By and large, the wallpaper section is 'one-sided' in that it is generally free of chick-fan-walls, copyrighted photographs, Bryce spherical dolphins in the shape of palm trees, and lens-flares and swirlies.
It also has precious few five-minute Php5 'experiments', and definitely NO Britney Spears.
So, as far as 'variety' goes....I guess it's just the one 'approximate' variety....namely just 'good' stuff...[and two junk ones of mine left there as yard-sticks of popularity - or lack of]...

Indeed there is a lot of subjectivity around it...Go to a modern art museum and you will find a lot of 10 minute "experiments" or 5 min for that matter and some are just fantastic, some are definitely dustbin quality.. I guess that if you look at "real paintings" and are educated in art you can see which is good quality and which isn't. And by that I mean without having to "rate" with your personal taste. As far as digital art goes no one can tell how long you have been drawing or applying effects or whatever...And so, if you use guidelines, which you have stated once again Jafo, I suggest to apply those to everyone. My point is..there is too much of the same stuff around and basically you get more of the same, and if you go to a museum or gallery or an art fair for that matter, you see lots of variety, and that makes it much more fun skimming through the pages...

Lecrayon: I am one of the moderators here, and even I don't agree with lots of stuff that gets through. It is often very difficult to make a decision on a wallpaper, and I NEVER take that decision lightly. We try to keep the standard as high as possible, but all the moderators have their own opinions, and obviously we don't always agree. Personally, if i'm not sure about an image, I will comment to that effect, and the others will do the same, and the image's fate is then decided by a general concensus.
With regard to your comment about the stuff being all the same, we can only work with what you people upload, and if the quality is not high enough, we won't let it through just because it's "different".
I am mainly a wallpaper artist, (with a few Dx themes and logons thrown in) and I used to hate it when I got moderated at the old Skinz.org, but I still maintain that it made me try harder, and eventually it made me a better artist too.
So, please don't think that we don't care about your work, or that we treat it lightly, we really DO, we just try to maintain a standard.
However, since you have brought the subject up, I will try to make sure there is lots of variety in the wallpaper section, but essentially it is up to the artists to upload QUALITY images that are DIFFERENT, and then we will have no problem letting them through.

I just posted your wall to the library Lecrayon. https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=8&SkinID=3423

I hadn't deleted it so I figured for the sake of discussion we could put it up and see what the general feelings are. This would be an interesting piece to see some feedback on.

Definitly no 'auto-pilot' with wallpapers. They get evaluated by several people and we all take it seriously. Sometimes it takes days to decide and we get quite a lot of submissions every day.

I understand that there are lots and lots of submissions to look at, and also am aware that you can concentrate on work for a limited period of time..You can't be in topform all the time every day...That's why I didnt ask for comments when a wallpaper is rejected, but a link to guidelines and one word: moderation is pretty hard to get better the next time isn't it? And I do hope you read my comments thoroughly and let it sink in a bit...I'd rather have people chewing about what is said than rather pick one line and go in defense mode...

Lecrayon...
It's probably appropriate to mention that there are many years of graphic art experience between all those of us who moderate the wall section. For example, my formal 'art' education at tertiary level started in 1972...it was in Architecture, which included Design [obviously], Fine Art [including Life-drawing], and Tech Drag [Technical Draughting]...and 30 years later, I'm 'gainfully' employed...still 'at it'.
My first experience with digital art was on a Commodore 64, before graduating to a Dos-driven XT...

The Wallpaper section here at Wincustomize is primarily intended for Walls - namely things you can chuck on your screen to provide a back-drop to proggies and icons. It's not 'specifically' intended as a Master-class of Fine Art, however, to keep acceptance of walls to a manageable level, considering the numbers that are submitted, they are 'moderated' on various grounds....particularly 'copyright', 'obscenity', 'racist imagery' to name just 3 criteria that no-one is likely to take issue with.
But, there is also, for want of a better word, that of 'quality', which people would argue is subjective...in the eye of the beholder.
Anything that can be replicated literally within 5 minutes by anyone with half a mind to is hardly worth providing 'space' for....why DL it when you can easily make your own? That is why works which are essentially 'filter-frenzy' hit the cutting-room floor. Lens-flared walls are a great example...two LESS clicks and the wall would have been bettered...[lose the flare]....

When it comes to 'personal taste' as a criterium for wall moderation, it's the responsibility of each admin to sit on his/her hands and determine whether it's down to prejudice, or is it actually likely that virtually no-one else will like it either? A good example of this is that I personally loathe predominantly 'white' walls, because they can be a serious source of eye-strain on long-time Comp users...it's not an issue of Monitor 'burn-in' as it once was, but retinal damage is still a real issue, so I shy away from high-contrasted 'bright' walls.
But 'maybe' I'm a freak, and every other human out there will love enduring eye-strain...[or maybe not]...

