Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/Archive 3

Do you think I could nom it, and get it passed, maybe with some photoshopping? It's a pretty cool pic. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Try
  picture peer review. Makeemlighter (talk
  ) 07:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump." So I'd say it's got 40% chance of passing, it's pretty cool, I like the composition, but the problem is that when you view it at full size, there's some strange noise, and that's exactly the kind of thing that people here at FPC tend to focus on. Give it a shot though, why not? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a good image, much work went into it and I did think it should be promoted, but there were three distinct vote types at odds with each other: Gut Monk's opposition, a few votes in support only for the original and mine only for one cropped version. How is that a consensus? --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I count 7 supports for the original, a few of which only support the original. Not much support, and some opposition, to the crops. Seemed like a pretty clear consensus for promotion of the original. BTW, you're better off posting at the FPC talk page: a lot more people watch it so you're more likely to get a (timely) response. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Original had 8 supports, 1 general oppose, multiple opposes for the crops, and only 1 support for just the crops. Consensus is black & white plain as day. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a general consensus, I thought FPC aimed for unanimity, BTW this is linked to the FPC talk page. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oop, I meant this is on the FP talkpage. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, consensus is the key. We'd be passing much less if unanimity was required. From
  WP:FPC: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Jujutacular ^T · C
  05:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wallpaper has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Waltham, The Duke of 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Check this out please:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assorted_044.JPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yas_Italy_Fair-Cape_Cod-Aquarium_039.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimono1997 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed alot of sport images are under People-Entertainment instead of the Sport subcatagory. Spongie555 (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be an independent category. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 08:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made a small change to that template, adding a | parameter for "video" or "animation" as files like File:Bombing of Hamburg.ogg are not "pictures". I hope this is OK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your input at

• Featured sounds inclusion where a second featured picture is added five days of the week but two featured sounds are added at the weekend.
• Future proposed FL inclusion
  where one of the second featured pictures is substituted for a featured list on Wednesdays.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to

Just a note to let you know that as part of the National Register of Historic Places Fall 2011 Photo Contest a barnstar is offered for any FP of an iconic 20th century building on the US heritage register. As the scope of that contest is geographically limited, additionally I'm also offering the same award worldwide. --Elekhh (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick question - when the description page of a Commons image uses the "Assessments" template to show that the image is a Featured Picture at en Wikipedia, is the local {{Featured picture}} template considered redundant? Kelly ^hi! 05:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this page is not watched heavily. To answer your question: No. Since the enwiki community only controls enwiki pages, we would like to keep our own records. Commons is somewhat inconsistent on keeping that template up to date. Jujutacular ^talk 00:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I watch it! And I could have sworn that I responded to it. Juju is mostly right. I'll add that English FPs aren't always marked as such on Commons, and many English FPs that are marked on Commons have incorrect links to nomination pages. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the layout. When you click in you see 2-3 photos per category all the way down. Then you see these subcategory links and it opens up to a larger page with many photos -- so my question I asked myself why are there only 3 photos, why those photos, and why not a list of categories with no photos... It just doesn't really seem organized or purposeful. Mkdw^talk 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The latest three photographs to be promoted in each category are the ones shown on the main FP page. And each category has its own page, showing all of the pictures promoted in that area of interest. The three photographs are shown because it's a guide to the content of the categories and is also a simple showcase of the very latest we've promoted. Julia\^talk 19:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I propose a ban on professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies appearing as the Main Page TFP for a period of time sufficient that the promotion is a long way from being current. This does not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status.

The rationale is that the Main Page is an exceedingly widely seen of internet space, with c8 million hits per day. As such, it could be perceived as of great value to advertisers/promoters, and we should avoid any possibility of the perception that images produced purely for the purposes of promoting a personality or production are gaining such a high profile spot free of charge, when an equivalent spot on a page of equal traffic would be of high pecuniary value. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Such images certainly shouldn't receive preferential treatment, but I see no valid reason to discriminate against them either.
  How is it problematic for users to (accurately) perceive that the pictures are appearing free of charge? We should be concerned about the mistaken impression that promoters are paying for the placement. This is a real issue, but it exists to a far greater extent (and arises far more frequently) when featured articles about commercial entities appear. —
  David Levy
  22:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  Because getting services of high financial value for free looks either exceeding dodgy, or invites speculation about the reasons for preferential treatment. They have "paid", by allowing a licence to photos that they could otherwise have retained copyright on, but the cost in lost potential revenue is minimal compared to the advantage that is gained. Kevin McE (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  We aren't providing preferential treatment, of course. I agree that mistaken perceptions to the contrary and "speculation about the reasons" are problematic, but as noted above, they usually take the form of the belief that Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation has been paid for the placement (and this is far more likely to arise in relation to TFA).
  Any living photographer or artist stands to benefit from his/her work's credited appearance as TFP. This reflects the reality that we showcase material available under free licenses, and it encourages the contribution thereof (which doesn't require the relinquishment of copyright, incidentally). —

