Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Wikipedia announces launch of new Valued pictures project

The official VP seal

The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC

This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.

Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

The Wikipedia valued picture project has opened for nominations. Please feel free to nominate an image at WP:VPC today!

Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck with the project, but I would very much like you to reconsider reusing the COM:VI logo for WP:VP. The projects are different, and the COM:VI logo is an important identifier for COM:VI and for tagging images at Commons as Valued images. I fear that if you reuse the exact same logo for WP:VP this will lead to confusion. By the way, the link on the countdown template links to the village pump. Is that on purpose? I think it is fine if a logo which has some resemblence with the COM:VI logo is developed as the two projects are related, but I really do not think they should be identical just like the COM:FP and WP:FP star logos are different with some similarities. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I have replied here. I have also fixed the link to the Village Pump. Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 18:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Bronze stars lost to deletion

I originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures, but seeing how that page receives so low traffic I thought I'd raise the issue here too.

Going through April 2007 alone, I found three images (Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg, Image:Large brown mantid close up nohair.jpg and Image:Capitol Building Full View.jpg) which have had their image pages deleted and not restored according to CSD I8. I would notify the deleting admins, but seeing as this may be a large-scale problem, perhaps something else should be done to locate and fix the missing pages, and to prevent this happening in the future? --Paul_012 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's the entire list:

If you're wondering, I did this programatically. MER-C 06:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

All done except the tsunami (this was done manually). I noticed a few problems along the way... MER-C 09:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a bigger problem here perhaps. Image:Mercury in color - Prockter07 centered.jpg for example is not our featured version; our featured version was in fact promoted in preference to this version (I know, because I did the edit on the featured version, and my edit was promoted in preference to this one; see here). Later (here we go again) some genius on Commons deleted our featured version as a duplicate and left this one in it's place, even commenting in the edit "...although NOT an exact duplicate." In other words it wasn't the image page that was deleted, it was the FP. Indeed the image page still exists, complete with FP status, but no image - Image:Mercury in color - Prockter07-edit1.jpg.
I wonder whether the same applies to any other images here? Quite likely. Frankly I'm pretty sick of these shenanigans from Commons editors who don't bother to check the usage of images elswhere and totally ignore our processes here. I'm getting to the point where I'm considering just uploading all images straight to Wikipedia. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Anyone up for a rant at COM:AN? MER-C 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Need Your Expertise...

Hi! I am looking for consensus on the image to be used for Barack Obama. Who better to comment on the subject than regulars to FPC? I hope you can weigh in on which photo you think is better by visiting Talk:Barack Obama#Consensus on Image. Obviously this is no FP candidate, but I'd like to get people with some experience in that realm to comment (composition, quality, etc). Spare a minute and help out? Thanks! ~ Wadester16 (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Input Box Issues

Has anyone else noticed the Input Boxes on the FPC and PPR pages are not displaying as they should?

The "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" leader in the input box for FPCs for example has disappeared, and the buttons have changed to "Submit Query" rather than "Create new nomination". I'm assuming this is something everyone is seeing, not just something screwy with my computer? FWIW it shows up the same on my up to date versions of both Firefox and IE. Any ideas as to why this has happened? Have the programmers been fiddling with input box coding or something? --jjron (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am seeing it too, and i guess they probably have, It seems to have started occuring right after a period where thumbnail generation was rather stuffed. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See bug 16242. MER-C 09:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustave Doré's Divine Comedy

I'm preparing literally about a hundred illustrations by Doré for Dante's Divine Comedy. Would anyone like to help me go through them and put the best into appropriate Wikipedia articles? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Upload limit raised to 100 MB

See http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10103177-2.html . Nice to see some of our fundraising dollars being put to good use. Now if only some of our ISPs (mine especially) can be bothered gracing us with faster upload speeds. Anyone feel like upsizing our video FPs? MER-C 01:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview

The above article is going to appear in the Signpost in the next week or two (depending on how fast you respond). I'd like a couple of regulars to give it a quick look over to make sure there are no major (unintentional) omissions or oversights. Thanks. MER-C 05:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I'll do a look-over. SpencerT♦C 21:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor thing: Perhaps in Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview#What_makes_a_good_image? you could use a wider variety of coloured images, as they are generally greenish in colour except for the Palais and the historical ones. It really doesn't matter, but I'm just putting it out there. SpencerT♦C 21:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Very nice initiative, I'll try to have a longer look -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I made a change or two, see the change log for what and why. I am still concerned about "What makes a good image?, That's enough of the bad stuff.". For a start some of the things in the section above passed with edits and secondly it might be offensive to someone with an image there. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Right... changed "good" to "featured" and added two more non-green examples. MER-C 03:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Last call - I intend to publish this week or at the very latest, next. MER-C 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How long?

I thought that 7 days after the initial proposal the voting would be closed and the pictures promoted or not pending the result. There are pictures that have been up for nearly 2 weeks now. Can someone check this please.

--Cabe6403 (TalkSign!) 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
MER-C tends to do closing work, so you may want to leave a note on his talk page. SpencerT♦C 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
They tend to be left for longer if the consensus is unclear. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Which is just a way to create any arbitrary consensus of the closer's choosing (see random walk). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If you turn FPC into a vote, assume that the votes are entirely random (following a probility distribution) then it is true that given enough time the consensus will change. Assuming however that the distribution of votes is not symmetrical, then as I understand it, the probability of this occuring decreases with time. The rate of probability decrease is affected by how skewed the distribution is. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Precisley. And the final comment at the closing of the previous nomination doesn't help either. Once again, and like Ceaser's wife, one (the closing process) must be not only virtuous but look virtuous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the closing comment was a bad thing (see Humour) Noodle snacks (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not referring to the humourous beginning but to the opinion expressed at the end -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the tardiness - I've been recovering from an operation for the past week or so. For the butterfly I simply couldn't concentrate long enough to read it and think things over. Having a look at it now, it is a classic example of a lack of consensus.

Wikipedia's law of complaints is also relevant here. You should pay a trip to WP:AFD - the controversial nominations tend to get recycled until someone feels like closing them. MER-C 03:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Should have been closed on the 19th, at which point, it was 5s - 3o which would lead to not promoted. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
FPC is not a vote tally. Closing a nom is not a blind case of counting supports vs opposes - the reasons behind each !vote are taken into account to establish consensus. Furthermore the 7 day rule is not meant to be a make or break part of a nomination. FPC used to operate on a 14 day closing cycle until the volume of nominations increased and the page became too long. 7 days is simply to keep the page at a reasonable length and because most people will already have voted by the 7th day. Keeping the nomination open longer in difficult cases is good policy and a well established practice - note the "Older nominations requiring additional input from users" section --Fir0002 22:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
FPC is not a vote tally. Oh really? Well, let me remind you of something then. FPC is not the place where you and MER-C get to invent the "consensus". Over many nominations now, you have tried to discredit those who opposed your nominated images by claiming that their reasons for opposing were not valid. Of all the people who nominate pictures here, you have by far been the least able to accept criticism. In fact, your attitude has been bordering on an assumption on your part that all your photos must become FPs. The project as a whole will benefit immensely if you take a more humble attitude to the FP process.
Now to close, I will simply repeat my reference to the random walk and emphasize again that unless we have a voting period set in stone, closures will start becoming arbitrary, with repeat noms and delisting noms increasing as a result. I would also welcome a criterion that salts renomination of images after x failed attempts, even when the result is "no consensus". Re-nominations should always have a very good reason, and this was not the case in the recent nomination.
And btw, there was no public and transparent decision made in this case to extend the voting period, hence its not being listed in the section you quote. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but wikipedia is not a democracy. As far as renominations are concerned there is nothing wrong with renomination so long as forum shopping is avoided. The extension to the voting period is common with unclear nominiations as increased time increases the clarity of the nomination (see Law of large numbers if you want to keep assuming it is random). As I have already pointed out, your random walk argument is rather weak, as the probability of an "incorrect" closing decreases with time. You can just as easily argue that closing early will favour the incorrect consensus (it is in fact more probable). As I believe MER-C pointed out in the original nomination, someone just has to write a section on the feeding habits of the Australian Painted Lady to get fairly clear EV. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You're still missing the point on several levels. Take, for instance, the x axis of this graph from the article you cite - when have you ever seen anywhere near several hundred commenters on an FPC? Secondly, the point is that as long as the FPC period is set in stone in advance and adhered to (e.g. seven or fourteen days exactly), the outcome can be considered fair. However, if this is not the case, then by choosing the period, the closing editor can choose any arbitrary consensus as the outcome - which was the case in the above-mentioned nomination exactly. At one time it looked like it would be supported, at another it was clearly rejected. By choosing the time of closing, a closer could have severely influenced the outcome. I therefore question the closing after three late support votes arrived in series - what was the basis for choosing the time of the closing? I see no evidence that the period was pre-determined. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be complaining too much, after all it was closed with "no consensus". The graph you linked too clearly shows convergence to a mean with the result getting better over time. So long as the closer behaves appropriately (as MER-C has done) in this case then increased time will tend make the required outcome clearer. Mathematics aside, with a consensus requirement it is not possible to simply wait and say "8 Support, 4 Against, Promoted" without starting a heated debate, not unlike the one in the nomination. Personally I didn't come to a clear decision until I had read the arguments for longer than a week, hurried decisions are rarely as good as well thought out ones. In my relatively limited time here I have seen plenty of nominations that have used additional time productively. You can just as easily argue that closing so early will severely affect the outcome, therefore all FPC nominations should go for 6 months. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me put this another way. Suppose all the opposers for the nomination didn't notice it. Suppose it had eight supports at day 6.7. You oppose at the last minute with your previous concerns. The nomination is then closed as promoted. Would this be the correct result? A more innocent example would be a panorama with some bad stitching errors that no one noticed until the last hours of the nomination. The nomination would be closed without ever correcting the stitching faults; A delist and replace nomination would then be required. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh man, I can't believe that we're still arguing over this. You understand perfectly well what the concern is, but let me say it again. Unless we have a very clear candidacy period, the bad taste of "ooh, he closed it just at the right moment" will remain. It doesn't matter whether it's seven days or six months, although it's been pointed out that even a period as long as 14 days is not really practical any more; what matters is only that the period is set out beforehand, and stuck to at the end of the nomination. And btw, anybody that hasn't !voted on a particular nomination can close the discussion. If enough people commit to closing nominations on time, we can avoid wasting time afterwards in discussions about "oh, why wasn't it closed?" Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) This doesn't feel like an argument to me, after all the stakes are so low, I'd just call it a debate. I understand your point, but I just don't agree with it as I think time (generally) improves matters. A few options are to either increase the standard nomination time (which causes problems with page size etc, new nomiantions aren't given enough attention), or to recycle the nomination for another seven days if consensus is unclear (so as to make "close time" clear to all) or it could jus be left and any problems that arise are left to case by case consideration (I haven't yet seen a later closing effect an outcome in a negative way). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with Papa Lima Whiskey that the evaluation period should be fixed, as it is the only way to avoid arbritary closings (and the comments that will likely follow) when the outcome is not clear. Even the apparentely innocuous comment made by MERC at the end of the first nomination may be regarded as a subtle promise. I would consider a single exception to the fixed evaluation period which is the case of no opposes and less than 4 (or 5) supports. Finally, I would expect the behaviour of the reviewers to be different in that case we adopt a fixed period since they would pay a closer attention to the nominations near the time limit. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • PS - MERC has already admited that the nomination wasn't closed in due time and explained why. For that reason, the outcome doesn't make sense. Either the last inputs are counted and the picture is promoted or they are not considered and the the outcome is "not promoted". The idea that the closer has the mission (and the talent) of unveiling the deep consensus behind the simple arithmetic of the reviewers "opinions" is a fairy tale, in my opinion. With very few exceptions, the outcome is reached through a simple counting of votes. The only (rare) exceptions are the votes of anonymous users and those not considered for obvously reasons, such as sockpuppetry and uncommented (or wrongly commented)votes. Better to admit it in the guidelines and have a much cleaner process. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
      • If the outcome of a nomination is going to changed by an extra couple of days it should not be closed early. This isn't some kind of competition, rather it is aiming to identify the best images on wikipedia. The best images should be the best regardless of how long they are on the FPC page. Imposing a strict seven day rule is introducing a petty rule which trivialises the process. As does the raw arithmetic count - this is a definitely not the way nominations should be closed and it's disturbing to see you hold this opinion Alvesgaspar as this is completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. The closer should err on the side of caution and make sure consensus is reached before closing the nomination, as this, by definition is the point at which the nomination is to be closed. If that means the nomination is open for 10 or even 15 days so be it (obviously there's a point where the caution is overdone). But if the issue is still being discussed it is extremely poor form to prematurely close it just because of the 7-day rule which is imposed for purely administrative purposes. In fact I'd suggest an amendment to the closing period along the lines of the following: Nominations should be closed after 7 days unless consensus has not been reached and the nomination is still being debated. In such circumstances the nomination is to be closed 24 hours after the last edit.. This will ensure that the nomination has correctly run its course --Fir0002 09:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that wording would be pretty close to what is actually going on. Commons FPC is a vote, and has a fixed closing period, I don't bother with it any more because there are so many votes that don't follow the criteria at all and there is a wide variability in the passing quality. I have witnessed quite a few nominations there with outcomes that were highly dependant on exactly when they were closed. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah without wishing to personally insult anyone I think Commons FPC is a bit of a joke --Fir0002 09:49, 29 November 2008(UTC)
            • I'm much more an observer here than a participator, but without wishing to personally insult anyone I think this FPC is a joke, where a few people (the 5 or 6 self proclaimed regulars) run a vanity show with conveniently flexible rules. Estrilda (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Unfortunately, I have to (at least partially) agree with that "vanity" comment - also without wishing to personally insult anyone. That's why I have participated less and less in the discussions. For me, EV is the main consideration here - I think there is a bit too much emphasis on image size, slight noise, purple fringes etc (because of that, few fresh photos other than those shot with DSLRs are promoted). FPC here in the encyclopedia should not be a photo competition, or a collection of poster images! Let Commons be that... ;-) --Janke | Talk 09:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - In a subtle way (or not so subtle) the discussion has shifted from the weaknesses of the closing process at WP:FPC to the quality of the votes in Commons FPC. I'm not making comparisons. The only thing I'm trying to say is that there is no hidden wisdom in the closing process here (which is based on votes exactly as in Commons) and that some clarification would make the whole thing more fair and transparent. The evaluation, in general, is more careful and exaustive here than in Commons? Well, it depends very much on the reviewers. It is true for the majority of the regulars and usually false for the others. And pictures are promoted or reject here with the votes of both. But this has nothing to do with the definition of the evaluation period or the clarification of the rules. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: what do people think about the reword to the seven day rule to Nominations should be closed after 7 days unless consensus has not been reached and the nomination is still being discussed. In such circumstances the nomination is to be closed 24 hours after the last edit to the page with an upper limit of 15 days (at which point it should be closed).? --Fir0002 06:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal -- I think that all initiatives to make the process more transparent are welcome. As with this one, everything is fine except the fact that consensus is not defined, which makes the rule useless (notice that this definition of consensus doesn’t apply here, as we are not writing a text or building an article). The present guidelines, at the top of the FPC page, read: For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more opinions in support (including the nominator), and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. I would modify the previous text to read:

