Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 26

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

Do the research

Another gripe about standards: there are considerable misconceptions here about standards for photography in the 19th and early 20th Century. If you're looking at an aerial photograph of a battle, then in order to determine whether it is a good example for the time you might take a look at aerial photography to take a look at contemporaneous images. EV is determined by a picture's place in an article - if you haven't looked at all the articles an image is in, and read the surrounding text and caption for the image in all those articles, then don't vote. I see very little evidence that even minimal research about images is done. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that. Durova369 20:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Many people do this, and since they aren't experts, don't vote, but are then scolded for allowing "such great historic examples" to go without votes and not gain the needed minimum. But then you won't see nominators complaining about reasonless supports that may just boil down to "cool" or "pretty". Complaints only come with opposes are brought up or when nobody votes, for whatever reasons. Double-edged sword here; look at it from both sides, not just the one. upstateNYer 21:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree completely. Whereas I would also like to encourage reviews based on article placement etc, these last two threads amount to an appeal for expert reviewers, something this project has consistently rejected. Let's be careful with comments like this. If reviews had to be based on an informed knowledge of image quality and standards in early C20 aerial photography (or whatever) in order to be acceptable, you'd be lucky to get a single qualifying vote. There are flip sides to many criteria, which is why they are left slightly open to interpretation. I'd include insistence on lage file size in this. "Image quality" for FP means a whole lot more than ticking criteria boxes, as I never seem to tire of pointing out. mikaultalk 22:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires us to assume that reviewers have acted appropriately unless their comments indicate otherwise. This principle applies equally to supports and opposes. So support: great resolution would be invalid for a 50K nomination. The most recent instance alluded to in Mostlyharmless's post was an erroneous keep rationale. Durova369 22:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
In practice it does not actually apply to supports in nominations (I'm not speaking of delist nominations). It also does not assume that one is expert enough in a subject to review satisfactorily. That's life. Reviews are not expert opinions, they are roughly guided ones in many cases. There is too much AGF going on with respect to reasonless supports, while it can be just as bad as an ill-concieved oppose. Only difference is that nobody complains about that support. upstateNYer 23:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The relevant matter is that you made no exception for delist nominations in the original post. Either one assumes good faith that perhaps you hadn't considered that situation in the wording, or else one assumes you're backpedaling after getting caught in a contradiction. You've been asserting that too much good faith gets extended. What objective criterion would replace the current standard? None of us have access to each others' inner thoughts. If we extend you good faith when good faith is deserved but not obvious, then we must do the same for everyone. Durova369 05:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
No, that's not the relevant matter; I made it quite clear that I'm speaking generally and not to the specific example. You're engaging in the act that you always (wrongfully) accuse me of: arguing just to win. You claim I'm caught in a contradiction and that I'm backpedaling? No such thing has happened, but you are now backpedaling so you can ignore the content of my post. The content is saying that there is a difficult-to-acheive medium between expecting reasonable votes and not voting due to lack of expertise. So, do we listen to the complaining about making uneducated votes (even when the research is done) or do we listen to the complaining about how this community isn't doing enough to promote historical works, thereby killing any prospects of getting free media? While the two are indeed connected, they are not causal. Seems like we draw the short straw either way, woopee. Now, can you please stick to the topic at hand and avoid psychological tangents? upstateNYer 15:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully disagreeing: your quarrel appears to be with the WP:AGF guideline rather than with any of the people here. If you can propose a viable alternative to its current wording, then by all means do. FPC talk is a dead end in that regard. The example was only intended to illustrate how difficult a new balance would be. Sarcasm is unhelpful; if you wish to pursue the idea please do so at the guideline level. Durova369 17:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • While I agree that it is good to each reviewer have the good practice of giving the most accurate opinion in his/her hand lets not forget how Wikipedia works. An open encyclopaedia can not hope to relay only on experts hands. I would even dare to say that it should not. That an image is well placed in an article is a consequence of the editions (hopefully lots of them) of the editors of that article. A reviewer of FPC can not be an arbiter of that edition process. At the very most it can act as an editor of the article and challenge its content or re-edit it. Remember that the Wikipedia's truth does not rely in the deep knowledge of experts but on the averaged truth of thousands of editors using equal number of references. Of course, if you (in your role as an editor) find a mistake it is good to fix it. A reviewer that just looked that the picture is in an article and assumes it is well placed (I try not to be in this possition) and casts a vote saying high EV is fully contemplated in how Wikipedia should work. Of course that can do harm in specific cases. But again the strength of Wikipedia is in the average and the number of editors. Thats why it is way more important for Wikipedia to encourage people to edit, to have more and more reviewers, not just experts, of any kind and work in the argument-reference stile. It is much more harmful for Wikipedia the actions of a super-expert than those of a milion average people editing based in references. So, each one of us sould be good and "do the research" but if we see people that didn't we shouldn't be upset. Notice that this is diferent to noticing a mistaken review for which we can provide references. Then, just providing those the problem is solved. franklin.vp  23:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Regulars at this process are evenhanded about raising red flags when either an oppose or a support is demonstrably unfounded. Regarding AGF, try this shoe on the other foot: Complaints only come with opposes... By your own reasoning, should I have accused you of failure to read the relevant delist nomination? If not, then what objective standard would be effective? Durova369 00:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, notice that none of my statements are related to the relevant delist nomination. All my post is about the general outcome of this discussion. So you can't ;) since saying nothing about it there is nothing that can be proven wrong (or true) by reading it. Although what you say is right "Regulars at this process are evenhanded..." and something like being like that is what I am defending above, it have in it the seed of the mistake. You said "Regulars". A "regular" is just as good for the process as any other. The only point in which regulars can do a difference is in reminding us the rules and the good practices and that stops before using it to make a point. In any case, my observations above are mostly for those, non-regulars or regulars that might forget it. Since I am making nothing else than a reference to the five pillars of Wikipedia.  franklin.vp  00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Your post edit conflicted with mine; the indentation and (ec) note is an indication of reply to the previous post. Durova369 05:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, and my most easily defended case is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Palenque bas relief which could easily be called not accurate and not unique (by a supposed expert, who noted 10 other copies of this, at least three of which are more accurate, confirmed by a WP:RS), but was still promoted. As for your "wearing the shoe on the other foot comment", I didn't reference delist noms (in fact I specifically excluded them), I meant only nominations. My point comes down to the fact that supporters are never questioned, but reasonable and relevant opposers always seem to be. (previous example can be considered exhibit A). As I was saying... Complaints only come with those that oppose a nomination... whether or not they are nominated to be promoted, or delisted. upstateNYer 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I forgot to say that the only case in which an expert is in some sense needed is when battles occur, when editors done reach to a consensus. But let me also say that in those cases the experts opinion works as good as tossing a coin. It is really difficult to really understand and be completely aware of our role in an environment in which the averaging and the stochastic is playing the main role when all we can see is our individual (punctual) actions. So, way more important than the quality of the editors (so long they follow a little of basic rules) is the number. The quality of Wikipedia will be assured and can only be assured by the 5 pillars. That's why they are called that way.  franklin.vp  00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Woops, even more. Of course for those not very confident of stochastic processes and statistical truth (I am sometimes one of those) the above doesn't look good. But in an open encyclopaedia is the only you can hope to get.  franklin.vp  00:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Is anyone arguing that expertise is needed? At least do one's homework in a basic way: read the relevant articles, look up unfamiliar concepts and terms. Don't go out on a limb asserting something about the state of aerial photography in WWI without checking to see whether anyone had taken a photo from a zeppelin or hot air balloon. That shouldn't be too much to ask. Durova369 05:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And, it's kept. I'm giving up on Featured Pictures for at least a few months. I'll come back when people have responsible attitudes to historic content. Plus, it's the southern summer, and I'm on holiday. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Use DynamicPageList to streamline closing process

