Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:39, 26 May 2010

WT:FPC

This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates Wikipedia page.
If you wish to suggest an image that might be appropriate as a Featured Picture Candidate, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. If the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about an FP candidate, please make it at Featured Pictures talk.

FPCs needing feedback

Minimum of five supports for featured pictured candidates?

Recently (Nov. 2009) it was decided among contributors at featured pictures that new candidates should have to receive a minimum of five "supports" to be promoted. See Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 25#Changing to Minimum of 5 Supports for the original discussion. To me, this seems to be extremely problematic, for the following reasons;

Firstly, it goes against the principle that wikipedia is run based on consensus, consensus weighs support and opposition to a proposal/idea based on the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion, and the number of people who support or oppose a certain matter should not affect the outcome. Also, this "minimum of five supports" rule is going against the grain of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
Secondly, FPC isn't a particularly crowded project (it seems to be more of a core of dedicated users); I recently nominated a piece of artwork, which subsequently collected one comment on the lack of sourcing and information on the original size, the sourcing was fixed, and the image went on to accumulate two supports, coming to a total of three in support, and no one in oppose, the most important thing to note here though is that the image had only been commented on by four users (including nom), so how on earth can it be expected to get five supports? Even if it was the best image on wikipedia it wouldn't have got five supports because five users did not comment on it.

It seems that before this change was implemented the rule was that images had to have a minimum of four supports, if there is not a consensus here to abolish the minimum support rule altogether then can we at least revert back to the original four support minimum rule?
Kind regards,Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general feeling has been that a lack of votes implies the image is neither compelling nor eye-catching. The image would, therefore, not meet criterion 3. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Makeemlighter. I know that I often choose to skip past an image that I would not support, but don't feel strongly enough to oppose either. If I were forced to choose, I'd usually oppose. So in a sense, I think a lack of votes is often indicative of apathetic opposition. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having said that, it's probably only fair that those who do vote are the ones that determine whether it meets criteron 3, rather than assuming that it doesn't, based on the lack of votes. Technically I suppose we're not using the concept of quorum correctly though, since quorum is based on the number of votes in total, not just the number of support votes. Still, whatever the discussion on the academics of quorum, the minimum of 5 votes is something that has been agreed upon and I don't see the problem with keeping it as-is due to the reasoning behind non-voting mentioned by myself above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unanimous support is now indicative of apathy? If an image is not aesthetically pleasing enough (criteria three) to support it, then oppose it, don't just put in place an automatic system that opposes it for one, because this system has three major flaws: Firstly, in that if only three users, excluding the nominator, actually review the image, then it will fail by default, regardless of whether it would have gained an unanimous support with a review by 30 users. Secondly, the automatic opposition put in place by default fails to provide constructive feedback, I would hope that if there is a slight blur on the image that prevents one from supporting, then I would hope that that user would oppose the image, and mention the blur, because there is then an opportunity for it to be fixed, whereas with the current system, there is no such chance of a suggestion, due to the apathetic nature of said system. Thirdly, the current situation, as I have mentioned, goes against the principal of consensus, consensus is not “if 75% support then that's consensus”, what consensus is, is a fair consideration of everyone's opinions, in which those opinions are weighed by the strength of their argument, not by the number of people standing behind it. By placing a benchmark on an image based on the number of users who support the argument one immediately. Hope this all makes sense. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS, that was my 20,000th edit, epic win, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to the second bullet point of criterion 3: "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." If nobody is reviewing an image, it probably isn't very compelling. Anyway, the only real alternative to our current system would be something like what they have at Featured Sounds. Rather than require a minimum number of support votes, they require a minimum number of votes. Their minimum is 3, so a sound with 2 supports and 1 oppose could pass. If we changed to that, you could pass with 3 supports and 2 opposes, 4 supports and 1 oppose, or 5 supports. But you'd still need to hit that minimum number. The nomination in question would not achieve that minimum number of votes, so you're still out of luck. Sorry. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One more quick point: you are welcome to re-nominate that image at any time. Usually it's a good idea to wait a few weeks, though, so you don't get comments like "this just failed; why nominate it again?" Makeemlighter (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, one more quick point. We've had quite a few discussions here at FPC about consensus. As it stands, we do not promote/fail images based solely upon vote counts. You can scroll up this page for proof of that. The requirement for a minimum number of supports isn't about making sure a lot of people like an image; rather, it's about ensuring that enough people review an image to catch any problems or issues with it. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, if no one is reviewing an image it is either because they, a) haven't seen it, or b) don't feel strongly either way. If they don't feel strongly either way then that apathy should not be metamorphosed into opposition. It would seem to me that the best solution is to just get rid of the minimum votes requirement altogether, but introduce a system whereby if the closing editor feels that not enough users have participated they can relist the candidate. Also, this is not some push to get “god speed” promoted, if that were the case I would just have waited a while, and then re-nominated it as suggested. Finally you say that FP does “not promote/fail images based solely upon vote counts.”, however, it would seem that it does fail images if they have a lack of support, and therefore really, it does fail images based purely upon numbers, rather than on the strength of comments. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing irrelevant drama

