronze star on the image page was what caught—or didn't—my eye). It doesn't look like someone added their own picture to the list (unless they did a great job of creating a history for it being so many other things!), but just wondered what happened.

Ditto Kievskaya station on the Moscow Metro—Chidom talk  08:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these images were on en-WP when promoted to FP status, then moved to Commons, and the corresponding image description page here deleted, thus also removing the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag. I've been going through the old POTDs and replacing the template where necessary. howcheng {chat} 20:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank the people responsible for the featured pictures section. This section has provided some astounding illustrations, many of which have at some point served as the my windows backgrounds. I especially liked "Crepuscular rays", "Blue Mountains: Three Sisters", and "Schlossvaduz". Yesterday's "Digital Art" picture was amazing! Kudos to everyone and keep up the good work!

Mikmd 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Air balloon

I see the hot air balloon picture has moved or been deleted. Should we delete it from featured pictures? It was really good! St.isaac 01:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been moved to Image:Ballon2.jpg|. I traced it back from commons. TheTallOne 21:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General suggestion

I wanted to throw out the general suggestion: why doesn't WP limit featured pictures to lossless PNG's? WP already blatantly prefers PNG over any other non-vector image filetype. Is there a place for suggestions where I should post this? Anyone, feel free to talk to me. --Anthony5429 16:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not practical for atleast two reasons:
  1. PNG files can very quickly exceed the 20mb limit for high res pictures, thus are impossible to upload.
  2. Pictures are ussually taken on digital cameras, most save only to jpeg.
  3. Many pictures only slightly benifit from losslessness.
It is of course preferable to have a lossless version, but is cannot be a limit. HighInBC 10:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that answers my question. Thanks! --Anthony5429 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion about panoramas

I notice that in the "panorama" section there are a number of images which are "technically" panoramas (created by photo stitching), while others are panoramas in the traditional sense of the word: views over a wide area, such as a landscape or part of a city. I suggest this section be reserved for the second meaning, as it doesn't make much sense to have some "architecture" photos in "architecture", and others in "panorama", simply by dint of the technique used to create them. Stevage 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hasn't today's featured image been featured before? Rich Farmbrough 10:59 30 August 2006 (GMT).

It would apprear not, although we have featured two different diagrams of carbon nanontubes. Rich Farmbrough 15:29 30 August 2006 (GMT).

Colegio Cesar Chavez picture

I don't know if it's quite Featured Picture quality, but this picture, which I took of the Colegio Cesar Chavez was recently reprinted in the Statesman Journal (a Salem, Oregon newspaper). I was wondering if anyone knows of any template or tag that can be added to this picture to note that it was reproduced in the media. Thanks. Andrew Parodi 05:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page getting unwieldy

With the large number of Featured Pictures we now have, this page is starting to get unwieldy, and WP:FPV is even worse. I offered on Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures visible to refactor that page along the lines of Commons:Featured pictures but as I started doing so, it occurred to me that that format could be used to replace both WP:FPV and WP:FP, in other words merging the two. I also wonder if that makes WP:FPT obsolete as well (although that one does serve a different purpose, making POTD generation a lot easier). Thoughts? howcheng {chat} 06:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no objections were raised, I revamped the whole page to resemble COM:FP. This was several days' worth of effort, so I really hope it's fine with everyone. I'd really rather not have to revisit this. :) howcheng {chat} 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great! Much more inviting to browse. Thanks :) --Quiddity 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture move: png -> jpg

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Thomas More.png. Conscious 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FI?

You can draw a picture, you can render a picture, your can photograph a picture. I do not think picture refers exclusivly to photographs. See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. As for coherence with wiki namespaces, that would be nice, but as you say too late. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a link from Featured Sound to something here that I cannot find, so I'll suggest it anyway - should Featured Pictures be renamed Featured Media to encompass sound and video files etc? I think this is a good idea, because there are few sound and video files on wikipedia, and a merge would work quite well. Your thoughts? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 14:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The criteria for judging pictures and sounds/video would be far different, for one thing. Besides, this discussion is moot until Wikipedia:Featured sounds actually becomes active. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, have different criteria, just on the same page. But you're right, the situation is moot until Featured Sounds becomes more active. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Pictures?