I was thinking that we could display the Featured Picture galleries using the DynamicPageList extension. This would really streamline the very complex closing process and give us quite a bit of flexability in how we display the galleries, which would be dynamically generated and automatically maintained. The software has the ability display galleries based on intersecting categories and the date each image was categorized (promoted). This extension is live on Wikinews; we just have to ask for it to be turned on here. Thoughts? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've already raised the issue. I just closed and promoted two FPC nominations, and closing one nom took "ten minutes" with 9 steps! I think we can set up some automatic bot function like DYK areas if we have a technique-wise editor willing to do that. --Caspian blue 02:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Doing it with DPL would better than with a bot. We get greater flexibility in how we display the galleries, and a server-side solution will always be more reliable than a client-side one. Also, DPL is already available, we just have to ask for it. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Question; How many steps could be reduced for the closing process with the DynamicPageList? I hope less than 5 or 6 steps could be very nice. --Caspian blue 02:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Devs have informed me that extension is too expensive for use on a wiki as large as this. We should try and find someone to code a bot to streamline this process. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here I am. Please tell me precisely what needs to be accomplished and I'll get on it. @harej 03:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to describe what should be done for the future bot programming. If you read and follow the instructions for both closing and delisting a FPC nomination by yourself, you may get an idea on where to start for the programming?
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Closing_procedure
Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Delist closing procedure
Here are the complex instructions. I recommend you to actually close this nom, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Yiddish World War I poster, so I think you can feel the same thing that I feel? --Caspian blue 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh hell, that's all rote work. Easily automated, and deservedly so. @harej 03:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

October 2004 featured picture promotion survey

Per discussion on delisting criteria, I have done a survey of the featured pictures that were promoted in 2004. The summary results are:

  • 35 featured pictures were promoted that month.
  • 19 (54%) have subsequently been delisted.
  • 7 (20%) have been upgraded in dimensions and/or filesize and retained.
  • 9 (26%) have been retained at their original dimensions.

Overall, only 26% of that month's promotions remain featured pictures at their original specs.

3 of those FPs were historic. None have been delisted. One (the most recent--early 1980s) has been upgraded. The other two remain featured at their original specs.

Technical specs on the three historic featured pictures were typical for the images that were promoted that month.

Delisting nominations for modern photography discussed quality and replaceability, and usually delisted files that could be replaced with better substitutes. The possibility of spending time with no featured picture of a subject was usually tolerated.

Delisting nominations for historic photography retained files that were replaceable with better substitutes, pending actual emergence of substitutes. Criteria for acceptable substitutions were defined in narrow terms.

A full set of galleries with specs and links to relevant discussions is available at User:Durova/FPC survey. I would be willing to expand it to cover all of calendar year 2004, but only if consensus feedback indicates willingness to be swayed by a larger data pool. Durova369 05:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I would very much like to see your larger data pool. Since you offered, I would expect to see the entire analysis. Also, I have a long-winded statement at my talk at Commons, which you seem to have missed. I would appreciated a response, and not something along the lines of WP:TLDR, especially since it's 20 days old. upstateNYer 05:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This is an effort to engage the en:wiki FPC review community on a serious matter of importance to the site's long term health--possibly a final effort. In past conversations you have requested more information only to dismiss it without serious discussion. Currently you indicate no readiness to change your existing opinion, and appear to be setting up hurdles. Bear in mind that my own personal interests are already preferentially served by the existing status quo. I have not undertaken this for your amusement. Is your interest a serious one or a debater's challenge? Please give tangible evidence of it not being the latter. Durova369 06:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(followup) Good heavens, you expect me to reply to that with a tl;dr demand? Please follow your own advice. Life is too short for this. Durova369 06:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Would by nice if you kept track of your own watch list. Spend the 5 min to read; I'm trying to make amends. You have yet to make that effort yourself. upstateNYer 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, I'm wondering where you got my advice of "Life is too short" from. How can I follow my own advice, when I never gave it? upstateNYer 06:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)WP:AGF is pretty much the summation of what I have to say in response to that; it's almost like you consider all my comments to be worthless, even though they are typically well thought out (especially when you don't offer that evidence that I request). In most cases, I would probably agree that images promoted in 2004 don't deserve to be FPs any longer, but then again, some might. At the same time, one can't generalize an entire year's worth of FPC nominations in a couple delists. upstateNYer 06:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The WP:NOR policy is a serious matter. At about the same time Roger Davies thought saw an error in a reliable source I had cited. He provided other reliable sources, the Library of Congress updated its record, Signpost applauded him, and I gave him a barnstar. If you had done likewise you would have received the same. Sometimes when another editor stops replying, it isn't a matter of ignoring the watchlist. It was quiet disengagement after requests for sources had been disregarded. Durova369 15:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