It's worth pointing out that one of the arguments raising the minimum from 4 to 5 explicitly counted on the participation of two editors who were very active at that time, even though both of those editors opposed raising the minimum. I was one of the two names that were invoked that way; the other individual hasn't done a review in five months. Neither of us volunteered to become the quota-makers--quite the opposite--and I considered that whole line of argumentation to be rather rude. Perhaps it's not a matter of Durova⁴¹² 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, (and any others of a similar mind); my sincere apologies if you felt that I was somehow designating you as a self appointed quota maker, this was not my intention at all, and I made a specific point in my previous comment to make us of the word “one” as opposed to “you”. I have also not at any point suggested that anyone here is some kind of quota maker. I am very sorry if I have come across as rude. I merely disagree with this system, however, I mean no offence to any of the people involved in FP and I fully appreciated the work you all do here, kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, can you point out the argument that "explicitly counted" on your participation? I couldn't find it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't recall any mention of it either. Certainly not explicitly. It was a decision based on the general level of participation AFAIK, nothing to do with the participation of individual editors. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just whinge for !votes here if you aren't getting any. Someone will whinge about the whinge but it usually works. I'd suggest a renomination of the image mentioned above with the sourcing in hand. I've noticed that there would appear to be a trend towards not !voting rather than opposing nominations, presumably to avoid drama. My assessment would be that activity was probably a little higher when five supports was moved in. However, I haven't had trouble achieving the minimum votes with most of my nominations. This was not true during a period of unrest last year when the minimum was four. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should be careful not to give criterion 3b too much weight - some people inherently don't find some subjects interesting and wow doesn't really have an impact on encyclopaedic value. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two people were boycotting the process at the time this was posted, so the statement is equivalent to an explicit expectation that Shoemaker's Holiday and myself would be the factor in when to require five supports.

IMO, the change to 5 supports should be made after the boycotts have ended. At least two users who enthusiastically reviewed my images have dropped out. -Muhammad(talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[1]

~~Noting in passing that since retrieving that quote, I no longer suffer twinges of regret for not having reviewed recently.~~ Durova⁴¹² 17:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I have difficulty comprehending how you interpreted a single comment, by a single user, to represent the motivation behind our decision as a community. While respecting Muhammad, his comment does come across as somewhat self-serving, certainly doesn't speak for the rest of us, and I'd hardly say that your name was invoked, and nor were you appointed a quota-maker. Discussion stalled because . . . well, that's what happens around here, and when the 5-support minimum was brought up again, there was no mention of it being based on the participation of a select few; as Jjron summed it here, "when participation is more brisk".