For promotion, if an image is listed here for seven days and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. A favorable consensus is here considered to be reached when there are five or more opinions in support and the proportion between support and oppose opinions is, at least, of 2 to 1. A nomination will remain open for a maximum period of 14 days while less than five supporting opinions, and no negative opinions, are expressed.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very good to me... The above means that one negative vote ("opinion") can "sabotage" an otherwise supported candidate... --Janke | Talk 09:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe my English is not clear enough. The only modifications to the previous rule are: a bar of 5 votes (instead of 4); and an extension of the normal 7 day's period for those cases when there is no opposition but the bar of 5 votes has not been reached. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with the English, but with the concept: a nom with only 1 or 2 supports will stay open 14 days, while 3 supports + 1 oppose will be closed after 7 days. Not fair, IMO... --Janke | Talk 12:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Since this discussion relates mostly to borderline cases, how about this: If a clear consensus (e.g. either 75% or more supports, or 40% or more opposes) has not been reached within 7 days, the period is extended to 14 days, after which the 2 to 1 rule applies. This would extend the period to 14 days only for true borderline cases. --Janke | Talk 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I would absolutely oppose such guidelines. Commons implements the system you describe and the results are best described as piss poor. The vote system is more necessary there due to language barrier issues. Voting validates nonsense votes that have no bearing on the relevant criteria and discourages discussion and the other positive aspects of a consensus system. A vote is not in line with wikipedia policy or the behaviour implemented for other systems. All else aside, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. In the rare instances where there are issues with closing, then disputes and so on arise and successfully solve the issue in every case I have seen. Regarding Janke's suggestion, it is better, but it still doesn't allow intelligence to be applied to the nature of the opposes (for example a problem that was fixed) and so on. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

  • These proposals assume that someone is always there to competently close nominations - an assumption that is contradicted by the very existence of this discussion.
  • I've tried relisting unclear/underreviewed nominations before but stopped as the consensus was the lack of comments implies an image lacks wow and thus shouldn't be promoted.
  • I support raising the quorum to five.
    • One would have to be careful to avoid systemic bias against certain image types that typically generate less interest by reviewers (who are mostly photographers). This is probably an acceptable number for photographs though. Lengthening nominations with little support to 14 days would help, but the guidelines would have to careful not to "sink" them if an oppose is thrown in early on (per Janke). Noodle snacks (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • By consensus we mean rough consensus (this applies Wikipedia-wide), though I aim to satisfy as many people as possible.
  • Some of the particulars seem to be instruction creep - all other Wikipedia processes I know of work to at most two timeframes: immediate and 5 (XFD), 7 (FPC, RFA), 14 (FSC) or whenever appropriate (FAC, FTC, FPoC, FLC).
  • I prefer the fuzzy boundary at 2 to 1 - it's plausible that an image was opposed then the concerns were addressed (e.g. too small, higher resolution found).

I generally oppose these proposals for the reasons given above. MER-C 12:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    • I personally would not like to see EN-FPC become a vote-count by procedure. My main reason for this is that as it is, votes without a rational are likely to be challenged in tight nominations, that fact discourages people voting without understanding the criteria and the current location of the "bar" photographically. I really don't care what MER-C (or anyone else for that matter) does at that point so long as it is consistent and fair. If that means counting votes, so be it, just don't make it policy that that is the case. As for the length of nominations, I have not noticed a single nomination where I felt the period was incorrect, that is, I haven't seen the consensus of a nom in to process of changing at day 6 and then it being closed on day 7. That doesn't happen. Ok, so there are a few people (I may well be guilty) who make an effort to self-nom photos they think are worthy of FP status. We respond to votes, comments or questions that we think warrant it (some of us more than others), but I am certain there is no conspiracy between Fir0002 and MER-C or anyone else for that matter. Noms don't just close at the 11th hour when the criticisms just start to flow... the nom-period gets extended. Can we just agree that the current system does not in fact favor anyone in particular but only the concensus as best we can get it. Who needs more procedures? not me. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree. This is an argument about nothing, seemingly initiated by people that like raising a fuss. No one's getting paid to close these things or do anything else here, and making more pointless procedures and guidelines to fix something that ain't broke will simply lead to more arguments and disputes; things aren't suddenly going to start getting closed at exactly seven days zero minutes or any other time frame or vote count because someone wants to be pernickety about it. The guidelines clearly say "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days..."; no one has ever said that it's exactly seven days, in fact we've made it clear in several discussions here before that the seven days serves as an approximate guideline only. And unlike most people participating here, I have also done a fair bit of closing at FPC. As with MER-C, if I am struggling to determine a clear consensus I'll leave it for a bit longer to try to help make it clear, whichever way the 'votes' may fall. Unlike what some people are suggesting above, this is not so that I (as closer) can get the result I want, it's so that the closing decision as best as possible reflects the community consensus. OK, so it's not a perfect system, but anything suggested here will simply be further detrimental. --jjron (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Also, the closer really has to "weigh the votes"... I've never closed a nom, and probably never will, but I would pay little attention to supports saying "I love this picture", but a lot of attention to an oppose stating "low enc because of xxx". This is where the importance of the closer comes in. Anyone can count votes and make a decision on the 2 to 1 principle, but it is important to make an decision that improves the encyclopedia! The "voters" all too often don't do that! --Janke | Talk 12:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I’m the one who made all that fuss, not because I think that Fir and MERC are conspiring together (I do not) or don’t want to see promoted a picture that I find of poor EV (which I still do), but because allowing the nomination to be kept open under those conditions would be unfair and a bad precedent for the future. The main point of my suggestion was to make the guidelines more transparent so that this kind of situation doesn’t happen and people (all people, not only the regulars) have no doubts about the promotion and closing criteria. And I was amazed by the strong reaction against the principle, with people invoking Wikipedia policy and avoiding to discuss the issue in detail. I’ve been around for some time now (and saw many of my pictures promoted) and still don’t feel comfortable here and have the strange sensation that FPC is a restricted club. Someone above talked about this place being a vanity show, with conveniently flexible rules, run by a small group of regulars. This is a caricature, of course, but the message is clear that the lack of clear promotion and closing rules make FPC hardly attractive for newcomers, either as nominators, reviewers or ... closers, especially if they come from Commons FPC (which is a “bit of a joke”). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eritrean Railway I found the closing of that quite interesting, a clear example of a nomination being closed too early and a clear example as to why a vote wouldn't work well. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Geolocation

Does anyone think that geolocation of images should be encouraged by the criteria where relevant (Architecture, Landscapes, ...)? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  • In a word, yes. It adds extra encyclopedic value to the image, and it is rare that we would see a picture where the item could not be clearly geolocated. There are possibly problematic examples - eg. a FP standard photo of a clearly identified river, without it being clear exactly where on the river the photo was taken - so it might be best to simply encourage it at this stage however. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. There should be some consideration given for images of historical value but unknown location, and for images not taken on Earth. The criteria could also require that the location be specified, but not necessarily with a location tag. Wronkiew (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The problem with locations not on Earth is that {{coord}} and friends, WikiMiniAtlas and the geohack (example location) break totally and have been that way for more than two and a half years. Identifying locations by name is problematic because many locations are anonymous or uselessly imprecise. MER-C 08:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally I think this should just be a very general recommendation - because personally I wouldn't geocode most of my images for privacy reasons as they're mostly taken around our property in Swifts Creek. I'm not sure how many other people would have this issue but I certainly think privacy concerns need to be respected --Fir0002 09:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting it for animals and the like, where the exact location is frankly of no concern. But for landscapes or buildings that have a definite and precise location I think it'd add enc value. I personally geocode my images unless they are in my backyard or similar. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah well that makes good sense - I'd just hate to see it twisted the way captions were for some time on FPC... --Fir0002 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll add "Geocoding is preferable for landscapes and architecture" to the meta data section if no one objects within a day or two.
  • I share Fir's concerns that this will be turned into a 'nom bashing' option. And I wonder that it matters if the image is geocoded anyway. If I upload an image of say the Sydney Opera House (substitute your own building, small town, etc), then surely the article will show the geolocation anyway, so why the need to geocode every image in the article with the same information? --jjron (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • It makes sense because it the location of the photographer which shall be geocoded, and not the object being photograped (this is a commn misunderstanding). And when you take the time to also add heading information in the geotag, you get a pointer on the Commons layer in Google Maps/Earth pointing towards the object. So you could have a series of photos of the opera house taken from different positions all pointing towards the object. Kindda cool, IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) Knowing the exact area that a photograph is depicting increases it's encyclopaedic value by providing a bird's eye context. Image:Mikumi_panorama.jpg clearly benefits from geocoding as the park covers an area of 3230 km². Image:Eritrean_Railway_-_Tivedshambo_2008-11-04.jpg would benefit from geocoding as the maximum location precision possible is probably on the order of a few hundred square kilometres. Perhaps a rewording is in order, but it would improve the enc value for many images as far as I am concerned. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I asked the nominator/photographer for the appropriate information to geocode the Eritrean_railway image and was successful. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Noodle snacks. Here's some proposed wording: Geotagging of photographs of places (e.g. panoramas, architecture, sculpture) is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the photo was taken, either in the article and/or on the image description page, to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km²2[1]. [1] This is an order of magnitude estimate. MER-C 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If you check the discussion re the Eritrean Railway that Noodle refers to you'll see that it was largely guesswork. That will be the case more often than not I suggest - challenge someone on their geocode and they'll just make a guess at it (and who's going to be able to disprove it?). Therefore the argument that it adds EV is fine and dandy, except for the fact that in many cases it will simply be guesswork, so will actually make it less encyclopaedic. And 10km x 1km = 10km2, so you can be 10km away (or extend these dimensions as you wish); in other words being within that area tells you nothing. You'd be better to suggest a radius for the precision, say a 2 or 3km radius. But again, what does a guessed range that big tell you, given not many people are carrying around GPSes and recording the data as they take their photos? --jjron (talk) 12:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd say the geotagging was educated guesswork in that case, however it is pretty clearly a good fit. I geocode my images in a similar fashion and can do so with high accuracy. I have many low quality images from my overseas travels that I would still be able to geocode with relative accuracy now. I guess it is clear that the geocoding of an image would require scrutiny, just like other information in the caption. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As input to your discussion I would like to mention that we used a lot of effort on commons to discuss a geocoding criteria for Valued image candidates. Here we ended up making it a hard requirement in the Valued image criterion 5. However, here we also explicit mention the exceptions to geocoding, including the privacy concerns mentioned by Fir. I think these criteria makes pretty good sense, and they have been tested quite thoroughtly in practise for half a year or so. Note, that the COM:VIC requirements includes images of (native) living organisms. I do think their location is relevant as the same species can menifest itself quite differently in different regions due regional variances in the environment. With geocoded images of living organisms we also have the potential possibility of making distribution maps at certain taxa levels for media in Commons. The data are there, it is just a matter of using the information. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have added it, let me know if there are any specific issues. Only making it a requirement for places etc should preclude privacy concerns. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Hmmm, well (i) I wouldn't exactly say there was a consensus on this, (ii) you've worded it with the 10km2 clause, which I pointed out above I find to be basically meaningless, (iii) wouldn't it make more sense to say where the subject of the photo was than where the camera was (though I guess they're pretty likely to be within 10km2 of each other anyway ;-) ), and (iv) I honestly can't see that this has relevance to Criterion 7, which is about the caption (which is of course not the same thing as the image page info), but who, including you, includes the geocoding in the caption? --jjron (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The way I saw it is that there was consensus, excluding the possible "nom bashing" problem. Which criterea would you say its most suited to? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Holiday warning

I'll be on holiday from 11 December to (about) 1 February and hence probably won't be closing nominations then. Unfortunately the Image => File changeover still hasn't happened (it's in SVN but not live) so my wizard might break, say, the day after I leave.

Please, let's not have seven weeks of incompetence like this. The instructions on the FPC page are there for a reason. If you are unsure, look nearby for examples or ask here. MER-C 11:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Or like this? I'm not sniping btw, just tired of opening a new thread every time that irregularities occur in the FPC process, which seems to be about once a week now. Didn't use to be like that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I figured I would see a comment like this. I did mistakenly interpret Caspian's comments as support for edit 3. With that correction, edit 1 has more support by the numbers. However, Spencer's support for the other edits was weak, and Papa's oppose was not very developed, so I still think I made the right call. If there is interest, I'll be happy to revert myself and open it up for further discussion. Wronkiew (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There was no need for development as jjron had covered the weaknesses perfectly. It would be a scandal for votes that agree with a previous poster to be considered "less developed". It would amount to a requirement for each commenter to come up with a new original argument, meaning the number of arguments would decide the outcome, not the consensus (i.e. how many people can agree on an argument's validity). So please change the closure. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well said, agreeing per someone else is simpler than retyping the same obvious comments out. This should be especially true of votes from established users - their motives should be less open to question and their reasoning and ability to considered all the factors at hand should to a degree be taken for granted. Mfield (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone want to second the request? Wronkiew (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No seconding needed, just fix your erroneous closure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Eritrean Railway has been relisted for further discussion. Wronkiew (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I might have a go at closing one or two things before then so I can get some feedback and be able take up a little slack. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hidden closings

I wonder why the nominations are removed from the FPC page immediately after they are closed. In my opinon they should stay there for an extra couple of days, to facilitate the decision to be commented or contested. Unless the purpose of removing them is precisely to avoid contestation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