While my threat of leaving carries just a fraction of the weight of Durova's (and quite rightly, she is a pillar of the project), I too am finding the lack of engagement with substantive questions about image quality tedious. It was a good faith request for engagement on what is actually a very serious issue. That the Bundesarchiv has only released low size images, and other archives are similarly restrictive can be traced to their attitudes to how these images should be owned and used. A strong FP program that insists on high (appropriate to the time and circumstances) standards can do a great deal to change that. I would not go as far to say that the future of free images depends on it, but it is very important. Nothing like this existed even a few years ago, and major public institutions are making decisions that will not be changed for years, possibly decades. Every time Durova tries to say something to this effect she is ignored, or worse treated as if she's engaging in self-congratulatory puffery. These arguments have been persistently ignored, this is I believe another attempt to raise them. I hope it gets the engagement it deserves. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I see no substantive questions about image quality that have gone unanswered. If this is a serious enquiry of such profound importance and urgency, then it should be spelled out in much greater detail than the gripes and selective examples posted in the last few threads. I'm assuming you refer to both delist rationales and promotion criteria when you bemoan the lack of high (appropriate to the time and circumstances) standards but such unfounded, unreasoned sweeping statements as these just leave people here scratching their heads. Over the course of this year we've repeatedly asked for clarification of the way in which our promotion criteria (or the existence of VP, or the way we don't delist FPs, or whatever else we're doing wrong) discourages the release of high-resolution scans from large collections, but none have been forthcoming. Why are we not party to even the outline of these discussions, if they are so sensitive to the minutiae of FPC debates?
I'd imagine the major concerns under discussion at these institutions were rights mangement first and foremost, closely followed by concerns over revenue loss and the impact large-scale releases might have on the inherent value of the collection itself. I can't imagine for the life of me what you or I or anyone else says here might do to sway those extremely important concerns. But imagine is all we can do, as we're simply told to shut up and toe the line, lest we jeopardize ongoing negotiations. Frankly, without substantiated evidence to support these claims, I don't see why we should either change the value we currently place on this media nor allow nominations of any kind to be swayed by them.
Finally, this is patently not about any one user unless s/he sets out to make it so; if users insist upon personalising an issue it will inevitably reflect on them personally without any intention on the part of other users. If the issues therefore go ignored, it is simply because most users prefer to avoid becoming embroiled in personalised debates.I've put my own personal feelings forward here because it is this sort of debate that is not only tedious but verging on the absurd, and I strongly suspect this is the way many here feel about it. With this in mind, I should point out this last paragraph is intended as a simple statement and by way of disclaimer, is not put forward for debate. I hope you will understand if I fail to engage in any further discussion outside of project-oriented criteria and values. mikaultalk 21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This Signpost piece from last July spelled out a sizable portion of the big picture. Followup stories occurred in August (also here), September (also here), and November (also here and here). For the next issue I need to provide an update about a 35,000 item institutional media donation and something else which will be ready to announce shortly. I blog about it reguarly and the head of Open Progress blogs about it regularly; both of us are indexed through the WMF aggregators. The Netherlands, German, Australian, UK, and New York chapters are all involved in the efforts. It's been written up in major Dutch newspapers. We even got a head of state to visit our first partnered museum show and placed a story in The New York Times last summer.[1] The information is readily available so it's odd that few FPC regulars pay attention. Discussions such as this one and this one show that some of our reviewers are either unaware that the National Portrait Gallery made a serious legal threat against a Wikimedia Commons administrator, or fail to appreciate its significance. We've got people who are negotiating with NPG toward softening their position. One of them is a WMF UK board member who has featured picture credits but doesn't come around here very often. The last time he attempted to explain interfacing with cultural institutions to en:wiki's FPC regulars, both he and the head of the Open Progress Foundation were ridiculed.

This thread isn't a gripe; it's a starchy old Victorian endeavor to do one's duty. The current problem happens to benefit me at the expense of the FPC program's best interests. The right thing to do is implement adjustments for the overall good of the site. With thanks extended toward Mostlyharmless's enlightened input, for the most part this is a hostile audience that refuses to undertake serious discussion on long range or planning level issues. That isn't actually a big deal because the workaround solutions are still beneficial for the Wikimedia Foundation websites. I'd have qualms accepting this situation if it weren't for being cornered into it, but there's poetic justice about thwarted altruism that creates an advantageous position. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a museum show to plan and a pilot program to draft. Durova369 22:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid that perhaps I have not been paying enough attention. This might be a stupid question, but what are the statistics saying? Was there any particular point that was trying to be made with them? I also really have no idea what the "long range or planning" issues are in that department and I am willing to bet that I am not the only one. I think a single paragraph distillation might be quite helpful in bringing the rest of us up to speed. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears that during 2004 candidacies were reviewed and promoted at web optimized parameters. The historic nominations that got promoted were similar in dimensions and filesize to others FPs that got promoted. Most FPs from that era have either been upgraded or delisted; the ones that have been retained at original specs were above average for 2004 FPs (better composition, larger filesize, etc). The exception is historic material. Five years ago reviewers didn't make much exception in terms of criteria for promoting historic candidates, but afterward the historic material was preferentially retained.

Since the 2004 promotions are the oldest, they sit at the top of our subject-based featured picture galleries. That gives newcomers the impression that 2004 specs are what we want today so they bring us material like the World War I tank nomination that's about to close. It's a shame that an editor spent time restoring the little image: (700 × 524 pixels, file size: 216 KB) would have been a typical promotion back in 2004. Newcomers who read the criteria, survey the galleries, and try to do everything right can get stung. Same thing happened to me when I was new. Not many stick around to try again.