  David Levy

  23:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, neither WMF nor any of us editors receive any financial remuneration for promoting promotional pictures to FP status or for scheduling them as POTD, so there's no quid pro quo taking place. I suppose it's possible that someone might get paid to nominate it, but there's no way a substandard photo is going to make it past FPC unless every participant were to be paid off somehow. Anyway, I realize this proposal is in response to
  chat
  } 04:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with caveats. There's no reason that these sort of images shouldn't just be featured at Commons, after all, there's no encyclopedic background to the images there, they're just great images. Having said that, if a high quality image can be used on the main page, associated with a quality-controlled article (i.e. one without maintenance tags, without serious quality issues), then I see no issue at all. To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective, we'd need another layer of bureaucracy to decide (by "consensus" I suppose?) on what is and what isn't "promotional"? Could the proposer provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in his opinion? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  OK, it was a concern that I was not the only person to observe on the other day, so I thought it worth checking as to whether it was a wider concern. Of course, Howcheng, I had no intention to suggest that you or any other individual was gaining financial advantage, but there is, I believe, legitimate concern that companies would receive something very valuable (high profile exposure) in exchange for something of negligible cost (licensing of an image), and that some people might speculate as to whether there is more to the issue that meets the eye. It is correct to assert that no favours are asked or expected, but sometimes assertion is not enough, and people must avoid any grounds for suspicion that it could be the case: particularly in the Gibraltarpedia era, I think it behoves us to edit on the side of caution.

  Rambling Man puts forward two questions: one simply addressed, the other rather unfitting. " To claim one image to be more "promotional" than another is entirely subjective": my proposal referred specifically to "professionally taken promotional pictures that are supplied by agencies/promoters or TV/film/music companies", and identifying that requires no bureaucracy, simply a glance at the source of the image. As to your other question, it is not incumbent on somebody putting forward an idea for discussion to prove the weight of concern: discussion reveals that.

  If it turns out that the concern is not widespread, the proposal will go nowhere, and will be forgotten in a few days: opinions will have been aired, and consensus will have been established. At present it looks like the proposal is likely to fail: no harm if so, and I will simply hope that those who are confident that doubt will not be cast on the propriety and integrity of Wikipedia will be proved correct. I think the possibility that that will not be so is worth the minor restriction on ourselves that I propose. Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, images supplied by agencies etc still have to undergo the

  WP:FPC process, if you have a problem with that, propose something different. Also, if you have an issue with the criteria for featured pictures, that would be an appropriate location to start a debate. As for the "unfitting" question, could you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk

  ) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  I have specifically stated that this would "not prejudice the possibility of such pictures being given FP status." It refers to them appearing in the TFP slot.

  I'm not sure what remains to clarify: you challenged me to " provide instances, objective evidence etc where the main page has been "perceived" as promotional, other than in [my] opinion", and I replied that I consider myself under no onus to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

  That's true, but it would strengthen your argument.
  We often receive such complaints when TFA's subject is commercial (e.g. a profit-making company, film, music album or video game). Conversely, most complaints about TFP relate to concerns that the images' subjects are violent, disgusting or sexually explicit. —

  David Levy

  17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: There have been several instances in past where content on Main page has been restricted for seemingly being promotional. DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional. Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the Gibraltar case, are scattered to avoid promotional effect. Articles related to elections are on hold for post-election appearances. I support that some discussion should be done before featuring the image as TFP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  DYK hooks are asked to change or altered for being promotional.
  TFP blurbs can be (and are) edited too. Banning these images from the section is the equivalent of banning articles from DYK.
  Bulk appearances of similar topics, like the