They're only one click away (it's the bold archive link in the header, among 3 other links) so it's not really necessary. Objections about closings should go the closer's talk page, then, if not resolved, here. MER-C 03:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of removing nominations from the FPC page is not to free up room for new nominations. Nominations are really removed as part of a conspiracy by one individual (me) living in south-eastern Austrailia. I generally use the following sock-puppets: User:MER-C, User:Fir0002, User:Jjron, User:Diliff, User:Fcb981 (the account I happen to be using at the moment), among others in an effort to get 1000 FP's on the english wikipedia. I am slightly less proud of also being the person behind the current worldwide financial meltdown, although I must admit due to such a vast number of dedicated volunteers here on wiki I have been effectively discovered. Thats why I'm coming out with this now: Alvesgaspar, you got me. I knew you'd be the one to finally bring me down. =( -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This extremely childish attitude to requests to improve the status quo on Wikipedia has always been one of our problems. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Improvement is, of course, a matter of opinion. In fact I, was speaking less to the fairly pedestrian proposal and more to the accusation that nominations are removed to avoid close inspection. With respect, anyone who thinks there is a grand conspiracy wrapped up in all this is being at least as childish as I am. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that he was being sarcastic to make a point. Childish or not, his point was valid. There is no conspiracy. I think all who disagree with the current proposal would be more than happy to change the status quo if we actually believed it would be an improvement. You're twisting things by insinuating that all attempts to change the status quo are, by definition, improvements, and that is simply not true. Sometimes policies and procedures exist because they are tried and tested and work. In any case, I don't even know why I've dragged myself into this argument, as I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about the proposal, but I do have a strong opinion about accusations of a gentleman's club! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why did you confess? Christmas is still weeks away. Muhammad(talk) 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Santa Claus already knows who has been naughty and nice, but I suppose he thought that an early confession might gain him parole quicker... No seriously, he'd have had me convinced except for the fact that he can't spell his own country, Australia. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 06:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A wonderful reflection on the American public education I am getting. ;) -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The explanation by MERC that the closed nominations are just a click away is a non-answer, as that is true for all Wikipedia pages. And the suggestion by Fcb981 that the purpose of immediately removing closed nominations is to free space for the new ones is almost insulting for our inteligences. It just doesn't make sense to have a discussion and hide the result at the end, as if it were only important for the small group of guys (the so-called regulars) who have the page in their watchlists. The feeling that I have entered a restricted gentleman's club, with no authorization, and awaken the old members that were snoring in their leathery couches is now stronger. I didn't know that such anacronism was imported to Australia (and really doubt that Saint Nicholas is among the members). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If it really were a restricted gentleman's club, you'd be a member too, as a regular on FPC. ;-) I don't think it is anything of the sort though, just a difference of opinion. I thought that the purpose of FPC is to identify featurable pictures? Once that has been done, rightly or wrongly, it doesn't need to remain on the page IMO. Pages generally only exist on anyone's watchlist if they have edited that page previously. If there was a mistake made, only someone who has previously had input into that nomination would likely have an opinion on the result. I'm not actually bothered whether it stays there for a few days after being promoted or not, but only a small proportion of nominations are actually contested, so wouldn't it congest the page for little benefit? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I remember you participating in a discussion about how many FPs came from Australia. Seems a bit silly to now turn around and say it wasn't so. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
        • What? I didn't deny that a lot of FPs were from Australia, I just denied that there was a conspiratorial gentleman's club here that excludes any form of independent thought. Big difference. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
          • What's this, in your opinion? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
            • You're being blatantly ridiculous... What is it, you ask? Does it look like a "conspiratorial gentleman's club here that excludes any form of independent thought" to you? Even if it were such a club (and it clearly is not), that guild is not the same thing as FPC. Sure, its 'members' also happen to be active contributors here, but do you have any evidence that we conspire in any way? Stop trying to stir up controversy... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
              • That's at least three official denials -- oh my God, it's true! Fletcher (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder why you are trying to turn FPC here into a carbon copy of commons FPC when you could just go there and vote/nominate images to your hearts content? Personally I note the results of closed nominations on my watchlist. My concern is that leaving nominations around fights for user attention which might be better directed at newer nominations. A well defined period of say 24hrs before closed nominations are removed would probably work fine (Bot anyone?). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • What patent nonsense! Commons is for Commons, WP:FPC is for Wikipedia. I'm sure you understand the difference. And your argument makes me think you're one of the people that would quite like there to be a club, the way you're suggesting for others to leave! And look, you're from Australia and a member of the club - what a coincidence! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • To Diliff: yes, I believe I'm accepted as a member ... but with mitigated rights, which do not include criticizing the system or being taken seriously when making constructive suggestions. That is clear from the childish reaction to my proposal and the clear suggestion to leave here and stay in Commons FPC (which is "a bit of a joke"). I don't think this is any kind of conspiration, that would take too much work to organize and run. Nothing more then the (very human) conservative and irrational reaction to criticism from people that (maybe) feel too comfortable and important. To all: could we please stick to the specific topic of this discussion, which is a proposal to leave the closed nominations in the FPC for some time, before archiving them? Noodle snacks suggested a period of 24 hours. I agree. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the last sentence in your original post was a little provocative, was it not? Fletcher (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes it was, but one has to know the whole story to understand my irritation. Maybe the only way to improve things here is through provocation... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe you should invite those above who have not committed the same sin to throw the first stone... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Noodle Snacks suggested running a bot to maintain a list of recently closed nominations, and this is something I have been thinking about as well. I propose that DustyBot be given two new tasks. One would be to automatically move old but unclosed noms to the appropriate category. The other would be to add recently closed noms to a new section and hold them there for a day. The bot could run once every 15 minutes. I don't think it would interfere with the FP closing wizard, but I would have to discuss that with MER-C. Wronkiew (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to do all the housekeeping work for a closure, then have the nom still up for debate. So the question is really whether we should have some sort of preclosure where a resolution is proposed, then either accepted or shot down. I'm not sure that is necessary, but it would be helpful if the methodology for closures could be made more clear to remove the suspicion of subjectivity or bias that seems to crop up occasionally. Fletcher (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
    • My main concern is not controlling the closer but keep the nomination visible so everybody can see the decision -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is all just a bunch of pointless bureaucracy. If the effort that went into the above debate went into photographing/nominating/commenting on nominations, FPC would have been far better served. And while I don't really care about the outcome of this fairly petty (IMO) debate, I would like to comment on the effect on commons. I never realised that the reason why noms were left unarchived was so people could see the decision - I just assumed it was tardiness on the closers behalf. IMO it looks very untidy, and a cursory glance over all the other featured content pages, and indeed RfA, shows this is not a procedure accepted on the English Wikipedia and frankly I can see no reason to introduce it here. When someone does care enough in a nom to want to see the outcome its not locked away forever and is pretty accessible! Oh and Alvesgaspar you're not exactly doing yourself any favours in terms of the mystical "gentleman's club" with comments such as this! --Fir0002 22:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It was actually Diliff who used that expression. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You are mistaken, Alvesgaspar wrote, at 10:06 UTC: "The feeling that I have entered a restricted gentleman's club, with no authorization, and awaken the old members that were snoring in their leathery couches is now stronger.". Five hours later at 15:34 UTC Diliff used the term in response. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If there would be no increase in workload for the closer, I could see the proposal being easy to accept. Again, (no offense meant by my above sarcastic post) but there is no mal intent with the nominations being removed right after closing. I imagine the reason for it is that we actually need to have a human being to close the noms (unlike the vote-count policy on commons) and I would not want to be the person to, first, decide on either promotion or failure after reading the nom... then set an alarm for 24 hours to have to go back and attend to the same nomination again; adding it to features and admins, updating to count, etc. It just make the closers job much less efficient. There have been one or two noms that I have brought up for the way they were closed but it wasn't much of a problem. Given the rarity with which it happens, I do not think that it warrants the loss of efficiency for the closer. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Apparently I'm a member of the gentleman's club so probably shouldn't say this, but I think Alves original suggestion has a fair bit of merit, though I disagree with the part about "...to facilitate the decision to be commented or contested". I have often thought I'd like to see the closing decision on noms without the hassle of going to a different page (especially when you're getting near the end of month and there's 100 prior noms in the archive already).
    Here's a pretty simple way I think it could work, with effectively no more work for the closer. A new section called 'Recently Closed Nominations' or something similar is added to FPC. The closer does exactly as now, except shuffles the closed noms to this section of FPC as well as the archive. The next time a closing is done, the newly closed noms simply replace those currently in the Recently closed noms section (no set time, it could be a day, two or three, whenever the next closing is done). Any disputes on closings are handled the same way as now, directly with the closer or raised here. We would be clear that this new section was NOT an area to dispute closings or for further debate as Fletcher mentions as a concern, and none of the double handling that Fcb mentions would be necessary. Pretty easy? --jjron (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A survey on FPC results

Hello everyone. I have been avoiding the recent drama, but have decided to weigh in now with some questions that I hope many of you will answer. Before those questions, I will lay out some assumptions about the FP process:

1) Like most processes that assess data and categorize it, the FP process will generate false-positives and false-negatives. These are respectively, images that are "not really FP quality" but are promoted, and images that "are really FP quality" but are not promoted. A good FP process will have low numbers of each.

2) What makes an image "really FP quality" depends on our own subjective understanding of the FP criteria.

3) If a contributor perceives a trend or bias in false-positive or false-negative promotions, this reflects a discrepancy between their subjective understanding of the FP criteria and the community's (or closer's or cabal's - what have you) understanding of the FP criteria.

For example, one might feel that too few images with minor technical flaws (e.g. fringing or imperfect focus) are being promoted resulting in a trend of images with minor technical flaws in the false-negative category.
For example, one might feel too many cute puppy images are being promoted, resulting in a trend of too many puppies in the false-positive category.

4) If there is no such trend in the false-negative or false-positive categories, the FP process has no systemic bias. It may still, however, be too picky or too liberal about promotions. I.e., with too high false-negative or false positive rates, respectively.

5) Even if the rates of false-positive and false-negative promotions are equal, these rates could both be high. This would reflect an FP process that is noisy, i.e. not robust to statistical fluctuations.

Since what ultimately matters is the consistent success of the process, and not how we get consistent success, please evaluate the FP process in terms of these three questions:

  • First, is the process too picky or too liberal or just fine. Writing "picky" means you think (irrespective of any bias in promoted or non-promoted images) that too many images that are "really FP quality" are not promoted, "liberal" means you think to many images that are not "really FP quality" are promoted, and "just fine"
  • Second, is the process clean or noisy. I.e. overall rate of false-positives plus false-negatives low or high respectively.
  • Third, are there content trends in the images that you believe are falsely promoted or not promoted. Please indicate biased or unbiased.

Feel free to briefly elaborate after answering those three questions. I'll start us off. de Bivort 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Good initiative. Please forgive me for not giving my answer yet but I think your model is missing an important component. Some question is needed about the overall relevance and effectiveness of WP:FPC in the project, for example, in helping to improve the articles' quality or attracting new talents. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I haven't said that this model covers all aspects of FPs, so I think you could go ahead and answer it. That said, if you think the promoted images do not help improve articles' quality or attract new talents - and you think this is part of the FP criteria, this would be reflected in a bias in promoted images - something covered by my model. de Bivort 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the same kind of attitude that says it's fine to introduce backscatter scanners as long as you can opt out, in spite of any privacy concerns, or to introduce electronic voting, or to have RFID chips with biometric data in your passport so long as the passport is still valid when the chip is broken (and sometimes wilfully breaking the chip will be prosecuted). I think much better is to get the scope of the survey right before we put work into answering it, if there is consensus for having a survey. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? What's with the conspiratorial metaphors? Answer it or don't, but that much typing you could have easily answered the question. "consensus for having a survey" ?? Do we need to assess consensus for a survey to assess consensus? Please. de Bivort 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what "conspiratorial metaphors" you're referring to, but if you know more than the rest of us, please share! Meanwhile, I shall simply note that you seem to agree that the scope has to be right before proceeding with any survey, since you did not take issue with that point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll give you one guess what metaphors I'm talking about. Maybe, the only metaphors you used? de Bivort 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I wrote these questions to have the scope they have! No more no less. These are the questions I am curious about. Answer or not. If you want a survey with a scope that is more entertaining to you, write your own. de Bivort 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of using metaphors. I was giving examples of why offering an opt-in or opt-out doesn't necessarily make the process fair or mitigate entirely its risks for the future. If you found a metaphor, you can keep it. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • just fine, noisy, unbiased - I think there are as many false-positives as false-negatives, and I see no trend in the images that are promoted or not, relative to my understanding of the FP criteria, but, the total false-positive plus false-negative rate could be lowered by greater participation in nominations with few comments. de Bivort 19:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just fine, Very noisy, Some slight biases. I think that transient voters (that is, not the regulars, gentleman's club, mafia, etc.) while perhaps technically literate, do not understand the location of the "bar" photographically. I think that people who have spent a few weeks looking at a few dozen nominations probably have a feel of what "good composition" at FPC means. They will have seen some of Diliff's panoramas, some of Fir0002's macros, Some of Durova's historical noms, etc. and they understand what an FP looks like. For other voters passing through, the subjectivity is simply too high and the criteria too ambiguous for them to make an informed vote. Do we need to have more defined criteria? I'm not a fan. Do we need to drive off our regulars by calling them old farts in armchairs? I hope not. Anyway, there is some bias towards historical photos and paintings I think, as well, against atypical FPC noms. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 00:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just Fine, Clean, Some Bias. There is some noise of course and noise is very subjective, but it could be much worse (ahem commons). There is some systemic bias I think for images that typically get less interest from the voters (who, by and large are photographers), these nominations often don't get many votes and it sometimes only takes a single oppose to sink them, they should probably run until they have a reasonable vote minimum. By and large with my own nominations (~22 successful in the last 6 months) I have not encountered any noise, or problems with the passing grade. The only real problem I have had with FPC has been a handful reactionary votes in response to my edits on wikipedia elsewhere, one user from here and one following me over from commons, none of these votes ultimately swayed the final consensus. In relation to Alvesgaspar's question, I think that the FPC process indirectly aids the encyclopaedia by providing motivation for professional quality images for many volunteer graphic artists and photographers. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Too liberal, noisy, biased. Too liberal because the effective EV of the pictures inside the articles is seldom considered. For example, many stubs are created just for hosting FP candidates (I’ve done it myself once) and very seldom the images are discussed, or even referred to, in the articles they are supposedly enriching. The practical result is a lot of irrelevant promoted pictures. It shouldn't be enough for a picture, to be promoted, to have “potential EV” (that is for Commons FPC); it should have, imo, exceptional enc value and be well integrated in its article. Noisy, because the outcome of a certain nomination depends very much on the timing and the particular group of reviewers who evaluate the picture. The verdict of respected opinion makers (this applies to some knowledgeable regulars), as well as the content of the first votes/comments, have a significant influence on the result. More detailed and transparent rules addressing the nomination periods and the guidelines to be followed by the closers, would certainly minimize the problem. Biased because certain themes and certain creators are more popular than others, and the aesthetical quality of the pictures is usually preponderant. The only way to minimize this would be to have a large, knowledgeable and diversified universe of reviewers. And, of course, more detailed and transparent rules. A final word about the overall relevance of WP:FPC in the project and its effectiveness in improving the articles' quality and attracting new talents: minimal, in my opinion. To improve on this we will have to be more inclusive and get out of the shell, which is obviously not a popular line of action. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just fine, Noisy, Slight Bias. Basically I pretty much agree with the comments of Fcb981. In addition IMO there exists a level of double standards dependant on the creator of a nomination (noisy). --Fir0002 01:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Absurd, Extreme Bias. If it is NASA or a painting, it's in. If it is user created, it is spat on and berated. Consider innocence here. A similar looking photo would have been slaughtered for its blown highlights and low "ev". Instead this was fawned over. I had started to collect statistics on this very phenomenon, then decided to put up the retired flag instead. Honestly, the decision to promote has to be more than a simple tally of votes. I cringe when I see 'support - I love this painting'. WP:AFD requires justification for a vote, so that the majority is overruled by compelling arguments for and against. FPC should be the same. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just fine ,Clean, Biased. IMO, historical pictures are very easily promoted. Muhammad(talk) 06:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • A little picky and biased in a very narrow spectrum: Not egregiously so, and certainly far better than commons on this front, but it does seem that certain classes of historical works - cartoons, engravings, and lithographs - have far fewer people willing to comment on them, which can occasionally lead to an image with three supports and no opposes - presumably FP worthy? - to not be promoted simply because people don't comment. It's not a huge problem, but it's noticeable if that's your main field of interest. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Slightly liberal, Noisy, n/a. Speaking from the POTD end, I keep finding images promoted where the EV seems suspect. Images with good EV are easy to write blurbs for -- the captions almost write themselves. Images with low EV are really difficult, and I've had a hard time writing for a few, and I've even skipped some because there was almost nothing to write and they didn't fit in very well in their articles (Dutch World Map, I'm thinking of you specifically, but the Obama one too, although that's probably going in on Inauguration Day). Examples: Haeckel's lichens, parabolic antenna which I had to stick in the right article to get good EV out of it, or Lower Consolation Lake, another one I had to find the right article for and even then, it's not even mentioned in the article text anywhere. OK, this is only 3 examples over the last 5 months, so it's not like it's an epidemic or anything, but in the 2.5 years I've been scheduling POTD, it's starting to become more frequent. howcheng {chat} 00:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just disregard !votes made after the nomination period