Meanwhile our volunteers are negotiating more material from cultural institutions. Museums and libraries don't have an industry standard yet for digitization specs. They look to us for guidance. If curators saw the top of our World War I FP gallery, then we would have a harder time getting them to accept 10 MB TIFF files as a baseline for historic digitizations. What they're getting shown instead are my personal galleries. Have been hoping to implement better quality control at FP level so that all the best work gets equal attention. The irony is that I'm over here trying to improve things to where all our best contributors receive fair attention--getting accused of egotism by fellow FPCers--while the longer this temporary workaround has to be prolonged the more it makes me look like a star. Darned if it's worth an uphill climb; about ready to accept the status quo with a clear conscience. Durova371 07:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. I'll keep that in mind with the delists. Do you think it would be sensible to "flip" the FP galleries so that the newest material is at the top? I had already written a (very crude) php script to invert text by lines to do it on my user page, so it is just a matter of a little copy-pasta. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It would help to put the FP galleries in reverse chronological order. Also makes the galleries appear more dynamic and interesting. Good idea. Durova371 17:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • How about a template that we can tag (maybe by vote to tag an image) that states it does not meet current FP criteria, but has passed a keep vote due to it's high encyclopedic value and that many feel it's currently irreplaceable with an alternative. That such an image would not pass current FP guidelines and likely will be delisted in the future. Some sorta template on these images could solve some of your concerns that a museum would see the image and think we accept that level of quality for front-page images currently. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • "That such an image would not pass current FP guidelines and likely will be delisted in the future." Why not just delist it now?, and save us the hassle of delisting later and harm to our efforts to collect high quality images in the meantime. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I don't think anyone is suggesting that an image that clearly fails the criteria would be retained. The only time an image is retained when it appears to fail the criteria is when it passes due to the exception in the criteria for rare, historical or otherwise irreplacable images. Because there is an exception for this, they're not strictly failing. But I agree that it sets a potentially damaging precedent though. We should only really make an exception when it is not possible to get access to a higher resolution image. In the case of museums and other archives, it almost always is possible, if only they'd provide it. Increasingly, it seems to come down to willingness, not any technical limitation. In those cases, I don't see why we should lower our standards to placate or woo them. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Actually, Diliff, my research is showing the opposite trend. Historic images that had typical specs when they were promoted are being retained per the exception rule because reviewers mistakenly assume that they had been promoted with the exception in mind. If we were going through 2004 and 2005 and reconsidering all the weakest FPs, then active reviewers would come to those discussions with a more accurate set of expectations. The featured article and featured list programs hold systematic sweeps to review their oldest promotions. Maybe we should emulate that. Durova371 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Sweeps happen informally anyway, or we wouldn't have a delist process at all. Two things here do make sense, and got me thinking: first, that FP galleries should display images in random order, or alphabetically; second, that we approach delisting more like WP:FAR and review images before formally nominating to delist. Images can be improved in several ways to bring them back up to standard, as we often see in delist/replace noms. If low resolution is an issue, it gives us an opportunity to track down a better version. And there are other ways in which FPs might no longer qualify: EV can change over time, for example, in fact time is often the real acid test of EV... so sweeps and reviews should be much deeper than the soft target of filesize and not be confined to our earliest promotions.
            I'm fairly sure the FP sort order issue is a really simple fix needing only a minor coding parameter change. On the second point, any delist review should (logically) take place at WP:PPR. Personally, I'd like to see a proper shakeup in both FP galleries (horrible to navigate, very poorly presented, a much bigger major collecion turnoff than the odd low-res image, IMO) and WP:PPR (I've already suggested one way to raise attendance – its only real problem – and this could be another) as the best way of solving these recurring problems and disputes. mikaultalk 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Reverse chronological order may be the best option. We already have someone who's written code for it. It facilitates image use to have the galleries in an orderly arrangement; chronologic focus is useful for people who do periodic updates for portals and other uses. Regarding reviews, lack of a coordinated approach has caused big problems. In addition to the confusion regarding historic images, the VP program wouldn't have been MFD'd if reevaluation had been done in an orderly and understandable way. Nagasaki had been upgraded to 6.59MB just a few months before, yet it went on the block instead of others that had much lower specs and ev. Durova371 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
              • If by "just a few months before" you mean almost 7. I don't know why you're so opposed to restoring that photo when that's what you're known for here. My (and I assume everyone else's) expectation of a clear, scratch- and dustless restoration comes mainly from you (you even got a request weeks before, asking the same thing). It may not be explicitly in the criteria, but you've implicitly added it single handedly; criterium 1 states "is of high technical standard". That standard is now set to "Durova quality", whether you like it or not. You've changed peoples' view of what to expect. If that image were freshly nom'ed today, you would most likely oppose until it was restored (and would probably offer to do so). This is a clear example of double standards and you're just refusing to get off your soapbox. Removing but one scratch or dust mark from that image would be considered a net benefit, even if the entire thing can't be restored completely. The logic behind the delist was sound; stop rubbing salt in a healing wound. You're just being antagonizing now. upstateNYer 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Whoa there... can we keep it a little more on-topic, please? So far we've established that something can be done about FP gallery display order. The open issue is the suggestion that we review FPs before delisting them. I'm sure we can debate that without raking over past deeds, but I'm drawing a line under this one here just in case... mikaultalk 03:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
                  • The aim is to raise the example as a demonstration of how disorganized the review process is. Few of the 2004 promotions that were kept after upgrade have been upgraded as far as 6 MB; we have others that remain under 1/4 MB. As encyclopedic value goes, very few rate as high as the mushroom cloud over Nagasaki. So if we want a more harmonious working environment and better actual quality control, it would make sense to embark on a chronological survey beginning with March 2004 and each week nominate a few of the weakest promotions for review. Durova371 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
                    • A lot of conflict arises out of simple semantics. Many of the terms we use here are very ambiguous. Terms like "quality" mean so many things to individual reviewers that "quality control" is almost meaningless. As we've seen time and time again, quality is not always synonymous with large file size, nor with high resolution; it can persist despite having neither. "Value" is often proposed as the true benchmark, but the reality is, as a concept it's little better and possibly even more vague, depending on the subject. Where you identify disorganisation, I see only differing opinions and subjective assessment. These things are never going to go away, and aiming for their elimination is neither desirable nor realistic. We should review more regularly, I agree, but we need to relax about the criteria we use to bring existing FPs to the review process, and perhaps be a little more appreciative of the reasons they were promoted in the first place. mikaultalk 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
                        • If the differences were less severe that summary would make perfect sense. We're never going to achieve complete agreement over matters of taste, but taste is not what this is about. Featured article and featured list volunteers have organized approaches for the reconsideration of older material: they go over the older promotions in a systematic way and nominate the weakest material for review/delisting, based in part on objective criteria. Part of what would help this process is a methodical approach. Durova371 06:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
                          • I never suggested it was about taste, I said it's about subjective assessment. In terms of objective criteria our methodology is almost the opposite of featured article reviews, basically amounting to filesize and screen resolution criteria, which at the end of the day are negotiable... something else has changed since 2004: assessment of EV has become, I would suggest, the most important, non-negotiable criterion of all and one that is crucially dependent on a consensus view, built partly on individual reviewers' "reading" an image, and partly on the way content relates to text. I've been thinking about this and come to realise there's really very little point in banging the delist reviewer's drum without acknowledging that file dimensions are basically a very easy target, and that a lot more hard work is needed to be sure that our existing FPs attain the extremely high standards of encyclopedic value we expect of current candidates. How methodical we can make that within current approach, I really don't know. mikaultalk 21:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
                            • "...which at the end of the day are negotiable". But there's a difference between holding negotiation with an organized agenda, versus showing up and shoving plans aside to test debating skills. At any rate, as already stated the status quo benefits me unfairly. So go ahead and dismiss my input; I've done my duty by raising the matter and offering a solution. /me goes away with a clear conscience. Durova371 22:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
                              • You think I'm dismissing your input? What does your conscience have to do with the EV of FP delist candidates? If you don't have an opinion please don't make me out to be the one dodging the issues. mikaultalk 03:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
                                • Scroll upward. Read. Calm down. Durova371 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
                                  • Whatever. mikaultalk 04:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to formally review FPs before delisting

Further to points raised above, and with an eye on the way things are done at featured article review, existing FPs should be given a chance to redeem themselves prior to being nominated for delisting.

  1. Picture peer review is the obvious venue at which reviewers may nominate existing FPs for reappraisal at a delist review section, if they consider them to be failing whatever our criteria happen to be at the time; an alternative might be to create (yet) another section at FPC above the Delist/Replace one;
  2. A call for replacement files is raised in which interested parties may contact original uploaders, photographers, illustrators, libraries or museums, allowing a certain period of time for submissions to come through;
  3. Whatever the outcome, ie whether a replacement transpires or not, after the PPR review period expires the nom is passed on to the FPC delist page as normal.
  4. Delist criteria remain, as ever, the same as promotion criteria.

Please note this isn't just about replacing low resolution scans or downsampled digital shots; it may be that an image no longer meets other criteria such as article placement or indeed any of the EV-based criteria; the FP could be years or just days old. As a spinoff, this facility would be suitable for reviewing promotions that some reviewers are not happy with, for whatever reason. Auditing our current stock of FPs should become a formal routine exercise and whatever the "sweep" brings up gets listed at PPR. There may be exceptions: delist/replace noms based on someone coming up with a better illustration of a given subject should perhaps take place at PPR, whereas purely procedural D/R noms (eg you find a higher res version of an existing FP image and want to transfer the FP status to it) could pass straight to the FPC page.
This may seem to amount to more bureaucracy but I suspect it'll actually save a lot of time and energy, making delist noms a more procedural matter and damping some of the flames in what has often been a quite heated section of the FPC project space. OTOH if the suggestion itself is deemed a waste of time at least it only took me 10 minutes to draft :-) mikaultalk 03:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically a very good idea to have a review process prior to a delisting process. Am not sure that bundling PPR with potential delisting reviews is the best way to do it. Mainly because PPR exists on a different page where many FPC reviewers spend less time (i.e. might feel like starting over from square one to delist nom here after review there). Thoughts? Durova371 05:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I sometimes despair of the way we choose to administer our project almost solely at FPC. Why is it that everything has to be on the same bloated page? Isn't this the real reason that WP:FP, WP:WIAFP, WP:PPR and WP:VP are in such poor shape? They sit gathering dust like unused reference manuals. I'm as guilty as the next user of gravitating here and I guess it's that awareness that is driving a desire to spread our efforts just one page wider. If PPR was to embrace and administer some of the more important peripheral duties in the media editors' wiki rota, it might become a better-attended, more efficient process itself and drag a couple of others up with it. I'm particularly keen to bring the FP reviews there for what seem to me to be blindingly obvious reasons. If an FP's delisting has to happen in just in one place, it should be there, out through the same door through which it (theoretically) entered. Once again, I do understand the reluctance to take processes out of FPC, but I think it's high time we started to think outside of that box. mikaultalk 11:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Links to FP related pages in the FPC header