  David Levy

  17:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

  We have in fact delayed pictures before due to elections. There was a

  chat

  } 17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's talk on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that today's FP should possibly be removed and sent back for further evaluation. Today's problem is for technical issues with the image, making the situation IMHO not of critical urgency. But it does raise a good point. Those of us at MP:ERRORs tend to be the last line of defense for problems with things on the MP. For DYK, ITN, and OTD, which have multiple items in their panel, if there is a big enough problem with an item, the item can just be removed from the panel without major disruption. But for FP (and FA) where a single item is the entire panel, the question is, what should we MP:ERRORS patrollers do if there is a serious problem with the current FP? I'm thinking that a late-discovered hoaxing or copyright issue would be enough to require a rapid pulldown. But what should we put up instead? If nothing else, I suspect I could grab a random FP from years back and re-run it. But I wanted to at least have a discussion on the issue. And there is still the technical issues with today's FP that, while not the urgency of a copyvio, may need for the current image to come down. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The specifics of the issues with today's pic are already under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Today's POTD. So let's go ahead and not worry here about that issue, and just discuss the general idea of what to do if an image must come down ASAP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been informed that the FA process now maintains a short emergency list of possible FA sets. This list was set up after a different type of incident late last year, but works perfectly well as a source of FAs ready to drop onto the MP if the existing one must be pulled for some reason. Does FP have a similar sort of list? If not, then I would highly suggest the creation of such. That would give non-FP admins a resource if we need to pull an FP down. For instance, I very well might have pulled down today's FP myself for the technical glitches on it, if I had actually had something else to put up instead. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If a featured picture is nominated for delisting and has been modified subsequent to when it was assigned FP status (e.g., any modification to address a reason for the delist nomination), then the picture should lose its FP status by default unless a consensus is achieved that current criteria to be a featured picture are met by either the original picture (in which case the picture is reverted) or the modified image (in which case the new picture receives FP status anew). But if consensus is not reached that the picture is worthy of FP status, then the fact of the consensus that the original picture requires modification shall be sufficient to strip it of its FP status (until such time as a consensus can be achieved that it deserves FP status). 75.208.123.109 (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A nomination to delist [4] should not fail (2-0-?) simply because not enough people bothered to vote.

Voting should remain open until enough interested people cast a vote. In this example, the image is based on original research, but apparently is not controversial enough to bother anyone. But there is no mechanism to obtain 5 votes within 14 days. Yet were it to be nominated to be featured now, no one would support it. Furthermore, the current image in commons is not even the version that received the featured status.

This looks like a problem with the process. An image that garners featured status should not be able to withstand the first challenge so easily. Rather than simply ignoring a delist vote, editors should actually have to record their votes to oppose it. I propose that voting should remain open until at least 5 days after the minimum votes are recorded, 1 day after the last vote is recorded, or 14 days, whichever is latest. 75.208.123.109 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, "all discussions about individual featured pictures" should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates. According to the box at the top of Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates, "if the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate" then it should go to Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures.

This is a direct contradiction: it means that there is no place to post discussion of featured pictures after they are accepted and are no longer candidates. Specifically, I have comments to make about the descriptive text associated with some featured pictures scheduled to appear later this month, which is why I was looking for where to post them. Would someone with more familiarity about the FP selection process than me please reword one of the boxes to address the conflict?

This note is being posted to both of the indicated talk pages, and I'll use Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates to post my specific comments this time. --50.100.192.246 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

WT:POTD. The Featured pictures process has no control over what appears on the Main Page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus}

07:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fix. It still doesn't address where to post things about FPs after they are no longer candidates. (However, thanks for the pointer to the third talk page.) --50.100.192.246 (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The de facto place for those kinds of discussion has been

WT:FPC. The instruction might be crap, but that's the page you're probably best off on. Cowtowner (talk

) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Could available editors please give their opinion on which of [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rick_Remender#Infobox_Photo_Discussion these photos] would make a better Infobox pic for the Rick Remender article? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have begun a discussion which may interest readers of this page here. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This cover to the Wikipedia Facebook page gave me a wonderful idea. I know there's always been issues over Today's Featured Picture and how it works. In short, perhaps a supplement, or even a substitute, could be to have the Featured Picture serve as the cover of the page for a time - for example a week. The current image of "The Tulip Folly" by Jean-Léon Gérôme is so beautiful, it just made it seem like the perfect platform to showcase Wikipedia's great images.

Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have attempted to edit the selected picture of the day for :March 3 - Mon. I have tried to save my changes, which can be found by following the direction below the image, but cannot make the changes into the protected box. Would someone fix this, as the present blurb is badly written. [5]

• Likewise, I have corrected ..... which implied that the poem is well received i.e. that it is still popular. No, it isn't. It is of interest to scholars. It was a scholar who "stated" that Mariana had been a heroine, way back in 1830. The statement was not made in 1830, as implied. It was made retrospectively in about 2006. I have written alternate text and it needs fixing, before it goes front page. [6]

• Also, the illustrations to Mariana are not the poem. Your blurb deals solely with the poem and its subject matter, as if the artwork had no validity except in some imagined context that you refer to as "encyclopedic value" i.e. as if images have no value except to refer to something else and as if the artist William Edward Frank Britten had no fame in his own right.