It seems this would be a step towards resolving the concerns brought up. Iirc, various COTW projects have long used deadlines without problems. Just make a firm announcement about when the nomination closes, at nomination time - e.g. 7*24hrs, per established convention. As far as I understand, this can be done with a small addition to Template:FPCnom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Sigh, Many people were against this a week ago, what has changed? Of course COTW projects use a well defined deadline, by definition it is collaboration of the week. I am also finding MER-C's "dead horse" comment rather relevant here. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • MER-C's comment came out of nowhere, and imho is a rather lame attempt to suffocate constructive discussion. A lame attempt that, I might add, you've just made yourself a fan boy of. Congratulations! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
  • PLW, you may be interested in this discussion. It contains a number of opinions from former regulars who are obviously in no way effected by recent discussions or the suggested biases, clubs, etc mentioned above. As you can see from that, I used to also think the seven days thing was pretty set and should be adhered to, but changed my thinking to go with the consensus. I think the same consensus is still pretty clear for the current group of contributors. What do you think? --jjron (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

  • This is a malicious, unfair and stupid accusation! And also offensive for all those people, which are respected users, regular contributors of WP:FPC and surely have their own opinions, which I would like very much to know. I really thought I was among sophisticated people. I was wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Joaquim - please, don't accuse people of being "imbeciles". Behavior reflects people's opinions on someone, and right now yours with me is rather fractured, even if you are a great contributor. —Ceran [speak ] 00:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it is a stretch to call that list of people anything other than a list of Commons regulars, they are by no means regulars here on en:FPC. That is not to say that they are not respected or that they may not have valid opinions, but it seems a strange collection of people to take it to when there are much more regular editors hereon this project who have yet to express opinions or be canvassed. Mfield (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • (Edit Conflict) Malicious, unfair and stupid or not, those watching or participating the discussion here should know about the messages. Many of the users in that list do not vote regularly at WP:FPC, and are far more present at COM:FP. I know they are respected users, I get on well with many members in the list. If you were being entirely straight you'd be messaging their wikipedia pages, where users here would notice it, not hoping it'd go by unnoticed on commons. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Please don't try to interpret my covert intentions and make me stupid. I've been around long enough to know that everything we do in Commons is easily and quickly known here by anyone interested and I was aware of that when I sent the messages. The ONLY reason why I went to their Commons page is because that is their (and mine) usual home place. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
      • One more thing, the reference to my FPC "friends" is an abusive and unproved ad hominem argument, against the WP policy, which I find particularly offensive, given the circunstances. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply to Joaquim: Don't stress, but my comment above was that you could place perhaps a message in bold to let people know we need help. —Ceran [speak ] 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, about half of those people used to be WP:FPC regulars, possibly more than half. And yes, it would be good to keep the insults down, Noodle snacks.Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Actually no, of those IMO only Dschwen and Mbz1 could be described as former "regulars". This would appear the position of the rest --Fir0002 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
              • It is somewhat amusing he refers to en.FPC as having "to much drama" when you consider who stirs it up! -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Can you please provide diffs in future? I can't find the citation you're referring to. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Yes, it would be very good to keep the insults down. I am not sure I have insulted anyone, unless you define pointing out fact as such, if I have I do apologise. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I shouldn't assume that English is your native tongue, but "mob" is usually seen as offensive. [1] Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                • Well I'm assuming that english is his native tongue, being from Australia, but only some of those definitions of mob would be considered offensive, and even then only very moderately. The term is not offensive in Australian English (and no, I didn't rush that entry in, it was conveniently already there). I know it refers to Australian Aboriginal English, but a lot of those words are equally used in colloquial Australian English, just to head off objections on that point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • In the absence of a clearly visible declaration by Noodle snacks that he is using Australian Aboriginal English, I'd say it was an unwise choice of wording if his intention is to avoid PA. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • Have you visibly and clearly declared which regional variant of English that you are using? Stop stirring things up, he obviously meant no offence by it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                      • It rather seems that it's you who doesn't stop. But you should have known that the next thing I would point out is that Noodle snacks was first to stir things up by accusing others of PA, which in itself is demonstrating bad faith - on both your parts! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
                        • Does it really? Your POV is so skewed that you really believe that? You've made 15 comments on this topic (last four headings), and I've made a grand total of 4 so yes, I'm completely out of control, I can't stop myself... The only time you've actually stopped is when a reply of mine/Fcb981 has effectively nullified your argument and made any further comment on your part look even more foolish than those you'd made previously. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

EV?

In a number of FPCs (including Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Strickland Falls.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/L'Innocence to name a few), some editors have expressed concern about an image being included in a certain article where it doesn't have EV, even though it is a valuable addition to a different article, and use that as grounds for opposing the image. In my view as long as it's useful in one article it shouldn't be opposed, but I just am wondering if there has been consensus reached on this. (Just for reference, WP:FP? criteria #5 says that a FP "Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.") Intothewoods29 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Though you are formally right, I sympathize with that concern and understand the reaction of the reviewers. The fact is, the spaming of some articles as a way to apparently improve the enc value of nominated images is not uncommon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd hardly call two articles spamming in the case of the waterfall though :). I think the point should be that the image needs strong EV in at least one article to meet that requirement, not weak EV in 85 of them. Concur? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Concur. But also, the forcing of one picture into several articles with the only purpose of justifying its nomination (I'm not talking about the two images above) harms the project and should be avoided (and possibly punished in FPC ?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't punish it, but we are all wikipedia editors first and FPC reviewers second in my book, so you are free to go and remove an image from articles if it is irrelevant etc. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • True. I suppose in an ideal world, we'd require that a submitter considers EV thoroughly before nominating and that the image remains in an article without removal for a period of time (say a week). I think that is a bit counterproductive though, as sometimes our ideas about EV and the image's use in articles develop only after discussion in the nomination, so it would only waste time to oppose the nomination out of principle and force it to start from the beginning weeks later to satisfy that requirement. As for punishment, how do you punish somebody, and is punishment productive? After all, the goal of FPC is merely to select high quality and EV images. In theory, it should have nothing to do with the desires of photographers/contributors. If an image is below par and is rejected, whether it be for technical or EV reasons, then this is punishment enough - only if someone is a repeat offender would we need to take action, IMO, as more often than not, the offender is a newbie. Perhaps the image spamming in articles should be spelt out in clear terms when submitting a nomination, to avoid it happening? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        •  :)) - The only punishment I'm talking about is a negative review! On the other hand, mixing the review with the removal of pictures from the articles might be considered as a "promiscuous" practise. That is why I never do that while I'm involved in the evaluation -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
          • We could adopt a VP like policy where images need to be in an article for a month or so. I don't think it'd help with inactive articles at all though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made a change to the criteria as per here. (By the way, is it possible to link to diffs without using the full url? Just wondering...). I'm sure it could be edited further as succinct is not my strong point, but hopefully it is a step forward. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree. The text is clear and passes the fundamental message -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You can use Template:Diff to link to diffs, but it seems to be more work. Link to Noodle Snacks edits As far as I can tell you still have to copy revision numbers out of the URL, so it's probably faster just to copy the whole thing, not to mention the effort in getting the syntax right. BTW I agree with the edits to the criteria. Fletcher (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Seemed a bit wordy to me. I removed a sentence that read more as opinion than criterion; if we put in every conjectured clarification the criteria will quickly become unmanageable. Re-add it if you really think it's part of the criterion, or maybe if you think it belongs somewhere it would be more suitable as a footnote? --jjron (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I put it back. So far, three users have agreed on the present text. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure of your justification. Diliff himself said "...I'm sure it could be edited further as succinct is not my strong point." Not to mention you also reverted my other touch-ups. Thanks. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree with your touch ups that make it read slightly better, but I do think that the 'opinion' is one expressed in this discussion and what I've also observed many times before. I think the point that we're trying to make would lose some strength if we don't provide the example that spamming an image into articles will only frustrate/annoy both us and the editors of the articles. Yes, if we want to be PC, we could omit it as opinion, but tiptoeing around the issue only gives misbehaving contributors more leeway to misbehave. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorry to having removed the minor edits, I didn't realize. I agree with Dilif that an unambiguous statement is needed to discourage spamming. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
            • It would be even more clear if we said the candidate will be judged on its contribution to a single article. Although one is free to add the image to multiple articles, weak EV in two articles does not accumulate to strong EV needed for a featured picture. If it does accumulate, we need to explain our theory and where we draw the line between valid image placement and "spamming" articles. Because jjron is right, spamming is a strong word and could be a matter of opinion. The Criteria should be as objective as possible. Fletcher (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
              • I know I'm a bit late here but as a corollary to a requirement Noodle Snacks suggested, should the inclusion of an image into an article for over a month be objective proof or ev? I am of course thinking of File:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg which despite being shot down for "lack of ev" has been in five articles for more than three months now :S --Fir0002 22:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
                • I think proven EV through a mandated retention period in a primary article would be a good step, especially given that the removal of an image from all articles is regularly a reason for delisting. Mfield (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
                  • I think we'd have to take it with a grain of salt if we did use a mandated retention period, as one idiot removing the image (eg to replace it with their own inferior version) shouldn't make it unworthy or 'reset the timer'. Likewise, just because an image sticks in an article for a set period of time, doesn't mean it actually contributes significantly. In the end, I think we'd have to evaluate the EV subjectively to avoid these scenarios. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
                    • That is true. Maybe just a new field in the nom for time in article so it at least brings it to peoples attention that an image was only added 5 minutes prior to the nom. If we are confirming that FPs should possess EV then the time it has been in the article is surely of paramount importance in gauging usefulness to the project. Mfield (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
                • I did also say "I don't think it'd help with inactive articles at all though", I don't think it'd help for articles that have a shortage of images either. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

<==outdent Silence may imply consent but it is not really an endorsement; if an image stays in article that just means no one was offended enough to remove it. We don't want to feature an image that is simply "not unencyclopedic"; we want it to be a really good contribution, but unfortunately what is encyclopedic -- if it is among the best examples of the subject, and illustrates it in a compelling way -- is still a judgment call that can't be spelled out in advance. So I see a minimum retention period more as a lower bar to overcome, not proof of EV. Fletcher (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Tech stuff aside, you could reduce the criteria to the subjective did I learn anything by viewing the image? and the more objective does the image present an accurate depiction? (or whatever). The former we are all qualified to call; the latter is best left to an expert, normally (preferably) an editor well versed in the article subject matter. This is the *only* reason images need to be in an article for a reasonable period of time. Obviously, appearing in more than one article is a bonus *only* insofar as the image is beneficial to each & all of them. Silence is no endorsement, but neither is it discouraged: I'd suggest a gold star icon on the image thumb in the article while it's a candidate, to invite expert opinion. I liked the way it's phrased in the criteria: contributing strongly to a single article, rather than weakly to many, but I also think it should be more forcefully worded in the first place: The image is of particular benefit to at least one article. It would also be good to have these discussions over there so stray editors like me are aware of discussions like this before they wade on in :o) mikaultalk 08:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The 3 support problem

Engravings - it seems to be primarily them - have a tendency to hover at three supports and no opposes from about 2 days through their run... and often all the way to seven days, when they are closed as no consensus. Is there anything that could be done to increase the amount of voting, because, as you can imagine, it's less frustrating to have a clean failure than a "probably good enough, but maybe most people don't feel they know enough to evaluate it?" situation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Haha, You could try canvassing at the relevant wikiprojects... The real solution is probably to leave them running for longer Noodle snacks (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Leaving them open a bit longer for consensus does/used to happen, with a note at the bottom asking for more votes to shore up consensus, but from memory it didn't always have much effect. I guess you have to accept that if only 3 people are interested enough to share their opinion after 7 days, it probably doesn't have that elusive 'wow factor'. I think that can be a problem, where people find it difficult to oppose because there are no glaring technical faults, but neither is there anything that grabs them about the image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Seems more likely to just cause bias against black and white or unusual nominations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination page moves

See Special:Contributions/Diego_pmc. Didn't we go through this same issue with a bot a few months back? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought the consensus was that this isn't Commons and our candidacy naming standards don't need to ape theirs. DurovaCharge! 18:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Signing off