An idea not quite out of the box, but a tiny improvement suggestion for a start: Why is the list of Featured Content above the list of Featured picture tools' on the FPC page? it should be the other way round, since the Featured Content items are a sort of See also. Reversing would bring the links to the pages you're talking about in a more prominent position. A further step would be to emphasize graphically the links to the pages you are talking about maybe with an icon. Elekhh (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need to formalise it. I think it would take time away from more valuable activities. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless I misunderstood Elekhh, they were talking about the FPC page, not any other pages. I traced the section they mentioned back through nested template within nested template to Template:FCpages, which I assume is as you say, not within the jurisdiction of this page, but I suppose Elekhh wasn't to know that at first glance. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right: I was talking about the appearance of the FPC page (list of links in blue box on the right top of FPC). Is true that it technically relates to the a nested template Template:Fpipages, but from my experience with templates, discussing it on the template's discussion page (which hasn't been created yet) would be futile, as very few people watch such pages (ca. 10 views per month). Elekhh (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I've been bold and reverted the order. If you don't like it, can undo. Elekhh (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Closures needed

There are several noms, both delisting and promotional ones, that could do with being closed. I'll take a look at the ones I didn't give an opinion on, but that leaves quite a few, including Macleay's Swallowtail, South Cape Bay and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Little wattlebird on eucalypt.jpg. I'll close Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Isothermal Chart to add to other closures I've made over the last few days. Thanks for your help. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed the first two, but I don't know how to do for the delist and replace thing, so that should be done by an experienced editor.--Caspian blue 02:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
D&R is done. upstateNYer 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

EV, EV, but for what?

I see some reoccurring confusion/ambiguity regarding the assessment of encyclopaedic value of nominations when:

  • (a) delist nominations are not indicating articles the picture appears in; Examples are here and here

Suggest: add line "Articles this image appears in" to template {{subst:FPCdel.

  • (b) the title of the nomination is not suggestive of the articles the image illustrates; Examples are here and here

Suggest: {{subst:FPCnom [...] "title = a title for the nomination" to be changed to "a title for the nomination relating to the encyclopaedic value of the image.", or similar.

  • (c) an image appears in multiple articles but the highest EV is not in the article listed first; Examples are here and here

Suggest: {{subst:FPCnom [...] "articles = links to the article/s that use this image" to be expanded with explanation "listing articles where the image is believed to have highest encyclopaedic value first.", or similar. Elekhh (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points; care to fix it for us? :) upstateNYer 01:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Fixed templates for (a) given previous support here, however I will wait for broader feedback regarding (b) and (c). Elekhh (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried it out using multiple pages, since an image can have multiple nom pages? Just making sure it will work right next time, is all. upstateNYer 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I particularly like suggestion (c); in terms of closing where you usually only want to list one article, you want it to be the 'highest EV' one, and that ends up being left to the closer to determine atm, sometimes from quite a long list. Would be better if the nominator was to make that decision (though of course they could be wrong). Regarding (a), I see it as a little pointless (have discussed separately with Elekhh), e.g., it was entirely irrelevant to my reasons for a recent delist nom, but I guess you could just say something like 'irrelevant' or 'NA' if that was the case. Re (b), that is entirely valid, and is being discussed in a slightly different guise down below. --jjron (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversed the order

As it is raining (again) I was bold and reversed the order of all of the images in all of the featured picture galleries. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks more reasonable now. ZooFari 23:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Durova371 02:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability and FPC

An update and a question: the Library of Congress hasn't yet updated the identification on the Lord Roberts (formerly Lord Kitchener) FP.[2] Meanwhile the MILHIST project has started a WWI content drive so you'll be seeing a few more WWI nominations in the next few months. One possibility is this photograph, which the library staff have confirmed via email is an Albatross D.III. So far their website only says it's a wrecked German biplane. How should we handle these situations? Wait for the correction to go live on the institution's website or is an emailed verification enough? Durova371 00:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I consider an email to be a reliable source (assuming, reasonably, that it is from an informed curator). Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, the LoC is... on the basis that this is the best information, from a reliable source, I say there are no grounds not to keep things as they are. It's only been a few weeks - I suggest we keep an eye on that page and add the source in when it changes. 150.203.230.8 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The emails are from LoC research librarians. They're reliable; their organization is just large (and sometimes slow). Back in late October they predicted the Kitchener update would go live on their website in three weeks. Someone went to my user talk a week or so ago to ask about the status on that. So if you'd prefer to wait, that's fine. Just didn't want to leave anyone wondering. Durova371 05:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder

Dear colleagues

This is a reminder that voting is open until 23:59 UTC next Monday to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. It is an opportunity for all editors with at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 to shape the composition of the peak judicial body on the English Wikipedia.

On behalf of the election coordinators. Tony (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

My first promoted closure ^^

O_o — Was that ever time consuming! I closed this one: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Desiccation Cracks. If anyone notices any errors, please let me know! Maedin\talk 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Closure needed for images of Australian animals

These nominations need to be closed as promoted, but since I commented there, I can not close them myself. Anyone willing to do that? Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note: Jjron did these. upstateNYer 04:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A few simplifications