I notice that some of the other features on the main page have 'previous' links at the bottom, letting users see what they've missed over the past few days. Would it be a good idea to add something like this to the Featured Pictures section?24.187.185.246 19:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Jon[reply]

You're thinking of Wikipedia:Picture of the day, which is how Featured Pictures are scheduled for display on the Main Page. howcheng {chat} 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these images is better?

You people seem to be the experts on images, so I was wondering if you could suggest which of these two images of The Death of General Wolfe (1770) we should be using. Thanks.

Image 1 has better detail, but Image 2 is more colourful and striking. --Arctic Gnome 18:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never seen the actual painting so I don't know what the colors are supposed to look like, but the colors of "Image 1" seem to be a bit washed out while "Image 2" looks oversaturated. I think the original version of "Image 2" looks much better than the current edited version (which was uploaded on 21:42, 27 April 2005) but it is still not as detailed as "Image 1". --KFP (talk | contribs) 20:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia version of the image was at Image:NormandyLST.jpeg, but it was uploaded to the commons under the name Image:1944 NormandyLST.jpg. The wikipedia version then got SD while lots of stuff were still linked to it, so someone reuploaded it at Image:NormandyLST.jpeg. Now neither version has the featured picture template. It was promoted at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/D-Day at Omaha Beach. I didn't see any delisting linked to either version, so I'm assuming it's still featured. --Aqua 08:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured color - orange to blue?

I propose we change the default featured color from the current orange(#FFF7E6), to the blue now used in most top level pages. E.g. this demo diff.

Please reply at Wikipedia talk:Featured content#Color. Thanks :) —Quiddity 21:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Please give the hungarian link to the left side: hu:Kiemelt képek —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.97.18.134 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Commons Picture of the Year 2006 competition

 Interested in honouring the best of the best? Vote now in the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Voting to select the finalists is open until 14th February.

The arrangements for the Commons Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting has opened today, Feb 1st. All Commons Commons:Featured Pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. --MichaelMaggs 12:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the best picture of 2006? The candidates have been chosen. Vote for your choice now in the final of the
Commons Picture of the Year competition 2006
Final voting to choose the 2006 Picture of the Year is open until 28th February.

The voting for the final has opened today! Bryan 09:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way of marking or highlighting featured images, when used in articles? I tried adding Image:LinkFA-star.png to the start of the image caption. (Looks like this: ). It would be better if the star could be made a link to Wikipedia:Featured pictures. --Petri Krohn 22:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RSS Feed?

Is there any possibility of getting the Featured Pictures as an RSS feed? 72.205.12.194 16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Cal[reply]

Sorting and Categorization

I never noticed it before, but I am surprised to realize that the Featured Pictures are not sorted or categorized by country of origin, or by quite a number of other criteria. Another user recently asked here for a list of Japan-related featured pictures, but as these are divided between "History", "Culture, entertainment and lifestyle", "Artwork", "People", and "Places", it's not very easy to find such a list.

I realize it's a bit of an undertaking, but I should like to propose that new extra sub-categories be created so as to improve users' ability to find featured images relevant to a particular topic, and/or to simply satisfy people's curiosity as to what images, or how many images, are featured for a given subject. LordAmeth 09:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisting criteria debate

There is currently a discussion between different schools of thought on Delisting Featured Pictures. Central to the debate is the "burden of proof" for a delisting - whether to require a photo to justify being an FP, or conversely, justify being delisted. Please comment at: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Criteria For Delisting