I wouldn't normally comment, but I feel that you've maligned all of us by stating that we rudely volunteered you for a role that you didn't want but felt pressured into performing. Maedin\^talk 21:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment at that time was intended to show that participation to the project had dropped and that increasing consensus at such a time would certainly hamper future FPCs. After participation picked up, I agreed changing the minimum supports to 5 and stand by that choice. --Muhammad(talk) 00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it looked at all. And my patience has worn very thin for the game where people demand more examples and then ignore/redefine/deny each example that comes forward, making insults as they go. Forget it. This is an encyclopedia. There are other things to do. Durova⁴¹² 01:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, in this case, I think your example is being rejected because it didn't mean what you seem to think it meant. Obviously you're a valued contributor, but nobody is irreplacable and it is very unlikely that we would decide on rules that relied on the contributions of specific individuals such as yourself. After all, the initial trigger for the enormous debate was the idea that one person should not have so much control over the outcome of a nomination! We only wanted a process that resulted in fair decisions, and at the time, a lack of traffic in the project (of which your boycott contributed to, but was by no means the root cause of) meant that we were routinely not getting enough votes for a clear result. Once the participation increased (and it seems to have), we all largely supported a minimum of five supports. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want your bad faith assumptions about everyone at FPC to be questioned, then I suggest that you don't bring it up in the future. An apology saying you had misunderstood would have sufficed; no moral machinations necessary. Maedin\^talk 10:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll back the calendar a year, Maedin. People complained about FPC closers manipulating the outcomes of candidacies. The response was denial, then when the first examples came forward the examples were disregarded as flukes and the people who brought them forward were belittled and accused of bad faith. Finally when there were enough examples (it had indeed happened quite a few times and was blatant) an RfC happened. Wash, rinse, repeat. Same attitude. For months over various discussions I put up with that pattern out of good faith, in the hope that it wasn't what it seemed to be. Every time Valued Pictures comes up I go through the same routine of fetching example after example and getting the brush-off (often in decidedly uncivil terms). I have always reviewed more candidacies than I've submitted, and tolerated too much shabby treatment in return. Know what? You don't get to talk to me that way unless you sign a paycheck on Friday. Condescending demands for apologies don't wash. Durova⁴¹² 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear here, Durova: when you say people complained, you mean you complained about so-called 'manipulating', an argument which is still awaiting a legitimate example to prove its existence. Your main example was the Tunis nomination, one which did not meet the minimum vote requirements (funny this section is entitled the same) in double the amount of time of a typical nom. You assumed bad faith and completely out of nowhere accused me of manipulating the system, which I never did while I was closing. From that point on, you proved yourself as someone who does not assume good faith of users and as a user who cannot have good faith assumed of because your methods of dealing with people is subversive of and detrimental to this program. I have taken less part in this process since then; you've offered a disincentive for me to be here as often. You're now alienating a much larger group of this community. upstate NYer 00:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on manipulated outcomes or on Valued Pictures, and I'm not sure why you've brought it up. I'm sorry if my comments seemed more general, but I was genuinely referring only to the accusation boldly made that you had been "rudely" volunteered as our trump reviewer and therefore felt obligated to review, no matter what your other priorities might be. In my opinion and the opinions of others here, it was a misunderstanding, and my intention was only to clear it up, though admittedly I bristled and was probably more forthright than I should have been. Maedin\^talk 00:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if anyone submitted more candidates than they reviewed. We're all primarily reviewers here and the project simply wouldn't work if it were any other way. I'm not sure how you're distinguishing yourself in any way with that comment. Anyway, instead of getting riled up by the language used, it's probably better if you concentrate on what they're actually saying. In summary, if I understand the situation correctly: You're mistaken if you believe that you alone were and are needed to review in order for us to reach a quorum of five supports. We will likely get on just fine if you choose not to. Having said that, we welcome your contributions. We'd just prefer if it didn't include the self-important attitude that was demonstrated above. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Above, Durova writes: "It's worth pointing out that one of the arguments raising the minimum from 4 to 5 explicitly counted on the participation of two editors who were very active at that time, even though both of those editors opposed raising the minimum. I was one of the two names that were invoked that way; the other individual hasn't done a review in five months."

I believe I am that person. Durova knows very well <redacted by Rlevse> [why I haven't done a review in five months], and I'd ask her, of all people, to not to put words in my mouth. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see comments by me at ANI and Shoe's talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the link needs to be redacted? Shoe is actually acting more rational now than he has, replacing the slander on his user page with a link that is not slanderous. And if the content of the link is indeed verbatim, then quoting is not slander either, because it was actually said, in writing. Either way, you've removed a link that you only need to press the "History" button to see, essentially increasing the intrigue in viewing the link. If your goal was to have fewer people click it, you've probably done the opposite. upstate NYer 01:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is established precedent for suppressing links publishing personal conversations/emails, etc. You can confirm this with Cary Bass, WMF Volunteer Coordinator if you wish. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not arguing that it may be policy or precedent, only that doing so would actually garner more clicks than if it were dealt with... well... any other way. As far as I'm concerned, the logic is severely lacking in this situation. upstate NYer 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to click anymore though - SH's edits that involved the link have been wiped from the page history. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, as you presumably know, that is in violation of oversight policy as stated in WP:OVERSIGHT. Furthermore, a short section from the totality of all my conversations with her, for purposes of commentary, is covered under fair use. If I'm ever going to return, it's important that the harassment is known, so that I have basic protection from my harasser. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 08:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not, check with Cary Bass like I did if you like. There is established precedent for suppressing links publishing personal conversations/emails, etc, such as the EEML case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that WP:OVERSIGHT is the relevant policy here? There are five permitted criteria. Please state which one your action comes under:

Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses.
Removal of potentially libelous information, either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel; or b) when the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
Removal of copyright infringement, on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.
Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, where this does not disrupt edit histories. A blatant attack is one obviously intended to denigrate, threaten, libel, insult, or harass someone.
Removal of vandalism. Suppression may be occasionally used to remove vandalism that can not be removed by normal administrative measures. Such cases should be handled with suppression, rather than with the Oversight tool, so that they may be reversed if needed, and should be discussed in advance on the Oversight mailing list unless they are urgent or time-sensitive, in which case they should be discussed on the mailing list afterward. (Note: This criterion is an interim measure, due to limitations of present-day administrator tools.[1])

Note that even #3 requires Wikipedia counsel, and that's even if a fair-use discussion, hosted off-site, counts as such. Oversight is not a blanket "delete anything you want" right. It is bound by explicitly numerated policy.

