64:. The first of these featured a caption which was acceptable, the second one which was not. However the "acceptable" caption was in fact a direct copy and paste off the associated article from the "description" page with an additional line which was irrelevant to a caption - it was more concerned with why it should be featured "
68:". The "unacceptable" caption contained all the information which was necessary to inform the voter about that particular picture. It stated what it was, what it was doing and where it was taken from. Perfect - or at least quite acceptable. Yet the first caption (ie the article rehash) is what most voters preferred...
76:
not a FPC caption. Such extended information is only useful to a POTD where a member of the public glances on the main page - and POTD is a completely seperate project run by seperate people. Sure it's nice to help out
Howcheng with the POTD caption (who is primarily involved with this project) - but
52:
The caption on FPC in my view should only contain the facts which describe that image specifically - ie what it shows (an adult german shepherd), and if relevant where it was taken (eg a dog show in
Melbourne). Any further generic information which is used to create a POTD caption is superflous and
35:
The key issue here is that since the introduction of the new template generator people have begun to place a disturbing importance on the nominated image's caption. The error seemingly caused by "Proposed caption" section of the new template. This section implies the need for creating a POTD style
31:
This page has been created as a time saver for FPC discussions relating to captions. It states my stance on the subject, and what I believe is the correct perspective on the issue as defined by the guidelines of the page, the history of the project and the opinion of the community.
43:
Aside from the fact that POTD is a seperate entity to FPC, there is sound commonsense behind a article-style caption accompanying the nominated image. The featured photo will appear only once on POTD, however it will spend it's life in an article where it will be constantly viewed
90:
Let me weigh in on this as the POTD guy. Here's my ideal situation in terms of what I want for captions. I don't want rehashes of the article -- I can do that myself when I write the POTD blurb. What I want are details that are specific to the images
124:) it is almost ludicrous to see people opposing fine images based on their caption. I mean FPC is about finding the best photos Knowledge (XXG) has to offer - not the best captions. The only purpose of the caption on FPC is to inform the voter
48:
the POTD length caption which is currently demanded by many editors on FPC. So if an article length caption is what people are going to see accompanying the FP every day than an article length caption is what should be seen on FPC
61:
71:
What is the point of such an article rehash? Does it serve any purpose beyond appeasing the misplaced demands of certain users? If a user is that interested in the subject they should get that information from the
57:
120:
Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying
96:
40:. The caption which accompanies the picture on a nomination should be of similar detail to that of the caption which accompanies it in the article it appears in.
117:
and that POTD captions featuring article rehashes were unnecessary and unwanted. And when considering the scope of the project (
81:
38:
However a POTD style caption never has been and currently isn't a requirement of a featured picture
141:
images being "eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article'"!
143:
Please don't turn FPC into something it's not and focus on judging photos - not text!
66:
And this photograph has enough quality which deserves FP as archetype of the species
56:
Before going further it is worth considering the captions in these two nominations:
17:
135:
should be compelling enough to make the voter read the article - when
Featured
62:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Image:Low flying cessna 150.jpg
131:
As you can see in the Cessna nomination linked above, a user demanded the
84:
which the community had earlier (and now seem to lie forgotten by voters)
58:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Melanerpes erythrocephalus
109:
That previous discussion made clear that the community think that
77:
he is quite capable of copy and pasting from the article himself!
97:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Purple osteospermum
104:
Howcheng commenting on the recent trend in caption demands
128:
what the image is about - the image should do the rest.
86:Howcheng is not interested in article rehashes
8:
113:should be judged by their accompanying
7:
53:can be found in the linked article.
24:
139:Candidates is obviously about
1:
157:
99:is totally unnecessary.
95:The caption that's in
82:lengthy discussions
123:
106:
148:
118:
102:
156:
155:
151:
150:
149:
147:
146:
145:
29:
27:Captions on FPC
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
154:
152:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
153:
144:
142:
138:
134:
129:
127:
122:
116:
112:
107:
105:
100:
98:
92:
87:
83:
78:
75:
69:
67:
63:
59:
54:
50:
47:
41:
39:
33:
26:
19:
140:
136:
132:
130:
125:
119:
114:
110:
108:
103:
94:
89:
85:
79:
73:
70:
65:
55:
51:
45:
42:
37:
34:
30:
18:User:Fir0002
91:themselves.
126:succinctly
80:From the
36:caption.
93:" Also "
137:Picture
133:caption
121:article
74:article
46:without
111:photos
101:" -
16:<
115:text
60:and
88:. "
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.