I suggest that the name of candidate pages is standardised to the filename. Commons does this, and it would simplify things a little. I'm also suggesting that the nomination title is standardised to the filename - to simplify things further. Any comments? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  • That was recommended a while ago, and it's a good idea. The only issue that I can see is when a nomination fails and gets subsequently renominated - the existing nomination page will still exist. Apparently there was a solution to that problem (can't remember what it was now) though. Ah, here is the previous discussion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • File:Filename.jpg 2 would be the logical plan, no? upstateNYer 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If the nomination name is the file name and title, then the nominator doesn't have to specify either the title or the filename. It'd be worth finding out what is done at commons for renomination. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Doesn't putting a 2 at the end defeat the purpose of having the filename as the nomination name, because then it doesn't match the filename? But then again, can someone properly summarise exactly why it would be so useful to make the nom name the filename? As you say, the title and filename would not need to be entered separately, which would make the nomination process slightly easier, but what other reasons are there? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
          • I thought you may actually have some reasons as you have been doing it yourself for a while, e.g., here and here. As opposed to NS who is doing what I suggest below, using the filename for the nom name, but using a straight and simple alternative text title for the nom, e.g., here. This is getting confusing, NS is recommending something he doesn't do but that Diliff does, but Diliff is then questioning why that is useful :S. In terms of closing, the way I do it it is slightly simpler if the filename is also the nom name, but as I say below that would be outweighed by the loss of a plain text title. --jjron (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
            • You're right, I have been doing it, but mainly because it seemed to start to become convention, and I had no axe to grind against said convention. But that doesn't mean I understood why (other than making it easier to paste the filename into the nom in three different places) it's necessary or beneficial to the project. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
              • Convention? You're about the only who springs to mind that regularly does it, though I have been away for a month. Don't know if you still nominate at Commons FP, but you wouldn't be thinking of it as being the convention there perhaps? Having said which, I too would like to know how it's 'necessary or beneficial to the project' (I've already mentioned that in terms of how I close there is relatively little benefit, and improvements there would be best served by NS's current technique becoming convention; UpstateNYer suggests a bigger benefit, so must close in a different manner, though he is not currently a regular closer). The project is not just about closing though, so any other purported benefits? --jjron (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • 150% support. It makes it much easier for the closer when the nom page is named the same as the file name. Would simplify that process at least a little. I asked about this a while back to the user that steers from file names the most, but got no response. upstateNYer 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not overly fussed either way, though in terms of user friendliness/readability on the page I must say I prefer a straight title. In terms of closing I usually find the nom name very useful in terms of generating the 'short caption' for Announcements, Goings on, FP Thumbs and FP Gallery. It's no big hassle if the filename is descriptive enough (just use the relevant portion), but filenames are often still a little cryptic. Perhaps I would be most inclined to support the nom name being the filename, with an alt title still used both for readability on the FPC page and for creating captions in closing. Also not sure if NS is suggesting that the titles be pulled from the filename automatically (his second comment), but while that would be logical, it may preclude the alternative renaming for renoms. --jjron (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the current nom File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Portert van twee jonge Balinese danseressen TMnr 10004678b.jpg. What a pain in the neck to try to pull a useful 'short caption' from that (and an eyesore for the FPC page), but the provided short title Balinese dancers is very reader and closer friendly. --jjron (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course this doesn't generalise to all cases, but in the case of the dancers the phrase "Balinese dancers" could easily be copied from the caption or the image description. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It's nice for the nominators to do a bit of the thinking though :-). And it doesn't address the poor readability issue either. Look, I can only speak for myself in terms of how I close, but regardless of what alternatives you suggest, it makes things harder if what you're looking for (e.g., a suitable short caption) is in different places on different noms. In fact I have been considering adding an extra section to the noms to simplify closing (a section to list editor/s of the image, as that is usually very messy). --jjron (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I found it easier to come up with a name myself than have noms not use the file name. Having the file name would make it much easier with all the copy+pasting that you have to do when closing (copy+pasting the link to the nom versus the link to the file itself; if they were they same, you wouldn't have to keep copying over and over), at least that's how I see it. Every user has to indicate the important part of a nom in the reason (always) and caption (typically). Very rarely does an image come along that you're not sure what to call it. Just my 2¢, though. upstateNYer 22:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Support for sure. Much easier for nominators, and in my experience at Commons it doesn't really affect the closing process either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
What is done there for renominations? Noodle snacks (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured pictures and stability.