Friends - As a longtime participant of FPC, I wish everyone Happy Holidays. On a more somber note, I will remove FPC from my watchlist. During the past few months, the discussions have deteriorated badly, even into personal attacks and quibbling about insignificant details. I also feel there is something of a self-nominated "elite" here... I do not in any way disparage their contributions to the encyclopedia (which, IMO, is the most important facet of FPC), but there has been a certain "polarization" in the voting causing valuable, high-enc contributions from others, outside the "elite", to be opposed for the most petty of reasons. FPC is about building a better encyclopedia, not an ego-boosting photo competition. (You have Commons for that! ;-) Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night! --Janke | Talk 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's a shame Janke. Whether there is or isn't a self-nominated elite, we need a variety of opinions (even if we don't always agree with them) for FPC to be everything that it should be. I hope that I wasn't included in the cabal that you speak of, but I suspect I was, given I can be quite opinionated and not afraid to state that opinion :-). That said, I don't think I've ever resorted to personal attacks. I hope I haven't. Merry Christmas to you too, and I hope that you may reconsider in the future... I don't think there is anyone here who will be happy to see you leave. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I for one always appreciated your contributions here, as they were undoubtedly very competent. Thus, I hope you'll be back here some day. Meanwhile, Merry Christmas, Janke. :) — Aitias // discussion 12:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to see you leave....apparently there's been around 632 "per Janke" votes in FPC nominations. (Not sure if the calculations are correct, but obviously there's some effect.) SpencerMerry Christmas! 17:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a sad day for FPC and the project as a whole. Its tragic that we have gone the path of alienating and frustrating someone who has almost without exception been a voice of reason and clear thinking. Janke, best of luck in whatever you may be doing and I encourage you to, perhaps, one day in the future, when this project is in a different era, to once again lend a hand here. Its been a pleasure, and merry Christmas. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 05:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a shame, you will be missed, have a relaxed and Merry Christmas. Mfield (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Using Janke's unfortunate departure as a talking point, I thought I might ask the obvious question: Is he right? Is there a self-nominated elite and if so, has this elite opposed valuable images? I have to admit, I don't recall it happening systematically, although I do think that FPC has, over time, raised the bar for many types of images and as a result, caused more opposition to anything less than outstanding images. Also, wouldn't this bias towards the supposed "non-elite" have been highlighted in the survey that Debivort ran above? Janke, if you decide to drop by once more, could you be more specific about what you think the problem is? Without knowing what it is, I don't know how we could fix it. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious point I can make is that most of the "elite" photographers don't seem to comment much on the historical images (a trend I noticed on my last 2 FP noms plus Shoemaker's Holiday's comments previous -- so solely based on anecdotal evidence since I don't visit FPC much myself these days). Not saying that's a bad thing necessarily... howcheng {chat} 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
For me at least, I've all but stopped commenting on nominations recently. I have found that, perhaps increasingly, there have been a vast number of nominations which I feel go the wrong direction, whether for promotion or failure. There are very valuable user contributed images that are shot down on a technical fault when they were illustrative and downright beautiful. Then there have been others that are simply horribly composed, poorly lit, but for whatever reason they pass. It is hard to disagree that there is a high value placed on technical discussion here and I would say that the technical nitpicking that occurs here is more intense than for almost any other application for photography that I have participated in. With that in mind, technical faults can be a really tactful way of shooting down a bad photo. Someone can nitpick blown-highlights on a poorly composed landscape or improper DOF on a boring macro or heavy-handed noise reduction on an unENC portrait. I have done that in the past... The problem, as I see it, is when people think that those actually are our technical standards (which they are not) and oppose images that are amazing but with somewhat insignificant technical faults or don't oppose images that are boring because they are technically fine. That is my frustration. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I absolutely with you agree that the level of nitpicking about technical faults here is at a level far above almost anything outside of the professional sphere. At times it has been a good thing and spurred us all on to aim for higher standards, but it is no doubt also making FPC quite exclusive and intimidating. This is probably a good starting point to try to shift us away from the negativity that has caused a number of valuable contributors to stop participating. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Howcheng, I guess it is only natural that photographers have more interest in current photographs than historical images. But as you say, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, and I would say that really, the trouble is that very few people comment at all. We don't need 100% participation from everyone on all images, as long as there are enough votes to make the nomination decision meaningful. I have to say, it would be nice if more votes were cast in general (my images often used to get 10-15+ comments, but now maybe 5 or 6), and I wonder if it is because there are less people willing to contributors than there used to be. Have we alienated contributors? Maybe we have... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (restoring indent) Maybe we (you) have. Not especially by being too exigent in the evaluations but by, unconsciously or not, promoting what I have recently called a “restricted club” of regulars. Two examples. Some time ago, Slaunger had the excellent idea of suggesting a partnership with Commons for the development of the Valued Images project. With no success, since there was a strong opposition to any form of cooperation. As far as I remember the reasons for opposing where more on the emotional than on the rational side. Second example: by defending a closing system based on a set of fuzzy and non-written principles, which only a few regulars (if any) seem to fully understand, we are perpetuating the idea that this place is restricted to some knowledgeable elite, and alienating valuable contributors. I also fully agree with Janke that, during the past few months, discussions have deteriorated badly and that we should avoid FPC becoming an ego-boosting photo competition. It’s a shame he is leaving but maybe that should be used, in a positive way, as a pretext to finally agree that something is really broken and needs fixing. A Happy New Year to all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I'm quite taken aback by the descent into open hostility here at FPC. There was always a reasonably thick veneer of civility, sincere attempts at collective neutrality (in lieu of the elusive butterfly of objectivity) among contributors who, in the main, took criticism on the chin. It was always fatally flawed simply because it's open to self-promotional abuse by its very nature.
I'm fairly sure FPC started off by trawling encyclopedia articles for outstanding image contributions, rather than seek submissions from the originators of images. I guess that's where it started to go wrong: self promotion inevitably creeps in and it's a real pandora's box if it goes unchecked as it has here. It provides an unusually high incentive to game the system to your own ends, start creating factions and taking criticism badly, ending up on a slippery slope to the pettifogging of other contributions. The system then breaks down into the sort of sniping and unconstructive comments which casts everyone involved in a rather unflattering light. The result is FPC has slipped so far from its original intent that I sincerely doubt its continued value to the project. Frankly, it has so little regard for the basic tenets of the wiki I'm surprised it hasn't been flagged for administrative review. If it was an article in mainspace it would have been deleted months ago. mikaultalk 20:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with some of what you've said, but IMO FPC is also an incentive for photographers and restorers to do their best in order to gain a intangible and overly rated shiny star - same thing with WP:FAC and all of the other featured areas. By providing something for us editors to irrationally desire, the encyclopedia is improved. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I do disagree with the a lot of that. Yes, there are elements of bad behaviour and nonconstructive comments (as there can be in any discussion. I don't think we can completely eliminate them without making the process overly robotic), but for the most part, we all still have the goal of highlighting great images for use in Wikipedia, so I fail to see how it has slipped from its original intent. Whether we're authors of images, or just those who have stumbled across them and thought they are worth nominating, the end result is highlighting them if they are of an agreed standard. If the standards are incorrect, that should be addressed. I don't see how self-promotion is a significant problem. If enough people disagree with the submitter/author, the nomination fails and that is the end of the story. I haven't seen any cases of dispute of the result, aside from when there has been a genuine issue with consensus. The only issues that crop up is when somebody disagrees with the justification of an oppose or support, which I think is a completely reasonable process. If they are unable to sway the opinion of the vote after discussion, then the vote remains as-is. A small amount of occasional controversy is a necessary part of a subjective process. Otherwise, valid counter-arguments would never be allowed to be raised. I suppose the difference between this and other projects is that images are far more subjective than text, which can be honed so very little subjectivity or misinterpretation remains. As for canvassing/creating factions, I really don't think it exists on a day-to-day basis. There have only been a few borderline cases that have quickly been nipped in the bud that I can recall. If there are any accusations of factions, I would say they are informal and coincidental based on nothing more than common ideas, rather than an organised campaign. As I have been accused as being part of a cabal, I feel it important to deny it profusely. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 01:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I have been on an extended wikibreak, may well have returned at a bad time & probably dwelled too long on the interpersonal issues, apologies. OTOH maybe it takes that sort of step back to see the issues, such as they are. I don't see any issue with standards, rather with the way they are implemented: the holy grails of noise-freedom, detailed highlights and pixel perfection are commendable but incredibly exclusive, appropriate more to a photo competition than an encyclopedia and (ab)used too often to mark down otherwise exceptional images. I'm maybe picking an odd example, but this submission is clearly well above the bar in many respects and yet is failing to clear it on the flimsiest of pretexts. If this project is to encourage high-quality contributions (@Intothewoods) then it has to appear accessible and above all, reasonable, to as wide a contributor base as possible. Factions needn't be collusive cabals in order to be disruptive, they need only appear impermeable and esoteric. The fact is that FPC presents itself this way to would-be contributors, leaving the work of providing featured pictures to a dedicated few. mikaultalk 14:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would have to disagree with your "flimsy pretext" comment. Noise is generally pretty easy to fix (note the edit), but the lack of detail and the serious oversharpening puts it quite a long way under the FP quality bar in my view. I know first hand that getting a sharp picture of a wild bird with a 400mm lens is difficult compared to an insect or a flower but the nomination shouldn't be judged on the gear used. Lowering the quality requirements arbitarily makes it too easy for difficulty of capture to be used as an excuse for poor technical quality. The place for many of these encyclopaedically valuable images is now WP:VPC. More personally, I don't mind if someone rips apart my image based on technical details, it can only help one improve in the future. Just to get more sidetracked I am going to try and make a personal hunting blind at some point with some camo material, the aim being to remain stationary in a likely venue for birds and try and get some FPC quality pictures that way. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think you mark the bar a long way too high right there, if you're marking that image is a long way below it. It's possibly a bit oversharpened but detail and content push it well beyond VP requirements. These aren't "serious" issues at all and they should be mitigated by the difficulty of achieving the shot. We're lucky to have contributions of even greater technical quality, and fortunate indeed to have a contributor prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to capture them, but that shouldn't preclude the best of the rest.
You made a comment in that shot's nomination about some of your bird pics being rejected and I hasten to add I can see the comment was made in good faith, but there's the other issue: yours got marked down on the day in a picky crit, so you mark down the next one you see with similar (not necessarily worse) flaws and up goes the bar another notch. Perfectly understandable, illustrative of an escalation of very subjective nit-picking and precisely why I say self-nomination is the root of all evil here. mikaultalk 01:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I think blaming self nominations is a bit short-sighted. FPC is (or at least should be) about judging photos not photographers. With this philosophy it shouldn't matter one iota who nominates the image or what relationship they have with the photo. If a user takes an FP grade image they should be able to nominate it and have it judged objectively. Furthermore it is highly desirable to have someone who is personally concerned with the outcome of the nomination and is there to respond to voter's concerns and to point out potentially invalid !votes. It would be really interesting to be able have FPC run so that voters have no idea who took the photo they're voting on. There two reasons (that I can see) why self-noms have become the scape goat: 1. a petty and unconstructive attitude of I'm-sick-of-so-and-so-nominating-their-pictures-on-FPC-all-the-time/getting-all-the-FPs (dare I say jealousy?); 2. the editors who are currently self-nominating produce outstanding photos which are casting a shadow over other submissions. The first reason obviously holds no value whatsoever. The second reason is to a large degree self-inflicted. If people are concerned the bar is getting too high then why are they opposing images which they think are good enough (or not voting and thereby effectively concurring with opposers)? At any rate I think current standards are not too bad, but I think we should make the "difficulty in creation/getting a better shot" factor much more prominent in voting. As I've already said (and Noodle Snacks as mentioned) it is unreasonable to demand the same quality for a wild bird as an easily photographed subject (eg flower). In this respect I think Mad Tinman's suggestion below is quite relevant.
On a side note all the best NS with your project! --Fir0002 08:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the "bar" should be dropped a bit on the wild birds then. I think that they are pretty high due to the images produced by MDF and others. I wouldn't say I am voting down other nominations because some of my own have failed, but instead using my own experiences with bird nominations in determining the quality threshold required. It will be interesting to see how the project goes, most of my successful water bird images have been taken by hiding in bushes etc. I personally find I come up much shorter in focal length for egrets, herons, cormorants etc than the things in my garden and nearby bushland. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm, hadn't noticed the developments in this thread until now. Overall I've found FPC to be the best-run of the featured content processes. Having gone the distance in five of the six FC types, this is the place that keeps me coming back. Not perfect, of course, but a better ratio of useful productivity to drama than any of the others. A few thoughts on how we could improve that:

  1. Be more welcoming and patient with newcomers. It isn't easy to understand how this process works; most of us regulars flubbed a few early nominations before we got the hang of things. After a while it's easy to lose perspective and patience in that regard, and many of us have suffered from a case of 'don't want to deal with that again'. Which is probably one reason why newcomer nominations often get fewer responses than those by seasoned FPC contributors: we know it'll take a bit more effort to get the person up to speed. It's worth doing, though, because the end result is more great images and a healthy critical mass of contributors.
  2. Stretch one's boundaries a bit more. With so much good stuff to be done in particular areas, it's tempting to remain in a safe zone. Specialization has its benefits, of course, but testing new ideas and approaches helps to keep things fresh and interesting. Some of the things FPC has been best at achieving include original photography of birds and insects. And since a lot of us live in different parts of the world, that means bugs most of us have never seen before (and perhaps we hope never to meet) turn up at FPC with a lot of regularity. The important thing is to avoid the rut where that's the only thing one contributes or votes on. Sure, it's more of a challenge to go from that to one of Shoemaker's restored nineteenth century etchings. A healthy process needs that kind of flexibility, though, and I'd happily collaborate toward conomination with anyone who wants to try restoration for the first time.

Best wishes all, DurovaCharge! 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

On the note of welcoming newcomers its a good idea to back up any opposes with as much constructive criticism as possible regarding camera settings, composition and so on so they might go out and achieve something better. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria and the general problem of the FPC project

With all the recent commotion about the FPC process and the constant questioning of whether we are failing to promote highly valuable images because of minimal technical faults, I began wondering where the source of the problem might be.

Just to be clear to everyone, I support the notion that this process has grown too picky - the bar set beyond a reasonable high.

Why? Well, when I first came to FPC, a few years back (hardly as a contributor - I liked, and still do, seeing the pictures and the discussions of their merit in the encyclopedia), I figured, and this was my first reaction, that this project was supposed to identify and acknowledge the images which contribute exceptionally to wikipedia. As such, I also figured that a certain degree of technical demand was needed so as to ensure that this contribution is indeed exceptional, to ensure that the value the image adds to the encyclopedia is at it's maximum. With the advent of exceptional photographers, this purpose was forgotten, and the bar set at unreasonable heights only they, with their incredible talent and incredible gear, can match - unreasonable simply because if the image reaches that bar, which is now tantamount to perfection, it won't add anything to the project a slightly weaker image (technically) doesn't add.

Again, for clarity's sake, I'm not suggesting we end the high bar - no, I'm suggesting we lower it to the minimum possible where the pictures still grant maximum value for the project - which is still pretty high. And to this end, I took a small trip to what should be (and, If I recall correctly, once was) the cornerstone of this project: The criteria themselves.

And then I saw it, as I'm sure anyone reading them would. The first two and the last are the effective technical criteria, and they occupy most of the page, being the most detailed ones all around. Number 3 is the only one close to them in size. In contrast, numbers 5 and 6, the encyclopedic ones, are minimal - being surpassed even by the caption criterion, which is, I would say, the most irrelevant.

This clearly reflects the attitude that has, over the years, taken over this little webspace. A lust for technical prowess, with the contribution to the encyclopedia being pushed under the rug. I would like to remind all the present that this is not a photographic competition, it is, simply put, an encyclopedia - and that the encyclopedic value, and not technical merit, is the high card here. With this in mind, I'm here to propose a series of changes to the criterion and the voting process itself.

First, reword the criteria so that they equally compartmentalize the technical and encyclopedic merits of the image, but make sure they emphasize that technicalities are there only to ensure encyclopedic value - care also has to be taken so that the new criteria are clearly worded in a way that no confusion can arise from reading them.

Second, make the voting process something less subjective by using these very criteria. If everybody has to base their votes and opinions on the criteria themselves, we have a much cleaner process in that it is based on something more objective that it is now - far too many times, pictures get all sorts of minimal flaws noticed and their massive encyclopedic value unnoticed. This would not happen if people had to reflect on all the points of the criteria, as these would cover all the potential merits of an image.

Third, and this one is thought out for the newcomers to the project, give the criteria link some more visibility in the page - I believe that it will be much easier for new voters to add their input to the discussions if they have an objective list of points to cover. Sure, it's a little more troublesome, but it'll ensure that any newcomers vote is as valuable as it could be. Fourth, with the votes based on the criterion, closers will have base whether or not to promote an image not on the number of votes that swing one side or the other, but rather on the images compliance with each of the criterion. More complicated , yes. But who said that good results were easy?

In conclusion, I would like to say that now is the time for action. Let's take Janke's departure as something of a wake up call and attempt to change the process itself so that it returns to what it was supposed to be - the identification of images which contribute exceptionally to the encyclopedia, and not just exceptional images - so that we can save this little train before it flies straight off the tracks. Wikipedia is not a photo line up where we pick the prettiest, the best. It is an encyclopedia where we, here at FPC, are supposed to pick those which add the most to the encyclopedia.