Amandajm (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks: because of your interest in quality images, we'd love to hear what you think about Media Viewer, a new tool that aims to improve the viewing experience on Wikipedia and its sister sites.

This multimedia browser displays images in larger size and with less clutter, providing a more immersive user experience, as described here. It was developed in collaboration with many community members -- including over 12,000 beta users here on English Wikipedia, who have been testing it since November 2013. The current plan is to release this tool gradually in coming weeks: it is already enabled by default on over a dozen sites (including the Dutch, French and Polish Wikipedia), and will be deployed more widely throughout May, as described in this release plan.

Can you share your feedback about this tool, to help address any critical issues before its May 15 release on the English Wikipedia? To try it out, please log in and click on the small 'Beta' link next to 'Preferences' in your personal menu. Then check the box next to 'Media Viewer' in the Beta Features section of your user preferences — and click 'Save'. You can now click on any thumbnail image on this site to see it in larger size in the Media Viewer. For more info, check out these testing tips or this Help page.

Once you've tried the tool, please share your feedback in this discussion, to help improve this feature. You're also welcome to take this quick survey -- or join this in-depth discussion on MediaWiki.org, as you prefer. Thanks for sharing your insights! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, at mw:Talk:Multimedia/About Media Viewer#Page view statistics the development team have indicated that it will no longer be possible to track image clicks. In that section, they are asking for feedback on that issue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. User:Technical 13 and I are having trouble agreeing about what emphasis to use at Template talk:Featured picture#Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014. If some of you could take a look, it would be very much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

pssst... i'm not very good at english
why the presentation is ugly ? (ugly dark blue background, very tiny photo, pale introduction)... you should make it look like arabe article (good taste, big photos, more photos...) --ᔕGᕼᗩIEᖇ ᗰOᕼᗩᗰEᗪ (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought I would drop a note here as I head into the stretch run of my kickstarter campaign (#TTTWFTW) that can be found here.--

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm new here but I just wanted to know the diversity that the Featured Picture tries to implement?

Is there a list of all previous images? and is there a way to make sure that there are many different cultures represented? I come from an art history/ visual art education that is heavily eurocentric..

In order to make sure no biases are placed is there a way to gather images from a different location - or have weeks/months dedicated to images from a specific place? X-pert Dreamer (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)X-pert Dreamer

NAME - PRADEEP KUMAR DUBEY FATHER'S NAME - JITENDRA NATH DUBEY ADDRESS - VILL & POST - AWANTI

         DISTT - CHANDAULI (UP), INDIA  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.110.232.140 (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC) 

This edit request to Wikipedia:Featured pictures has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

221.212.169.62 (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Altamel (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I was curious if we ought to be delisting FPs that do not meet the current minimum resolution of 1,500 by 1,500 pixels? Are they grandfathered in perpetuity, or should they be delisted? RO^(talk) 17:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I propose that we should create a new "musicians" category for our featured pictures of people. We have a sizable enough number of FP images of musicians and musicians on stage to create a new category, but they are lumped together with actors, comedians models, TV performers etc. under the "entertainment" bracket, which would be less cluttered if musicians had their own section. JJARichardson (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Would tenors and composers also go in this category? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Please weigh in here:

Discussion here. Samsara 13:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue here, not at Errors, that's about the main page, not what should and should not constitute a featured picture, as you know. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think File:Endeavour docked to ISS.jpg should be on the Understanding subpage, based on photos in both the subpage it is in, and the Understanding subpage. Discussion needed? If not, is there a specific way I am supposed to move it? Kees08 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be moved, as the image's caption links to Space Shuttle Endeavour. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.

Engaging Wikipedians

• Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
• FA
  review)
• Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

Engaging non-Wikipedians

We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:

• Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
• Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)

If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.^[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.

1. PMID 27765289
   .
2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.
3. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001
   .

Additionally, the WikiJournal of Science is just starting up under a similar model and looking for contributors. Firstly it is seeking editors to guide submissions through external academic peer review and format accepted articles. It is also encouraging submission of articles in the same format as Wiki.J.Med. If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Notice

A proposal has been made to eliminate the Featured content portal, and all other portals. Please share your thoughts on the matter at: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Ending the system of portals For more information, read the Guide to deletion.

    — The Transhumanist