  • "Comment I can't help feeling worried about these images that get nominated claiming being in articles (and therefore claiming EV, which I'm not doubting in this case) in which it has been added just moments before the nomination. For example, this particular image has already been removed (not by me) from one of them. I read the criteria and there is nothing (I think) preventing nominators from doing this but, isn't that dangerous?" (taken From the Storming a bunker nomination:) The nomination of the Balinese dancers also suffers from this. Personally I am still in doubt about the EV of the second example so, until the promised explanation comes the image is strongly depending on the placement in the articles. This practice of adding images to articles right before nominating happens in many cases but these are the examples easy at hand. I am not trying to point at single nominator but at a general (possible) problem. In the featured article criteria, for example, there is a point that prevents from the analogous thing. It is the point on the stability of the article. Not having such a rule in FPC loads reviewers with a burden that is far from being in their hands to handle. The burden of having to decide about the EV of the image. Notice that I am using the word decide and not confirm. It is the difference between having an image that has been in an important part of an article for a while (and then reviewers can confirm, or at least assume, that the editors of the article agree on its importance) and having a newly added image (which reviewers of FPC would have to play the role of editors of the article and decide if the placement is valid).  franklin  15:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Featured picture candidacies have their own criteria. Durova383 21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I know, I know, but that doesn't mean anything. As I see, criteria for FP change dynamically according to time and needs. I am just pointing a possible hole in FPC criteria. The comparison with featured article criteria was just to give an example of how it can be fixed. Another trivial solution is not worrying about it and simply delisting if something goes wrong afterward. In my personal opinion the last one is not very elegant since it is harder (unlike noticing lack of resolution or quality in general) to notice when a FP has lost the EV that was claimed during the nomination. It requires a lot more research for those checking the FP lists and therefore they can possibly remain unnoticed for a much longer time.  franklin  21:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
That issue was raised at the RfC that was held on the FPC process about half a year ago, and the consensus was to impose no time requirement. Durova383 22:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have some link to that discussion? Maybe the reasons (or solutions) given there convince me.  franklin  22:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Found it. Also worth a look is this discussion where some reviewers opposed on EV rationales although the image had basically been present and stable in a high traffic article for 22 months. Durova383 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I definitely agree with the outcome of that discussion. But there is a subtle difference. In that argument some are trying to use time in an article as proof of EV and maybe the example you give shows that that should not be (there are articles that can have errors for years). I also vote for not defining EV. Wikipedia (and science and the search for the truth in general ) don't work that way. In Wikipedia (as in the other examples) any input is welcome until someone challenge it (I am being a little Popperian. You can not (and should not) try to define what is true (or EV) but try to define what is not (or what we don't want to consider true). That's the origin of OR (it can be true but if it doesn't fit the norms created it will be challenged by someone). My reason is different altogether. It is true that stability somehow suggest that so far people have not seen it wrong. But doesn't proof anything.Thats why instead of defining EV it is more important (and possible and necesary) to define known instances of no EV. Requiring stability is a protection (and possibly an example of this). For example in featured article you not only have stability as a requirement, you also have the requirement on the references. But the references alone can be a problem since it is very possible for references to contradict each other. Edit wars (or little battles) happen in this case. There is where stability plays a role. Trying to feature things that is not in dispute. FP candidacy closes in a week. Imagine a regular editor of an article, that works the whole week (and therfore doesn't enter Wikipedia) and skips one weekend visiting Wikipedia. The next week finds that an image has been added to the article and has already been featured because of being there. He remove it, and suddenly the FP lost one article. If that was the article carrying the most weight but there are others it could happen that a, now not so good, picture is FP. This kind of event will very dificult to notice (I think). Since people checking the PF lists will provably be looking for pictures bellow the technical standards. Checking EV is usually not a one-man job. I imagine nominators are not going to like the idea, since the practice of adding to articles right before nominating is a very common one. Again, my point is about protection and not about pinning down EV.  franklin  23:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
FAC criteria don't translate well to featured pictures. There's an ongoing problem with longstanding FPs getting removed from articles on a semi-random basis. That happens because casual reading and editing provides no obvious indicator when an image is featured (or a featured candidate), and most Wikipedians understand text far better than media. So they may never look beyond the thumbnail. In one of the examples listed above an editor mistakenly thought that US-centric material was overused, although in fact this website has no featured photograph at all of Americans in World War I. Durova383 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • This kind of convince me. If the removal of FPs occurs anyway (which is to be expected) and is more likely to happen than drastic changes to good articles (even when the picture is good), then taking such measure won't do much difference. Probably many are aware but let this conversation encourage those who check FP lists to look also for dramatic changes in the appreciation, by the community, of the EV of the image; because it is then there the only place where this kind of problem will be catched. Now that I am in topic, I have never managed to get to a list of all FPs the link Wikipedia:Featured_Pictures doesn't seems to be it. Is there any way to have all of them in a list or a search? About the editor's comment, something good came out of it. It make you search about that fact that no picture of Americans in WW1 are featured (is not relevant for the article in question but is relevant for the nomination).  franklin  03:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • To join in late, I agree with your point, but can think of no good way to implement it (as I stated in the review of closure discussion Durova linked to above). This was one reason that a 'one month limit' was set when VP was implemented - that time limit has been unpopular with some users. It has been suggested that a reason people nominate quickly is that they find it easiest and best to nominate while the image is fresh in their mind, otherwise they may forget to nominate, or have difficulty tracking how long each image has been in the article. Regardless of what you set in place, there seems to be ways around any attempt to pin this down, e.g., set a time limit and people can just dump it in a stub that no one looks at and it will sit there indefinitely. Time in an article is probably just an indicator of EV anyway, and not always a good indicator. Certainly however I regard absence from any articles as a strong reason in delist noms (assuming it's not just as a result of ignorant or malicious removal). Re your final question, FP thumbs is meant to basically serve that purpose (though it's not exactly a single list), or you could try Category:Featured_pictures which I think shows all images that use the FP template. --jjron (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the links. Quite a nice collection is there.  franklin  14:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Was this FPC closure proper? I ask because it seems completely unnecessary. There was no great conflict of ideas, there were 2 votes, both supports. No opposes, and one off-hand comment about liking another related image. I originally asked jjron, the closer, but I am interested in outside opinions. I'll just renominate the image, but it seems like a big waste of time. Particularly when we have a section entitled "Decision time" that explicitly exists for "Nominations... older than seven days and are soon to be closed." Staxringold talkcontribs 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You are free to object, but jjron did precisely what we agreed upon in July. A nom needs a min of 5 supports and there were no comments after 6 full days, so I see nothing wrong with the closure. No quorum closures aren't that uncommon, though they are less common now. Take a look through the archives from May through July; there's a whole bunch. upstateNYer 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - just didn't meet minimum votes. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • But what purpose does that serve? Assuming the nominator at all cares, which I do, it'll just get nominated again in precisely the same form. No issues were raised, why not simply allow a quorum (or an oppose) to be collected before closing it? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty well accepted that lack of interest equals not WP's best work. Taking a phrase from the header of WP:FPC, lack of interest means the image is not "eye-catching" enough. Anyone can renominate the second the nom is closed, but the nom most likely won't be taken seriously and users will probably ignore it (invariably, someone will note that it had been nominated so recently). Wait a couple weeks or months and maybe interest (or voting population) will increase. upstateNYer 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That standard, at least to me, makes little sense. Particularly for the featured processes which often see limited action. I had a featured portal nomination that sat for a month, for example, and only collected 2 votes but was passed. Don't get me wrong, I know FPOC has little/nothing to do with FPC, but my point is I don't think you can assume that Wikipedians "vote with their feet" so to speak. That is, a lack of action is not necessarily a vote in the negative. Particularly for something like featured processes which often run into lack-of-reviewer issues. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a matter of timing the nomination at the end of most universities' fall terms. Nominations and reviews have been down this month. Perhaps wait a little while and renominate. Durova383 02:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Durova I'd just leave it a month or two and try again. Christmas is looming too. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ideally it'd be nice to reopen procedurally and put up a "reviews needed" to see whether feedback is forthcoming in a day or two. Don't want to appear to be talking out of both sides of the mouth: we had trouble earlier this year over irregular candidacy durations. Yet this month several nominations ran long just because there weren't any active closers. Comments? Durova383 02:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My issue is rule-enforcement in the face of logic. Obviously a truly mixed vote after a week, or a week with an unresponded-to oppose, etc, etc, that's one thing. But when a review just needs more review saturation, killing it just forces it to reset at zero for no apparent reason. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Early this year FPC had problems with irregular nomination durations. There were concerns (which I shared) that closers had gamed discretionary closing time periods to affect outcomes. The tighter rules about nomination durations are a function of that. A few other things were changed also, such as a raise from a minimum of four to a minimum of five supports. Jjron interprets that as four non-nominator supports, although I don't recall that interpretation as being part of the consensus (would discourage collaboration). If that recollection is incorrect and someone has a link, would welcome a refresher. Durova386 05:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • As for the 5 supports, it is more than clear, per our last discussion, that the 5 supports = 4 plus nom (not including co-nominators). The precendent is clearly set here and here, though that thought process was common throughout FPC beforehand (I just don't have the time to find such an obscure piece of evidence in the WT:FPC history). I've seen no evidence of "gaming discretionary closing time periods to affect outcomes" and would appreciate the same good faith as is expected here in bullet #8 in this FAQ. In fact I've seen (my own efforts especially) effort to include more time for nominations - more than what is guaranteed - for nominations (and, of course, when the criteria say "FOUR supports, mathematically, that means '4.0 (not 3.5) or greater' supports, or in the current case, 5.0 > 4.5). This is especially relevent since most discretionary judgement was removed this summer (in fact, Shoemaker's Holiday at had one point suggested going strictly by votes, though that didn't find much favor in the community, as it should't anyway, IMO). PS, where has he been recently? I've missed him. upstateNYer 08:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to clear up a few points.
  • As pointed out by a few people above, there have been several discussions during the past year about leaving noms open for 'random' time periods, and while there's many opinions (e.g., 7 days + 2 days of inactivity, strict 7 days disregarding any 'late' votes), the overall consensus I've been able to determine is to close them as near to seven days as possible, as the top of the page suggests - no other interpretation has ever been settled on (though the 7+2 seemed to have a lot of support). Images can be renommed at any time.
  • Previous discussions have been held about potential or possible 'misuse' of the "decision time" and "older nominations" sections being used as dumping grounds until noms attract 'enough' votes that may give it an unfair run or may be favoured by a closer, again generally agreed as inappropriate.
  • Re 'counting' !votes, again I am trying to apply consensus, not my own view - in fact my personal opinion is that it should receive five votes (including nominators/conominators), not nom/s + 4, but the top of the page clearly says "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s))...". Can someone please point out where I am wrong in my interpretation of that sentence? The wording was changed in March to this interpretation due to the advent of conominations.
  • FWIW I also interpret votes differently to what UpstateNYer says above, as I don't regard the strict mathematical counting to be appropriate, especially since the rise in minimum votes, e.g., I would likely promote an image with 4 full supports and 1 weak support, maybe/maybe not one with 3 + 2 weak, and unlikely one with 2 + 3 weak. For those with weak supports, the reasons given in the votes, along with any oppose votes or other negative comments would be given more consideration, which is where interpreting consensus comes into play. Anyway, I am happy to stand aside from closing henceforth. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Folks, Staxringold wasn't active at FPC yet when we held last summer's FPC. His questions are genuine and his opinions are his own. He put tons of work into that nomination. Right now there's another restoration conomination with an even newer FPC editor: Garrondo has been a pleasure to work with and he's very talented. But Garrondo's work hasn't gotten any reviews at all. Please give these people a fair shake. Durova386 15:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Staxringold asked a legitimate question and we offered legitimate answers. As I've said many times, it is not the community's obligation to vote on any noms. Staxringold, you do a great job, so please don't be discouraged, but this is just how it goes sometimes. I've had numerous photos go through with no quorum as well. But if a nom has to sit open for weeks to pass, then it poses the question, "Does this really deserve to be called 'one of WP's best works'?" There are going to be noms that you post that won't pass; I can promise you that. You just have to keep on trucking. On the plus side, even if a nom fails, the work is in an article and offering a quality learning experience to anyone viewing it, so your work wasn't done in vain, as mine wasn't in the man-hours man-days man-weeks I've spent taking non-FP photos. upstateNYer 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nudge. Durova386 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Per upstate - failing a featured picture nomination doesn't undermine the work performed or diminish the image's value. Only 1 in 6 of the images I have uploaded is featured here (closer to 1 in 5 including commons). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical document restoration and FP criteria