Mad Tinman T C 22:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the criteria are more elaborate on technical points because those are the areas most people want clarification on. Any experienced editor knows how to evaluate EV, it doesn't need spelling out (although it is spelled out a little more in the footnotes and linked examples). However not all editors know how to evaluate image quality, and this does need spelling out in detail. I kind of agree with your other points but don't see why we should force people to be more criterion-objective. If anything they're observed too literally as it is; I'd sooner appeal to people to analyse thier first impressions more, their gut instinct if you will. I'd rather an image was inexplicably compelling than merely ticked all the boxes. Those criteria are techincal minima which, these days, aren't so hard to achieve; the tough thing IMO is getting a great shot besides them, and sometimes despite them, promoted to FP. mikaultalk 01:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Something Mad Tinman didn't say but it is crucial to this discussion is that "article" and "picture" cannot be evaluated separately. A wonderful picture in a poor article has little EV. That is why I'm insisting that creating stubs to host FP candidates or spamming existing articles with our self-nominated pictures is not a good practise. Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd have to disagree there, an image can have excellent EV in an otherwise poor article. Spamming isn't so good though. The creation of stubs for things that are not yet documented can't hurt the encyclopaedia, providing they meet the notability guidelines and are adequately referenced. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't say I really agree with the OP. Regarding (1), we now have the Valued Pictures project for images that have good EV, but maybe not so good technical quality. As I understand it, FPs should aim to be both high EV and high technical quality (allowing some wiggle room for rare/historical pictures).
Regarding (2), I'm not sure how much more straightforward you can make the !voting process, because !voting is really a judgment call. That doesn't mean it's subjective (that would be a matter of taste) but it can't be laid out in checkbox form -- you need to balance a number of factors (technical quality, accuracy, is it informative, representative, how does it impact the article...) and come to your own judgment. Pictures will be stronger in some aspects than others and you have to consider what is the most important. I don't see these elements as binary choices.
Regarding (3), I think the Criteria are already prominently linked on FPC.
Regarding (4), You can't take apart someone's judgment and assemble the pieces into some collective decision -- the pieces are considered all together in one person's mind and don't have the same meaning in isolation.
Regarding Alves' comment, we don't want to give up the division of labor: let photographers specialize in taking photographs, and let article writers write the articles. The photog/nominator is responsible for good placement of the image to ensure he or she doesn't mess up the article, but shouldn't have to do major surgery on the text just to nominate an image. We'll lose output if nominators can only post images to articles they have the expertise and inclination to do major work on.
All that said, I do agree EV is the high card and maybe we have too much bias in favor of technical quality. Maybe we could stand to better emphasize that fact but I don't support gutting the whole process. Fletcher (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

List of contributors

I run a bot that has maintained List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations for quite some time and have expanded its duties to include maintenance of similar pages for featured lists (WP:WBFLN), and featured topics (WP:WBFTN). I was asked several months ago to create such a page for featured pictures. I've started compiling by-year summary lists, see Wikipedia:Featured pictures promoted in 2004 and Wikipedia:Featured pictures promoted in 2005 and before going too far with this I thought I'd solicit some input here.

Reading the above threads, I gather there's a feeling from at least some folks that there's already an overly competitive attitude here. So, first question, is there a consensus that creating a list similar to WP:WBFAN is a good idea? As for WBFAN, the intent would be to honor those Wikipedians who have spent time and effort contributing featured content. If there's a strong sentiment that this would add to an already unpleasantly competitive atmosphere, I certainly don't want to make things worse.

Second question - assuming such a list were to be created my thought is that the default sort order would be by decreasing number of submitted (original) FPs with ★ characters linked to the images (this would be from the "source" column, currently only populated at Wikipedia:Featured pictures promoted in 2004#Promoted in December 2004), with additional counts of uploaded and nominated FPs in their own (sortable) columns. Like at WBFAN, I'd be inclined to keep stars using ☆ for submitted FPs that were later delisted.

Feedback welcomed. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much for the input. I asked for that list and would still support it. Hoping others feel the same. DurovaCharge! 18:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd support it too. It looks like a great summary of nominations and I don't think the issue of competition is a real one. It seems clear we have some issues but I suspect that we have already found plenty of common ground and it will blow over with time. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 19:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I actually have considered this twice. Support. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a little friendly competition is a good thing, if it encourages contribution of new high quality images. In a volunteer project like this you have to "pay" people with emotional rewards, and this is one way to do it. That said, we have a strange situation in that FPC nominators are often sole creators and also voters on others' nominations, which definitely introduces the possibility of bias -- which will get worse the more competitive the atmosphere. (Not sure how this compares to other featured content projects.) We also don't want to promote any kind of halo effect where some contributors' noms are not scrutinized because of who they are (or conversely, judged more harshly because "Diliff that photographer has done better"). So I don't object to the idea, but I don't think we should be linking or even mentioning it on FPC like it's some kind of horserace. Fletcher (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course. The project is becoming more and more of a vote for everything, especially RFA and FPC. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 23:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
FPC is no different from other featured processes in that regard. Actually it tends to be a positive thing when a substantial share of the voters are made up of people who also contribute nominations (at least occasionally), because feedback from people who have gone the distance themselves tends to be better informed. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 23:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that's more of a hope than a truth. There are people at FAC who review who have never brought an article to FA, let alone one. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 14:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think, though, that one of the complaints leveled at us regular contributors is that we've taken the FPC processes and standards in a direction that is somehow counterproductive to the encyclopaedia. I disagree personally and as I said above, I think we all still aim to highlight the best images - there is no significant self-promotion beyond the obvious fact that some of us nominate our own images (which do often get shot down!). Obviously the criteria and where the bar is set is a continuously evolving thing, and while we may oppose some proposals for change, I don't think it is because we're anti-change or anti-outsiders. I think it is just that we have our own opinions and don't see how the change would benefit the project. Generally, things are the way they are because they've been honed over time. Not because we're insular and and precious. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm concerned about here that works differently at FAC is the awarding of the "credit". By the time an article gets to FA it's very, very, very rarely (never?) the work of any one person, so the users in the WBFAN list are the nominators - the point being that getting an article to FA status requires being willing to respond to issues that are inevitably raised (i.e. FAC is not a binary thumbs up or thumbs down vote, it's a process where criticisms are meant to be fixed). WBFAN is meant to "reward" folks for taking this process through to completion. Here, the "credit" seems like it shouldn't go to the nominator since nominating an image is basically trivial (and generally the image is the image - the nominator isn't usually expected to, say, Photoshop it in response to criticisms). I'm not sure how to weigh uploaders of "found" images (public domain images) vs. creators of original images. From a practical standpoint, finding a public domain image and uploading it does as much for the project as creating (and uploading) an image so my first thought was that each upload of a FP should count equally. On the flip side, I know contributing an image you've created (which you could perhaps be selling rather than effectively donating to the world) is tremendously more generous than uploading some spectacular public domain shot. At WBFAN, occasionally folks who are the primary authors of articles someone else takes through FAC express some discontent with the list (this is generally fixable by adding them as co-nominators). Here, if one star were awarded for each FP upload would the folks who create images feel slighted ("hey, why is <somebody> above me - all they do is upload PD images when I've taken the ones I've nominated?")? Conversely, if only image creators are "honored" would folks who find spectacular PD images feel slighted? Should one snap of the shutter count the same as 50 hours of painstaking restoration of an historic PD image? Should the nominator get any "credit" at all (the argument for is that without nominations, there would be no FPs, so making the effort to nominate is critically important)? How should delisted FPs be handled? How about FPs later found to have licensing issues?

To make this somewhat more concrete, I'll take a stab at creating a list based (for now) on Wikipedia:Featured pictures promoted in 2004 (which is essentially complete - if anyone can figure out the remaining unfilled in uploaders I'd appreciate it). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My view:
1. Don't distinguish between Wikipedian and PD sources. A FP is a FP; it's the result that matters. I don't see how you can accurately generalize which source is more challenging or valuable. Some photos come easier than others; some PD scans are harder to find or take more restoration.
2. Give a half star or different-colored star to nominators who are not uploaders/creators, and to contributors of retouchings (color balance, sharpening, etc.) that get promoted. If that's not workable, give everyone the same credit and have different tables collated by uploaders/nominators/retouchers.
3. For delisted entries just do the same thing as with FAs, the unshaded star. Images with licensing issues will have to be delisted, if not deleted. But more likely they won't be promoted in the first place. Just My $.02. Fletcher (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put up an initial draft (using 2004 data) at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured picture contributions. This version awards stars for uploads, but has sortable columns with counts for creations and nominations. Retouchings (subsequent uploads of the same image?) are not (yet) captured anywhere. Doing so would require a new column in the tables at Wikipedia:Featured pictures promoted in 2004. Would this be important to capture? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the draft. I didn't see any delisted stars, not sure if it's a bug or coincidence. Note that retouchings are typically separate files (e.g. "Picture_edit.JPG"), as opposed to new versions of the same file. It's seen as bad form to upload an edit over another user's original, given that edits are often themselves contentious, and need to be compared against the original. Thus,is it possible you are capturing retouched versions because the retoucher uploads his or her own file, which may be the one promoted? Here is an example of a retouched FP, where the user is shown as jjron, but the original upload is here, by Tivedshambo. I don't mind so much if jjron gets a credit for his edit, but it seems wrong to neglect Tivedshambo who contributed the outstanding photo in the first place. Do you think that might be happening? Fletcher (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The bits that figure out whether the picture has been delisted and the main page appearance dates are not implemented yet (nearly all of the 2004 FPs have been delisted by now). I filled in the uploader column for the 2004 FPs by hand, often by looking at the file history for the deleted en: versions (most of these were originally uploaded to en: but are now on commons, occasionally under different names - I'm an admin so can see the history of the deleted en: version and even then some of these seem to be beyond reckoning). In any event, the intent is to list the original uploader. For current noms I assume this would be much easier - hopefully automatable, although if it's common for user A to upload an image that is then retouched by user B and promoted under a different name than the original upload I'm not sure how this could be fully automated (clearly the license information needs to mention user A, but not necessarily the file name and definitely not in any form easy to machine parse). My goal is to make the maintenance of the by-year summaries completely automated - the table with the stars will definitely be generated automatically from the by-year summary files. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning that a share of restoration work is collaborative and conominated. DurovaCharge! 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi, it's getting pretty near decision time for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/White House architectural plan, which so far has three supports and no opposes. Would really appreciate more opinions, pro or con. Occasionally a restoration takes more than the usual time and has more than the usual EV. This is both: it took several days to restore a a 200-year-old plan for the White House. If people dislike it, fine. It'd be a shame to see it fail for lack of input, though. Best, DurovaCharge! 18:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of captions

With the caption playing a role in FP nominations, I don't understand why the caption that is thought up at FPC isn't included (added or used as a replacement) on the FP after gaining FP status. Two images I've nominated had (what I thought to be) great captions at FPC, but they were not used to replace the old caption of the file. Since we look at captions in determining FP, shouldn't we update the actual file with the new caption so the FP has a quality caption that is descriptive, wikified, clear, and complete? Granted I know that captions are not #1 priority, and they shouldn't be, but I have seen FPs with poor captions that take away from their quality. I plan on replacing the captions on the images I promoted, since it's my right (and obligation, really) as a Wikipedian, but can we make this a regular occrance in the future? I think a good caption is the icing on the cake that can (at least sometimes) make or break the FP, and captions thought up for FPC are quality since many users comment on them and even offer conditional support for images on the basis of captions. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good point. I never really understood that caption requirement. The FPC caption is only accessible via a link from the image page, or where used links. It seems for me to be more valuable to have a good and thorough description on the image file page. This is where all relevant information regarding the image should be. Moreover, a caption seems to be primarily targeting a specific use in a specific article. In reality a good FP is often in use or in potential use in several different article, with quite different scopes. Therefore it seems more relevant for me to have a good description of the image on the image page, which is focused on the image, the conditions, source, background, location, etc. and then let it be up to the article writer to use that information in the context of a specific article. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit of a loaded situation. The caption requirement says something about the caption should contain sufficient context for voters at FPC. Now the context at FPC where the image is removed from its article could obviously be quite different from that in the article where it is in it's full context. Thus the article caption may be quite a bit simpler than at FPC. A taxobox image may have no caption at all. FWIW I pretty much completely agree with Slaunger - ideally the image page should contain an excellent description, the caption at FPC should be good enough to inform 'voters' without them necessarily having to read the full article, and captions in the article should place the image in context. Personally I do think it's incumbent on the nominator to ensure that the image is appropriately placed in an article and appropriately captioned therein. Perhaps that caption criteria should be tweaked to focus more on the image page description? This also came up as an issue in the above discussion on geocoding. --jjron (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I meant nothing with respect to captions in articles. Typically the caption for FPC is a general caption so that reviewers lay to the subject can understand it. Based on that assessment, this caption could be very useful on the image's file page so that any viewer can know what the image is about without having to flip back to the article page (sometimes the article page has a better caption than the file page, even for FPs). ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well I agree with that sentiment, as mentioned above. Many images (definitely including numerous FPs) have highly deficient descriptions on their image page, and I have commented on this recently at FPC. --jjron (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPC link

Is it possible to put a link(s) to WP:VPC on the FPC page, maybe after the suggestion "Your comments are also appreciated on images at Picture peer review" (right after the table of contents). Thanks. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • There is currently the huge orange thing at the top of the page, but that doesn't seem like it'd be permanent. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The big orange thing is on this talk page -- I think he means the project page. I don't object. Fletcher (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Update: added a link. BRD as you please. If I completely broke all of FPC I'll just be taking another vacation... Fletcher (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Ultimately we should add a link to the "Featured content" box at the top right of the FPC page, but I think that perhaps should wait till we are sure VPC is a going concern. Last I checked it was pretty quiet, and there's still been nothing promoted after almost a month. --jjron (talk) 12:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Well that's mostly due to a lack of participation... another couple of opinions would help some of the pictures reach a consensus. Intothewoods29 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
            • I honestly haven't had (taken?) the time to get my head around the VPC criteria yet, so haven't commented and rarely look. I commented before it opened that I didn't agree in principle with what it appeared some of the criteria were going to be, or the set up in general (perhaps I was a bit possessive as I originally proposed the idea here, and for mine it was made a bit more complex than I had envisaged and what I think it should be, but I haven't tried to shoot it down as I don't own the concept). Is it the case there that noms stay open until they have attracted enough 'votes', regardless of how long that takes? I note there's a section there called "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!", but that doesn't seem to get used. --jjron (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm no expert (you'd want to ask User:Elucidate about that) but I think right now we're more concerned with getting the project off the ground. It's a bit hard to fail something if only 3 people (to our knowledge) have seen it. I'm not sure what will happen in the future, but any !votes either way would be much appreciated. Intothewoods29 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FPC Closures - take care

Can I just remind all closers to check guidelines and previous examples closely. I have just closed one of the images that's been hanging around for too long and found that no one has been adding the captions to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 15 since MER-C last closed an image. Would hate for him to come back and give us all a collective slap on the wrist for it! --jjron (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I fixed it very shortly after you added the new image and I noticed too, I'd just been copying the previous entry when making additions and never scrolled down far enough to see the captions there. This is what it looked like if anyone is interested. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Good job. Just for the record, it wasn't just the images NS had closed that were missing the captions, but he has corrected all of them. --jjron (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with Picture of the Year?