About 6 months ago, I went through EVERY wall submission here on the site [3 times] and cleaned out about almost a quarter of them. They had been allowed to be added without supervision and there were quite a few that were in clear violation of copyrights, etc and certainly others that were what could only be described as 'Naive Art'. The 'worst' of them were probably the '10 things you SHOULDN'T do with Bryce'-wallpapers, and the Terragen landscapes...['look, mum, come see what my computer just done']. What made them stand out, head and shoulders BELOW the rest was that next to them were other Bryce walls that were NOT recognizable as originating via Bryce...[yes, there's at least one person submitting walls here created [partly] using Bryce that REALLY show what can be done with that proggy].

As DavidK also mentioned, resolution detail...pixellation of the image is also important to its 'success' as a wall.
A brilliantly superb 'thumbnail' will never be a wall. The most common resolution in popular use is 1024 x 768, so ideally every wall submitted 'should' try to look its best at that res. Better still, if the image is upped at 1600 x 1200, down-sizing won't impair its 'quality', whereas an upped one at 800 x 600 being enlarged to 1600 will usually suffer.

As BoXXi mentioned, wall moderation, even way back when Skinz.org first introduced it..for the same reasons as here, was seen as a contentious issue, although there, essentially one person only was in charge of the 'cull', whereas here there are frequently half a dozen individual comments regarding the worthiness of a wall's acceptance.

Having said all that, I'm yet to check the posted link to have another look at the wall by Lecrayon that prompted the thread...[I won't comment publicly on it here, as, good or bad, it's inappropriate to focus on one particular person and his/her work]...

OK, so I've got Frogboy Disease again...[long posts]...

Lecrayon...

With the advent of skinnable programs, finally the world had advanced beyond the 'put the family photo on the wall, choose alternate icons, and pick your own colour scheme' type of Windows customizing, and embraced many diverse and far more powerful/capable methods of altering one's environment [digital].
At that point wallpapers were put into perspective [OK...it's a pun]...into context...as only one [to some] small part of the 'customizing' process.
There were/are so very many web sites 'devoted' to walls of every conceivable style and category that, particularly at Skinz.org, several years ago, debate raged supreme as to whether 'walls' actually deserved a place in/on a skinning site at all...especially if their inclusion adversely impacted on the site's ability to host 'other' skins.
It so happens that more 'enlightened' skinners/people realised that walls serve a particularly important role in theme creation...eg, with shells and desktop enhancements, and thus DO belong and quite rightly too, however it's still of concern that anyone at all with a copy of their fave graphic proggy can, and often does create 'their' masterpiece and upload it anywhere the section 'Wallpapers' is found on any site.
Wincustomize, like most other skin sites just tries to keep a 'cap' on the flood of submissions so that the skins themselves don't become lost amongst a sea of Walls...

By the way, as a P>S>, I did make a suggestion to seperate the wallpapers that are include in a theme from single the ones...Just to make a difference between them and to enhance your DB with some real nice work.

Reading is very difficult T-man...just look at the comment above your post

DavidK, you said: "Don't be offended but I know of one wall you uploaded that didn't get in Lecrayon. It was rejected because the image looked like it had been enlarged from a smaller one. It had that pixelated low res look when it was viewed full size, the image quality deteriorated too much. Also, although it was a creative jumble of unrelated objects, it was judged to be an idea that could have benefited from more work in the composition to be an effective desktop wallpaper"
And jafo, you said "As DavidK also mentioned, resolution detail...pixellation of the image is also important to its 'success' as a wall.
A brilliantly superb 'thumbnail' will never be a wall. The most common resolution in popular use is 1024 x 768, so ideally every wall submitted 'should' try to look its best at that res. Better still, if the image is upped at 1600 x 1200, down-sizing won't impair its 'quality', whereas an upped one at 800 x 600 being enlarged to 1600 will usually suffer"

I used uleads' PhotoImpact 7 program, I started from scratch, size 1280 x 1024, transparant background, 144 pixels/inch. After thinking that it was reasonably completed I saved it to Jpeg file interchange format, preset jpeg Q90 Progressive, mode progressive, subsampling YUV411, quality 90, true colour. Smae size 1280 x 1024, as I recal that was asked in uploading WP's..But my memory maybe refreshed on that point... Also I saved it as a windows bitmap, again same size, which was added to the zip by Object zip...I don't know what kind of "quality" you look far as far as it comes to x number per inch...What did I do wrong there then?

Well...I viewed the 'preview' jpg....and noticed 'jaggies' particularly around the white 'thing' bottom left, and the red 'thing' on the right.
Both appeared to be a very rough mask cut-out, or drawn with a stubbed pencil.
So, giving the artist the benefit of the doubt, I downloaded the file....2 meg plus and checked the bmp...and voila....same thing.

The rough-cut gives the work an un-finished appearance...it's crying out for a little blending at the very least.

And...there's one other criteria for submission rejection....that of 'hey, check this out...couldn't wait to upload it...I know it's not finished...yet...but....'.

If you wish for more dialogue...email me....

i HAVE EMAILED YOU BEFORE, NO ANSWER NO NOTHING. NO HELP, NO NOTHING. YOU HAVE DEFINITELY HAD YOUR CHANCE AND YOU BLEW IT.
Oops, sorry for the caps.