FYI: I have started a discussion regarding the restoration of historical documents at WP:WIAFP. The intent is to seek clarification as to when restoration is appropriate or inappropriate for historical documents, and whether restoration of documents should be formally included within the selection criteria.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wineglass bay

Given that things are a bit quiet at the moment due to the Christmas season I'd appreciate it if that image received another opinion or two. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Per above, failing a nomination doesn't diminish an image's value. Durova386 06:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Its true, but things are quiet in December (The number of nominations in previous years is small too). Noodle snacks (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That's the same thing Staxringold and I were saying in the previous thread, except that in the previous instance both Stax and a first time FPC contributor were being neglected. If you want to grow the program (and not be short on reviews), it's a good idea to review their work and read their talk threads with an open mind. Durova386 07:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The aztec nom doesn't have problems at the moment. The other one might not have if my question had been answered. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's 11pm here on Christmas night. I'll turn in for a long winter's nap. Might be a good to rethink about how these posts of yours tonight go across. The impression is not a good one. You're very talented; I like your work and usually enjoy working with you. But remember: I always argued against raising the minimum review quorum. Durova386 07:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You must be a day behind (but Merry Christmas). I was originally opposed to the increase of minimum votes but did support it last time around. It isn't working so well when everyone is busy with holidays (not meeting quorum should be a rare event) but I don't think it is a long term problem. I don't think I need a rethink about my comments in general however. It may be unintentional but I would prefer it if I was not patronised in future. I've have probably supported that boat if there was an answer to the question I phrased there. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FP, taking pictures for Wikipedia and safety.

Is there any place around (around can be taken in a wide meaning) the FP project which advices contributors not to take risks (unless prepared for the specific context) to take pictures for Wikipedia? If there is not, what do you think about placing such an advice in an appropriate place around the project place? In magazines and newspapers that accept submissions of reader's made pictures they do that. I guess it would be nice and will make a socially responsible Wikipedia/project.  franklin  16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean like, not go into volcanoes or swim with great white sharks? I haven't seen such peculiar photography but I think photographers are responsible for their own risk. ZooFari 17:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That is kind of true. We expect people being responsible of their own but, Wikipedia is edited by people of all kinds of ages and even old people make mistakes. We all need to be reminded of safety and responsible acting from time to time. There is a current nomination in which the photographer took physical and legal risks to take the photography. In no way the purpose of this post is to condemn this. After all the editor is probably an adult and nothing really happened. I am just saying that with just a little line somewhere we can have a responsible (educative) attitude since as I said there are all kind (many ages for instance) of contributors to Wikipedia.  franklin  17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the motive behind the suggestion, Franklin, but I think it's silly. If risk were our concern, then we should have banners warning us of potential repetitive strain injury, for the benefit of our serial contributors with tens of thousands of edits. Or, like my company does, tack up posters reminding me that swine flu is lurking on every doorknob. Perhaps it's on my keyboard right now. I think the obvious should be left unstated; that is, every person is responsible for their own safety, security, and health, regardless of what activity they may be partaking of, for whatever cause. Respectfully, a polite message on the FP candidates page isn't going to make the slightest difference whatsoever, and is likely to just come across as either ass-covering or condescending. Maedin\talk 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm with Maedin. I really think this is rather silly. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need. There is always some risk associated with being outdoors taking pictures. Many of the places that I gone walking have seen deaths at one time or another. I've also hopped quite a few fences to go swimming and stood at the edge of cliffs and the like. There also a risk of Snakebite. The risk is entirely up to the photographer and often shared with many other outdoor pursuits. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, agree. While recognising Franklin's good intentions, I don't really see the need. As Maedin says, it would really end up just falling into the category of ass-covering. Two young Australian men tragically died around this time last year over in New Zealand after jumping a fence to try to get better photos of a glacier [3]. The point here is that yes these risks are very real, but that people, and perhaps photographers in particular are very prone to this, will take these risks to get the 'perfect' photo, and it has nothing to do with garnering photos for WP or getting themselves an FP. Maybe some of us would have done the same thing as these men, but no warning at FPC or elsewhere on WP would have changed that. IMO there's always risks, you need to assess each situation carefully and take on board any warnings, etc, at the location, but ultimately you have to be responsible for yourself. --jjron (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

POTD problem

I'm posting here because I know it has more watchers than the main FP page: a little problem with POTD has emerged that could use some attention; see WP:AN#We have no TFP. I know a lot of the regulars aren't around, but if some of you could shed some light on the POTD process, that would be useful. Thanks. Chick Bowen 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

POTD's are selected by Howcheng. I alerted him when I made that post on AN, as well as alerts elsewhere. It's been resolved now. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Not all of them are, he just knows more than the rest of us. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation

Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this an art department?

I just wondered, so the discussion should go around either: which picture shows an "interesting meaning", which picture is the most "beautiful", or which picture meets the topic is being discussed at the section of the article it is placed(academic purpose/teaching).

Is it enough if it gets 2 out of these three requirements from "voters"(jury) to pass? Does it have to get 3 out of three? or should the one-side-alligned Admin decide?

    • I believe these issues should be adressed and specified on the policy page to avoid conflict in the near future. srsly lol
      • Personally I think the academic purpose/teaching (called enc or EV or encyclopaedic value) is most important. It is rare for images to pass without this. Interesting and Beautiful images are more likely to get support votes and less likely to fall victim to nitpicing though. Personally, I will support a boring but educational image. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Noddle snacks sums up my position well. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria sets out the criteria. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Feedback please --Muhammad(talk) 12:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally abstain from voting on GFDL 1.2-only images. Kaldari (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)