Can anyone here deal with this? Thanks. Carcharoth 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place to take it would be Talk:Main_Page/Errors#Errors_in_Picture_of_the_Day.2FToday.27s_featured_picture, but... is there really any point? A 1px dust spot is not really worth hassling an admin over, IMO, but it's your call (and/or Eric's). --YFB ¿ 01:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was yesterday's featured pic, so no. But featured pics are still used elsewhere and are browsed. Theoretically the image should be unprotected by now (or in a few days), so Eric could then upload it himself. Carcharoth 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 4 pixels spot. Ericd 01:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That tells him. :-) Carcharoth 01:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, my bad. Well, in that case the simplest thing would be to wait for it to be unprotected, as Carcharoth suggests. --YFB ¿ 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain that's a defect in the image and not a variation the in feathers/down? If you look at the tail there are a few similar spots Nil Einne 10:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And when I look elsewhere there are other ones altougth smaller than the one I removed. I may be biased by my experience of removing dust spots on argentic pictures. I must confess that sometimes I can't make the difference between a dust spot and a real detail of the picture. Dust on the CCD should result in dark spot. What could be these clear spots if they're not the result of some problem in digital processing ?
- Real variations in the feathers should be under pixel size at least in one dimension and very brigth to look like this? I don't believe in this hypothesis.
- Maybe water droplets either on the feathers on somewhere between the camera and the bird ? With some ligth reflection this may produce something like this.
- A signiticative radioactivity. I've never experienced it but this may have some effect on a CCD. (It is not as silly as it sound heavy radioctive elements concentrate in rivers and marecages (An old Super Takumar works well too).
- Aliens. Well this one is just silly but who knows ?
My vote is for digital artifacts. But other hypothesis are welcome.
Ericd 18:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, are we still discussing this!? I think we might want to look at this over the metaphorical edge of Occam's Razor - this is a shorebird photographed in its natural habitat, which is... mud and sand flats. Any chance that, rather than a weird feather, flying droplets, slow neutrons or extraterrestrial interference, is it possible that the bird might not have been 100% spotlessly clean and that what's on it is a couple of small sand particles? I can't envisage a reason why the camera/software processing would introduce these dots and in all honesty, I'm sure there are plenty of images in much greater need of cleaning up than this one! --YFB ¿ 19:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I had a look, and the "dust spot" seems to have a shadow. I have to say, I agree that it probably is a grain of sand! LOL! How embarassing. Make that a new featured picture criteria: make sure all animals are thoroughly clean before photographing them! Carcharoth 23:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good list, Good picture?

How come there's good article but not good list or picture? But all of them have featured section. OhanaUnited 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try QI at Commons. J Are you green? 15:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shallow water waves.gif

I recently promoted this animation consistent with its FPC, but as an infrequent FP contributor I may have erred on two items. First, this is one of several featured .gifs that cannot be displayed other than at full size, and so its appearance at on the FP main page is exceedingly large. I don't see in the recent history our having dealt with a similar issue, and I wonder whether we should keep the rather large image as one of the three recent promotions in its category or should simply omit it from the FP main page altogether (there is a smaller version, Image:Shallow water waves 250px.gif, but its candidacy failed in favor of the larger image). Separately, I wonder if this is properly situated at the diagrams, drawings, and maps subpage or if it might be better placed in the sciences (or perhaps even the natural phenomena) category. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Joe 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a screen capture so that you get a still frame, then use the syntax [[Image:Example.png|thumb=Thumb.png]]. See the very bottom of Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena for an example. howcheng {chat} 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

screen-viewable versions of FPs (proposal)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include a downsampled version of featured pictures which (these days) are of such high resolution that you can't actually see them? I've just uploaded this version of a current FP candidate at the request of a reviewer and it was quite a revelation to see it at 1200 pixels. Even some macro, pano and landscape shots would benefit from being able to see the image slightly bigger than full-screen instead of three feet by four. At present, you click on a POD and find a measley 800x600 on the image page; click that and all you're likely to get is a screen full of pixels!
I may be wrong, but I think the 800x600 preview harks back to the days when the preview would fill a VGA monitor and hence be suitable for "wallpaper". Whereas VGA resolution is still a good preview, we need something between this and full-res to properly appreciate the pictorial (AOT technical) qualities of our FPs. In many respects, this would make the FP candidature selection quite a bit easier too. The image I just downsampled was very hard to view, let alone evaluate, either at full size or VGA size.
Just to be clear, I'm proposing this be recommended (but not obligatory) for all FP canditates, while normal procedure for all successful nominations would be creation of a DS viewable version as the default link on the image page, with the FS version available from a separate link beneath it, like this:

Full screen (724 × 1200 pixel, file size: 333 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Full resolution (1558 × 2581 pixel, file size: 685 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

I confess I was originally thinking of all hi-res images, but decided this should maybe just be a FP thing. mikaultalk 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really my point, but isn't the same argument put forward for user-specific thumb sizes? The consensus for a new default in recognition of bigger monitors etc seems to be growing. The salient point from that debate it that even logged-on readers have no idea that you can change these defaults. The vast majority of casual visitors to the main page will experience the same thing I described above. I'm really not arguing to replace the default preview anyway, but to add an option to FPs. Your FPs are all around the 10MP mark - don't you see the value of an intermediate preview size? mikaultalk 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_pictures&oldid=139150628"