Hi, I'm sorry if this isn't the right place to ask, but I've been looking for people who could help out with Picture of the Year 2008. The people in charge of the project retired and the project has been completely abandoned since November. I've already asked at the Commons and WP village pumps, and someone pointed me to ask here. Is there anyone who is able to help out with it? I'm very sad that no one is working on it, I want POTY to still happen! :( Kreachure (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not a bad place to ask, but just wondering if you have asked at Commons FPC talk? While you will find some informed people here and some crossover editors, the aims of Commons and WP FPC are somewhat different. It may also be worth asking at the other picture projects on Commons such as Quality Images and Valued Images, though I guess most of those editors would check Commons FPC as well. --jjron (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Additional Input

Hi, The nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greenbottle fly eating is approaching closing time and so far has received only 3 supports and 0 opposes. I would appreciate any additional feedback both positive or negative. Happy New Year, Muhammad(talk) 07:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What should I do about this

A month or two after the promotion of this image:

Derwent river as seen from Poimenna Reserve, Austins Ferry

Thumbnail generation started failing at all sizes. I have enquired on IRC and at the technical village pump where some users were able to tell me that thumbnail generation failed due the script that is doing the thumbnailing exceeding it's memory limit. They just suggested uploading a reduced size version, but I don't really want to do that, and other big images seem to work fine. At current rate someone is going to remove it from the articles sooner or later. Any suggestions? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that is a bit annoying. I don't see the problem with uploading a reduced size image for use in the article(s) as long as there is a clear link to the larger one on the image page. That said, I don't think Commons particularly likes that idea as I did it once and one of the two images got slapped with a candidate for deletion because it was essentially a duplicate, so who knows. :-) I don't think I've ever had that problem before with any of my images... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Just wondering. Have you tried re-uploading under a different name to see if that works? If it did, then shift the FP stuff to the new version and put it in the articles, and tag the old one for deletion. --jjron (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Might give that a try, I've put a smaller thumbnail with a link to articles for the time being. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I8 Deletions of Featured Pictures

This was somewhat discussed up there, but I'd like to ask specifically: should images that are featured on en be deleted under I8, since they are on commons? Or, since they are specifically featured here, should they be retained? seresin ( ¡? )  23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We need a local description page for each featured (and formerly featured) picture to keep the categories and picture of the day histories complete (I've noticed a couple that were missing and have created them). It didn't used to be the case, but for quite a while now media files have been able to be undeleted so I don't think there's really much downside risk in deleting duplicate media from en. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch help needed

MER-C started Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFPreview for the Signpost, and Awadewit and I each did some more work for it, but it's still not ready for primetime, and additional help from knowledgeable FP people is welcome. It should be patterned after the Featured sounds dispatch; that is, it should explain the criteria and the process to a reader who knows nothing about FP, with appropriate links and defintions. As of now, it's a bit long, but doesn't really explain and link everything for the uninitiated reader. It needs less length, more simple definition to encourage FP input. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of guidelines for documents as featured pictures

Per the discussion here and elsewhere, I'm opening up this section as a forum to discuss the development of principles to guide the consideration of documents as featured pictures. By "documents" I mean images that consist primarily of text, such as:

Featured text pictures
c. 1600 B.C. 1787 1823 1898 1945 1945
Edwin Smith Papyrus v2.jpg Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg United States Declaration of Independence.jpg J accuse.jpg Instrument of surrender Japan2.jpg German instrument of surrender2.jpg

To start the discussion, I'll add some bullet-point statements below, and we can discuss whether these statements reflect the consensus of the principles to guide consideration of documents:

  • All of the text should be legible.
    • I would say that as much of the image as is possible should be legible. If the image cannot be read or perceived in detail, it loses a good deal of encyclopaedic value. Unless completely unavoidable, and in mitigating circumstances where extraordinary encyclopaedic value can stand in for legibility and clarity, a document must be entirely legible. Elucidate (light up) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, with the exception of signatures, comments in the margin, basically anything scantily handwritten that is not part of the original document. Equally, a document's being genuinely defaced in small part might be acceptable if outweighed by an exceptional encyclopaedic value. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • If the text is not in the English language, then, if possible, a translation of the text should be included on the image page.
    • Well, I am in agreement with this statement. If the image does not have a translation from the language it is in, then it loses EV for the casual reader, who will not be able to understand the text and thus will be unable to appreciate it from an encyclopaedic point of view. Understanding a text makes it more relevant to the reader on a base level, and better allows them to interpret its importance. Elucidate (light up) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems good. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

  • It is preferred that the color of the document be (alt. 1: consistent with the color of the document when it was originally created)/(alt. 2: consistent with the color of a contemporary original).
    • This is a good point. I've seen many excellent restorations of valuable texts, archaic or otherwise, that are coloured differently to the originals. Now, while the colour change is often a part of the process of restoration, if the change is too great then the image loses a portion of its value. I suggest that (in accordance with alternative one) the image must be consistent with the colour of the document when it was originally created, unless a compromise is achieved between legibility and the original colouring. If the original colouring of the document must be changed in order for the document to be read, then such colour change is acceptable. Otherwise, the difference in colour between the original and the restored version must be negligible. Elucidate (light up) 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Definitely alternative 1, on the assumption that the document was originally legible. I'll list two exceptions that I can think of. (1) The original was created illegible to commit a feint or fraud, based on the belief by the opposing side that a message was contained in the document, but the text, if recovered, would in fact have been gobbledegook (sp?). In this case, whatever manipulation is necessary to reveal the text would probably be a valuable addition to the article. (2) The message was not originally visible - magic ink comes to mind. In the latter case, its appearance after recovery of the message should be our coloring aim. In conclusion, Elucidate and I can agree on this criterion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really think the color is that important. If the color has faded over the years, I think that's OK, but I also think it's OK for the color to be tweaked in the restoration to make it more legible or closer to the original color. Kaldari (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

Remember this debate about the restoration German instrument of surrender?
  • (placeholder for bullet-point statements)

Spikebrennan (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The facsimile should provide encyclopaedic value that could not be conveyed by the raw text itself.

While there is nothing wrong with discussion, I'm not convinced there is a need for additional guidelines, and I oppose any instruction creep. The points above are mostly self-evident in light of the Criteria, yet still ambiguous to require discussion in individual noms, which is just what we do now. Fletcher (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Front page status of featured documents

I just want to be honest about this. I don't believe facsimiles should take the featured picture spot on the front page. I think that spot should be reserved for things that stimulate the reader through their visual appeal at thumbnail size (I know front page size is a little bit larger than thumbnail, but you get the point). Of course, the documents should get their special place within Portal:Featured content. Can we agree on that? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's useful to include them on the webpage. For instance, it might lead students to tell their teacher bout them, leading to teachers getting a useful educational tool. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the text that makes the difference here. Want to send all text to the back of the bus? What year is this? What millennium is this? Actually, the text is already at the back of the bus - ever seen a text credit on Wikipedia?

Why segregate text images, as opposed to all other categories of featured picture? DurovaCharge! 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd just explained that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that featured documents have just as much the right to appear on the main page as do regular FPs. There is no reason to segregate text images. All it would do is provoke confusion, incite excess categorization, and reduce their value in the eyes of a casual reader or editor. Though they may not be as 'visually stimulating' as other FPs, it is their subject matter and history that makes them interesting and valuable to this encyclopaedia. Editors that restore these text images also deserve to see their hard work recognized. Thus, not putting these images on the main page makes the work of the restorers seem less valuable, and not just the image itself. I am fully opposed to this. Elucidate (light up) 10:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Wikipedia has no rule that says that contributors get to have their work "recognised". For instance, we don't give a shit about who writes FAs. I'm sorry, but it's true. As I've said before, scanned text matters are an entirely different thing from photographs, electron micrographs, paintings, drawings, graphical illustrations, and I am absolutely convinced that everyone contributing to this discussion is perfectly capable of making that distinction and of seeing that it's intuitive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Lets be civil, here. Though I understand and acknowledge your point of view, I do not agree with it. Regardless of how 'capable' I am in making this distinction, my POV hasn't changed. To me, scanned text should be included on the main page, as well as "photographs, electron micrographs, paintings, drawings, [and] graphical illustrations." Elucidate (light up) 19:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Elucidate puts it well. DurovaCharge! 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, never contemplated treating "documents" as a category distinct from "pictures" (with the implication that a "document" would not be eligible for consideration as a featured picture under the existing FPC framework). Rather, I see "documents" as a subset of "pictures"--one where the consideration of the given document as a featured picture candidate merits evaluation of certain additional criteria. Some categories of "pictures" warrant looking at additional criteria. Maps, for example. Videos are perhaps another. Diagrams are perhaps a third. Spikebrennan (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Name the baby

Okay, I've seen several variants now. Documents, scripts, facsimiles, text pictures - what's best to use? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no need for any of these proposed changes. FPC was handling text candidates fine before the Nixon letter, and consensus appears to be clear there. Better to avoid Wikipedia:Instruction creep. DurovaCharge! 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some of what has been proposed (like the general guidelines) is useful, but there is no need to cause undue complications. Featured documents should have the same rights, and be treated in the same manner, as featured pictures. If there is any need for more discussion on the subjects, or the introduction of new procedure/s, then let it be done when it needs to be. For now, the system works perfectly. If needs be, the discussed guidelnes may be adopted, but for now I see no need. Elucidate (light up) 08:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove things from the project, and that's what it boils down to here. Fletcher (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charon - Divine Comedy (redux)

I hate to be a pain, but this kind of got hijacked by an off-topic discussion, but it's done now, id there any chance I could encourage people to vote? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Looks like everyone got distracted back there. Elucidate (light up) 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about delisted FP

Going through old FP noms, I noticed a delisting here, basically on size grounds. While looking up the history of the image I also noticed it's on commons, in a larger format, see commons:File:Catedral_de_Segovia.jpg (and, ahem, was at the point of the delisting as well). If the only reason it was delisted was size, should it be renominated? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, size was the principal argument used in the delist, but it misses many other criteria too, and would have almost no hope of passing on today's standards, e.g., it's cutoff at the sides, awkwardly cropped at the bottom, has a lot of jpg artifacting, and has a slightly uncomfortable perspective distortion. Renominate if you like, but I'd suggest that will be the outcome. --jjron (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Where should cars go?

With the recent promotion of a few car FPs and noms of a few more, perhaps we need to decide where they should be classified as FPs. ATM there is one at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Lifestyle, one at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Others, and one at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery. Suggestions or preferences? --jjron (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "Engineering and technology/Cars" ? Or, even better perhaps, make a new top category for "vehicles and transport"? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Not bad thinking. I'm not sure we have enough for a whole new top category. The aircraft being vehicles/transport and having their own section could maybe be bit confusing for some I guess, but we work with other possible conflicts. What if we combined your idea and say made "Engineering and technology/Vehicles" where not just the cars, but the boats, trains, motorcycles, etc we have featured could go (obviously excluding those that belong somewhere else, like with the entertainment/sport or war pics). --jjron (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would think Transport should have its own section rather than just vehicles that way it would cover roads, railways and related technologies. But it should probably be a sub category of Engineering and Technology rather than a main category or it would become too far removed from such things as space travel. Mfield (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair point - not sure we have anything that shows the carriageway as an FP, but it's possible (I'm thinking there might actually be a diagram FP about roundabouts or something). So you'd suggest "Engineering and technology/Transport". --jjron (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
E&T/Vehicles sounds fine to me. Transport seems a little too broad with the roads and bridges thrown in with the cars. Wronkiew (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Transport has too broad a scope, and it would be better to use Engineering and technology/Vehicles. Elucidate (light up) 19:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing Nominations

The FPC page has 41, yes you read right, 41 nominations and some of them have been there for more than 7 days and a few almost 7 days. I think some of these should be closed, as the page is quite long and users with slow internet speeds will have problems opening the FPC page, I do. I would close, but I am afraid of the "wrath of MER-C", his vacation time is almost up :) --Muhammad(talk) 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Currently we have 10 that need to be closed. I'm going to be bold and do a close. SpencerT♦C 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical Standards

Is it just me or has been there a bit of a drop in the technical standards required of late? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I have observed that too. One suspicion was that there may have been some of us feeling guilty about all of the negativity and bickering over technical standards and the whole visually-impressive-but-technically-flawed images vs technically-impressive-but-boring images debate recently, and perhaps it subconsciously came through in less strict interpretations of the rules. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Was just thinking today that there seemed to be an unusually high number of supports in general. I was probably thinking more that there had been a drop in EV standards myself, with anything technically good enough being automatically supported. I sort of put it down to a drop off in the 'old' voters and the influx of a new group of voters, who maybe aren't so familiar with the standards. But can't help thinking that perhaps people are - I hate to say it - becoming scared to oppose? I'm almost thinking the noms not getting many 'votes' are at least in some cases being silently opposed. Also you may have missed it, but I saw this comment the other day and found it interesting: A trend I've noticed. Can't help but think if one person is saying it, there's probably a hundred or a thousand thinking it. --jjron (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Definitely agree with you there. I think some of us perhaps are a little scared to oppose and are essentially stating our true opinions by not voting in certain situations. But that is a bit counterproductive, as sub-standard images will make it through as a result of inaction. It is a tricky situation. I have always thought, even from back at the first signs of strain prior to Janke departing, that most of what people were describing as negativity in the FPC community was just high standards and perhaps at times a slight lack of tact. It is hard to be maintain high standards without coming across as elitist, I think. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Inpute requested at Sunset

This is a bit of an unusual post but the lead image on Sunset is in need of an upgrade however there are a number of replacement candidates. Your input is requested at the discussion on the talkpage. Thanks --Fir0002 00:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

More inut required

Hi, can we have some more input at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Erik Karlsson nomination which is approaching closing time? --Muhammad(talk) 17:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

possible nomination

I don't know enough about the standards for images here, but I think File:WytheGeorge.jpg is a beautiful image. If someone else also thinks so, please nominate it. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 08:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, its much too small and hence does not meet the minimum requirement of 1000px --Muhammad(talk) 11:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
There is WP:VPC of course, I'd suggest peer review rather than the talk page in future though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obamania

We have three nominations at FPC regarding President Obama and one previously featured image. With the craze around Obama, we will probably get tens of more good images of him in the next 4 or 8 years. Are all these going to be featured? Should there be a limit for the number of FPs of a single person? --Muhammad(talk) 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree. There are going to be better feature picture candidates in the future about the actions that Obama will take. In my opinion, we should only allow 2 pictures of Obama to be featured regarding the inauguration and election events. 3 at the most. ZooFari 01:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeking more reviews for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portolan chart of the Mediterranean

It's close to closing time, would appreciate a few more reviews. Thanks. :) DurovaCharge! 18:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Handy template for image discussion

Europe about 90 million years ago. The landmass in the top left corner is Greenland, and the left edge of the one in the middle is Norway.

This handy template just came to my attention - it's pretty powerful and I haven't seen it used ever before so I thought regulars here would like to know it exists too. It allows you to zoom, crop and annotate an image to highlight part of it etc. without having to create and upload an edit. Might be useful for those times when you want to point out what bit of an image you are discussing without having to create a temporary file just for the duration of the nom. Here's an example of what it can do...

and here's the page that gives you all the options Template:Annotated image. Mfield (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Misattribution on WP:FP

Durova does some excellent work. However, is it necessary to give her credit for my work as well?

In Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Others, there are three Doré prints I worked very hard on. The Deluge is credited to Mike Lifeguard, who did a four-second edit because he had Photoshop, which is faster at correcting pencil marks than GIMP, after I had prepared the rest of it.

Charon is credited to Durova, who never touched the thing.

The Hoarders and wasters, a co-nom of me and Durova where we did about equal work, is credited solely to her.

Oh,a nd look! the George_du_Maurier print File:Punch_-_Masculine_beauty_retouched1.png, a co-nom by me and Durova where I actually did pretty much all the edting work (she helped with documentation and figuring out encyclopedic uses), is again credited solely to her. Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Lifestyle

Have I offended someone at some point? Or is it just that people presume that all older works are by Durova, and don't even bother to check?

Also, obviously, I don't edit under the same name here as on commons, but, while I don't want it mentioned for websearch reasons, I did think it was pretty obvious what my handle on Commons is by now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Ah I was curious about the uploader not seeming to have any relationship to either of the nominators! Apologies for the offense, but I just basically copied what the last closer had done for the other Dore and then left the note on your talkpage (which was before I saw this) --Fir0002 11:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that Charon thing was interesting. I nominated it under this nick, I upload it under my commons nick, Durova gets credit anyway. For the record, I'm more amused than offended (the tone probably doesn't come out quite right - it's meant to be fairly sarcastic, but good-natured.), but figured if I didn't speak up then all my work would continue to become Durova's. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hadn't looked at the FP notes after promotion! By all means, Shoemaker ought to have credit where credit is due. DurovaCharge! 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
In my case I've just been looking at the image uploader. I'll have to look at the nominations in future though. By the time you list all the problematic ones it'd be just quicker to change them yourself in this case, so feel free to do so Noodle snacks (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I donðt know if you were involved with anything, but one thing that got credited to Durrova she neither uploaded nor nominated. Both were done by me. Also, I think I've got them all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
If I am involved (I have done a fair number of closing recently), then that'd be the cause of the problem Noodle snacks (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup

Just to note, Durova was not at all involved with this misattribution. This was solely a matter of closing admins making presumptions about who did things. I've changed the thread title to avoid accidentally casting her in a negative light over the actions of others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for images

Please can you see my suggestion at WT:FA#Images? Simply south not SS, sorry 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Input Required

Your comments here and here would be much welcome. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Same deal here if users wouldn't mind :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SVG edit request

Kind of tacky of me to do this, I know, but I need an edit made to an SVG and I know many of you are experts in Photoshop. I'm not good with Inkscape and can't get this to work the way I want it. To the right is a map of New York State showing a number of counties highlighted. I need that (poor quality) PNG in a higher quality SVG format. Commons has a depository of NYS County maps. I'm sure it will be only a form of copy+paste, but I couldn't get it to work in Inkscape. The colors don't have to be perfect, just represented in the same way (i.e. red and pink for the given counties). Thanks in advance. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You should post this request to the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop where there are some people who are really quick with Inkscape and more than happy to help. Mfield (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks for the help! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Content already featured on commons

Resolved: Yep, I was being stupid.

I have nothing specific in mind but was wondering, if a picture is featured on Commons but the uploader is not present on en.wiki can I (or someone else) nominate it for feature pictured status here—assuming of course it meets the additional criteria of encyclopedic value etc. Just thought I'd ask because it isn't much work for the nominator who is effectively just "stealing" someone elses work, and being rewarded for doing so. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think it is a problem. The nominator is hardly being rewarded for someone else's work and the original author is credited for the creation. The purpose of FPs is not personal glory. It is merely to highlight the picture itself, with credit to the author secondary. If you highlight it and others agree with you, so much the better. It doesn't matter if you're the author or not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes "rewarded" was the wrong word on my part. I originally thought that if the author is not on en.wiki that he wouldn't get accredited, however I forgot that the picture will still go back to Commons where he can be accredited through the author field. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Double standards?

Wounded Knee Massacre: 1,490 × 1,079 pixels, 368 KB, 2 supports and 0 opposes in 7 days.
Wounded Knee Massacre: 4,906 × 3,381 pixels, 11.52 MB, 2 opposes in the first hour and a half.

For a while I've been wondering whether some people's nominations are getting reviewed according to different standards than others. Featured picture candidates is supposed to be about recognizing the site's best visual material.

When the image at left came up a week ago it was obviously an important subject that deserved an FP, and equally obviously not the right image to promote. Blown whites, overcompressed, pen marks in the center. It's sad to see that on a subject so worthy of recognition. So when it was clear that no one else was stepping forward I hunted down a 100MB TIFF file of the massacre scene itself, and offered to share the work and conominate (although nobody took up the offer). It was eerie to discover those bodies as the work unfolded--enough so to blog about.[2] Obviously it isn't possible to go back to 1891 and persuade the Seventh Cavalry to wrap those bodies in different blankets for better contrast. Nor, even if miracles were possible, would that be fitting. It was not easy to capture the extreme brightness differences in this scene with nineteenth century technology, and it was considerable work in Photoshop to bring a very muddy original to its present state. The file size and resolution speaks for itself. Nonetheless, in the first hour and a half this brought on opposes which the other image had not received all week.

So the question to fellow FP reviewers is: are you reviewing the candidate or the nominator? DurovaCharge! 17:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I voted based on my impressions of the picture. I'm new here, was this the wrong thing to do? Sasata (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, if you're new and that's your opinion. Thank you. DurovaCharge! 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently commented on this nomination. VALUED PICTURES EXISTS. Supporters are focusing so much on its value, that they automatically support without following the rubric of FP. This image is low on quality. FP is only for quality images. This image has high value and very educational. VP is only for high value and educational images (and some quality obviously). See my point? If it is best for VP, then nominated there! ZooFari 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
At Wikimedia Commons, where encyclopedic value is not a featured picture criterion, its 'valued images' program has become a ghetto where some people attempt to shunt everything other than modern digital photography. Here encyclopedic value is a criterion for featuring and the FPC standards explicitly allow flexibility with regard to historic technologies. A team of people are working to coax open more of the world's great image archives. One of the persuasive factors in these negotiations is that a portion of the collection may gain attention on Wikipedia's main page after careful volunteer restoration. At Commons the valued image program has some redeeming value: it serves as a repository for nearly 300 language editions of Wikipedia. The local English Wikipedia VP program has no such saving grace. Indeed, if your rationale gains widespread acceptance it may seriously impede real efforts to open valuable material to the public. DurovaCharge! 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you are making some fairly sweeping assumptions about the opinions and actions of some long standing editors who have been heavily involved in FPC and in its processes for a long time and are fully conversant with the FP criteria and with what VP is to FP. En:FPC places importance on encyclopedic value. Image quality has to be weighed against the replaceability and importance of the image and what the image's existence on WP adds to the project. Good restoration is an important part of bringing historically important imagery to life on readers' screens. There's a whole heap more people taking and adding bad snapshots to WP than there are people restoring and uploading historically important and vastly more educational imagery. If featuring restored content encourages people to find, upload and restore more historic imagery then that can only be a plus for the project as a whole. Mfield (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Mfield. It's been a year of hard work raising the bar for historic FPs by seeking and restoring higher quality originals. I could consider nominating material that doesn't quite score at FPC, but not if the VP program tries to move the goalposts. DurovaCharge! 07:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages for images on commons

File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg was recently promoted, but the image is actually at commons:File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg. At Commons, {{Featured picture on}} is used to show it's Featured here at En-Wiki. So why does the page for File:Gaillardia fanfare centered.jpg exist, when it only contains {{FeaturedPicture|File:Gaillardia fanfare.jpg}}? Can't that be deleted or is it supposed to stay?

It needs to be marked here for category reasons. If we didn't mark it, we'd have to jump between multiple websites to find all FPs. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. But why can't the categories be added without the template. After all, the commons template shows up here to say it's Featured here. Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 06:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Technically it would work just as well, I suppose. As long as the featured template is also visible. The site has editors who aren't very image-savvy and occasionally an FP gets removed from an article where it belongs. Having a featured tag helps. DurovaCharge! 07:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yawn... not again and other miscellany

Male troll with female sockpuppet. In light of recent ANI events someone seriously suggested nomming this for FP. Doubt it would pass, but a chuckle never hurts.

No, this is not a rant on incompetence or the massive backlog (unless you want one). 718smiley.svg The reason why I'm here is because yet another FP regular has been sitebanned for sockpuppetry. The relevant discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John254 and Kristen Eriksen. Thank goodness there's this tool which identifies common pages edited by both editors, the (relevant) result set being { Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bergen, Norway }.

I've spent most of the last seven weeks romping across Europe getting to know my new Canon 450D. Unfortunately most of them aren't Wikipedia material because they are the usual touristy silliness, are restricted by copyright/contract problems (for posterity these places are Singapore Zoo, HK Disneyland and a whole lot of France) or are nonsensical in some other way. The useful ones will be uploaded... whenever.

I'll get to work cutting the backlog once I've finished catching up. (I notice with amusement that my above prediction regarding the Image/File changeover was spot on). MER-C 13:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Welcome back, Might I suggest Commons:Tools/Commonist, I find it useful for bulk file uploads. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
    • If that's the only one edited by both editions of John254/John's fantasy chick, then it's an obvious keep for featured picture status. JFC piled on to a unanimous discussion and then J254 closed it. If we discounted both their participations it'd be a snowball promote anyway. DurovaCharge! 18:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad news: my graphics card died yesterday. :( Might be a while before I get things working again. MER-C 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And some good news: found a copy of the JAR floating around, tested it and everything was OK. What the graphics card bustage means is that I will not be able to make substantial modifications of any program due to lack of a decent debugger. MER-C 06:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your hardware problem has to do with a software one.. Unless you mean that the computer that has the debugger is now inoperable due to the graphics card failure? I've got a couple of old ones I could send you ;-) In any case, welcome back. Isn't it a bit indirect flying from the US to Europe via Asia, or was that delibrate? Or am I being assumptuous in thinking you're from the US? Excuse my nosiness.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
You can get "around the world" tickets that are often cheaper than flying in one direction then the other. What work still needs to be done on the program? Noodle snacks (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Not usually cheaper to RTW IMO (but sometimes almost the same price, making it attractive if you have plenty of time to justify the trip!), unless the destination is pretty obscure and requires a lot of separate flights which are not considered part of the one ticket. The problem with RTW tickets is often the airport taxes, which tend to add up when all you want to do is go from A to B and back to A again. But yes, I know what you mean. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
(@Diliff) That's right. And yes, your assumption about where I live is wrong. (@Noodle snacks) The program isn't quite complete yet, I foresee myself adding automatic replacement with edits and removal of {{fpc}} sometime in the future. Not to mention correcting any major breakage that Brion forces upon us. MER-C 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected then! It wasn't actually just an assumption - I thought it had been mentioned at some point and that your contribution patterns seemed to suggest that part of the world. Not stalking - honest! :-) So where are you from, or shall it remain nameless? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The land of droughts and flooding rains. MER-C 11:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Where beer does flow and men chunder? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW... Myself and many others have long suspected the existance of an insidious, Australian FPC cabal, and that has just confirmed it. I can't believe it has taken me so long to find evidence of our collusion... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Any more images?

Howdy!!! Hey, not to cause any more drama, but we're running short on nominations at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. If you have any non-FPC quality but high EV images, please don't hesitate to nominate them. (Just as clarification, this isn't an attempt to sneak images away from the far-superior FPC process - this is simply a page read by many photographers and image contributors). Thanks! Intothewoods29 (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick links: Candidate page / Criteria (please note criteria 1)

Image description page

Recently, I have noticed some of my images such as File:Craticulina sp.jpg having lost their description box template here at enwiki and instead having a link to the file description page at commons. Is there a way to revert this and display the description on the image page here as well? --Muhammad(talk) 16:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Probably just a missing == Summary ==, does adding them fix what you mean? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Paintings

Be a bit careful with categorising here: Some of the images here are not, in fact, paintings. A Japanese ukiyo-e work may or may not be a painting, but, in fact, the two Hokusai works in the category are prints, not paintings. However, Along the River during Qingming festival is a painting. The Wildlife poster and likewise anything else mass-produced probably isn't a painting, though it may be based on one.

Maybe it's time to add some more categories to our art section. "Oriental art" would avoid the issue of distinguishing oriental prints from oriental paintings - a bit tricky for a closer who doesn't know the subject, as the methods used in both are different from Western art, and appear more similar to each other - and we probably have enough "Engravings and Lithographs" that aren't better filed elsewhere (e.g. history) to justify their own category. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The term 'Oriental' may be offensive to some readers, except in reference to carpets. DurovaCharge! 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? Well, would Southeast Asian art be too confusing? Basically, I don't think that we should expect closers to be able to consistently distinguish, say, Chinese art from Japanese, so a more generic title will help out a bit there. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
East Asian art, perhaps? DurovaCharge! 02:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Works. I've gone ahead and boldly did it. My one remaining worry is that it could be seen as ghettoising the eastern Asian art, but, well, not the intent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what you call it, this is horribly specific. So we now have Artwork: Paintings · East Asian Art · Sculpture · Others. Does anything strike anyone as the odd man out? Why wouldn't you just make a Prints category? Surely anything of any EV will say on its image page (and nomination) if it's a painting or a print, removing the need for expertise by the closer. --jjron (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Final call for under-reviewed nominations

Since under-reviewed nominations form a large portion of the remaining backlog, I will be purging them shortly (maybe tomorrow). As such, your comments are very much appreciated in the following debates:

Even though these are at the promotion threshold, I'd like one or two more comments on these before I promote them.

These two nominations are also under-reviewed but aren't as urgent.

Maybe we need something like User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? (I'd be willing to maintain such a template.) Thanks. And remember: every time you don't comment on a nomination, I kill a featured picture. Please, think of the featured pictures. 718smiley.svg MER-C 04:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Format conversion request

Resolved: File converted.

For some odd reason my software isn't letting me save this in .jpg format. WMF's software refuses to thumbnail a .png of this size. Would someone help with a format conversion please? DurovaCharge! 08:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking just to convert the original TIFF to JPEG? Wiki's not even showing me the thumbnail ... which is weird.  LATICS  talk  09:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The non-thumbnailing is normal. MediaWiki can't handle large PNGs without killing the servers. MER-C 09:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, it's just the first time I've come across it.  LATICS  talk  09:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It can't handle large jpgs sometimes either :P Noodle snacks (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, trying to convert to .jpg. Was hoping .jng would be an acceptable substitute. Apparently not. DurovaCharge! 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I would help, but I'm ... lost, I guess. Considering the original TIFF (1,206 × 1,536) is much smaller than the PNG (4,222 × 5,288) you uploaded.  LATICS  talk  21:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks. It's all worked out now. :) DurovaCharge! 22:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Charles Darwin caricature

Is there a reason why this candidacy has remained open for 17 days? DurovaCharge! 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that as of last Monday (the 2nd) there was a ~45 nomination backlog. That said, the consensus isn't very clear on any old nomination remaining and I am undecided on the outcomes. Any ideas? MER-C 06:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly a lot to catch up on. This one was put up with the hope of being ready in time for an anniversary on the February 12. DurovaCharge! 08:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)