This is a clear violation of policy by you. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 13:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Rlevse, If the conversation was directly related to Wikipedia, if no personal information was disclosed, I'd say let it stay. Shoemaker's Holiday posted the link, that means he's OK with it. I am sure Durova has no reason to keep it off either. So, if the only two people, who were involved, agreed to release their personal conversation, which is directly related to Wikipedia, let it be. I hope everybody would agree that we need to find some kind of resolution to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to both Wikipedia and Commons. I am sure Durova wants him back! So, if the releasing of this conversation will help to achieve the goal, it will be a step in the right direction. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the five-vote minimum is a good policy. In my view, it is a good way to ensure that images have a minimum wow. If five people can't be bothered to support, when 350-400 people that see this site each day, I think it is a good indication that the photo is not our best work. I think the photos that fail for lack of quorum generally are not deserving photos. If a photo slips through the cracks, it can be renominated. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, it's been closer to 250 [2]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse hits with unique visitors either. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to Recently Closed Noms section

This section says not to add comments to the noms but doesn't say how to raise an issue. Since people bring these to the talk page anyway, I figured I'd explicitly state that's how it should be done. See [3]. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition, thank you for adding it. Maedin\^talk 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Quiet

Why is there so little activity/voting going on at the moment? I'm just curious, I haven't been around much the past year so I'm a bit out of touch. I know Fir left, have other users been drifting away aswell or is it just a short term lull? --Benjamint 07:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a bit of a temporary lull at the moment. I don't think Fir's leaving had a big impact on things (although I suppose any individual leaving does have an effect). There is always a cycling of contributors though. Roughly speaking, for every person who leaves or is busy IRL, there tends to be another who joins or increases their activity here. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose part of the problem is the serial nominator(s) that never (or rarely) vote? ;-) Maedin\^talk 10:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are those who are afraid to oppose --Muhammad(talk) 14:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have the same impression as Muhammad, that many prefer to not formaly oppose if they see that a candidate will not get enough support anyway. Since now 5 supports are required, it is easier to estimate such a chance. I personally got a bit tired of bugs, birds and lizards - not that I don't like them, but I miss cultural topics... --Elekhh (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm guilty of nearly all of those :P. I will only ever be able to serial nominate; it's all I can find time for during term. Probably be around for another 2 weeks or so, Just until I start getting assignments and then it'll probably be December before I make any significant contributions again. I'm afraid I've got a few more birds to get through, bear with me Elekhh and I've got a few cultural shots toward the end :) --Benjamint

- - As having sort of an outside view after a longer period of absence I can only confirm Muhammad impression. It certainly cannot and should not be generalized, but my very subjective impression is that some users who have a pony in the race tend to be rather easy on the other candidates. Unfortunately opposes and criticism of other peoples images can create somewhat of a tense atmosphere. It really shouldn't, it should be constructive and not be taken personally, but the reality is a bit different. Not everyone here has the temper of a Buddhist monk (certainly not me, that's for sure). But I'd love to see FPC become a little more critical. So sorry in advance, but i won't be holding back anymore ;-) (like I ever have..). I don't have ponies anyways. --Dschwen 13:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it's good to have you back. And as long as constructive criticism is passed, I see no objection. I personally prefer a nomination shot down and destroyed rather than one left not promoted with only 2 supports --Muhammad(talk) 19:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Personally I'm fairly busy IRL with uni atm. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Santa Fe nomination

Please see my talk. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress website revamps, links broken

Today the Library of Congress rolled out a new website design. Apparently they haven't gotten the kinks out and most or all of the source links from Wikipedia are currently broken. Found out about this shortly after the close of the business day in Washington, D.C. So if anything needs verification from that site in the short term, please be patient. Durova⁴¹² 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a few examples from your talk I can make a search query which finds the unique image (eg1, eg2) using the data in the old link. You will soon learn from the LOC if direct linking is possible with the old identifier. A smart bot might be able to take the new link from the search if not. I'd really suggest replacing the raw links with a source template - it makes changes a bit easier to handle. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's premature to suggest any direct fixes and troubleshooting right now. LoC suddenly rolled out this new thing today and when the first Wikimedians field tested it we found this problem. Durova⁴¹² 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The links are now working, looks like they fixed it. I was the one that perhaps raised the issue with Durova too early, probably I was just hysterical after Wikipedia was down for hours on Wednesday :) Jujutacular ^T · C 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Discussion at the Commons admin board indicates that more of the links are working now, but not all of them. Seems to be worth mentioning here in case it comes up in candidacy discussions: not a sourcing or Wikimedian editor error, just something they're ironing out at LoC. Durova⁴¹² 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Germain

Would anyone happen to know of a good-quality image of Sophie Germain? I would happily do a restoration. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could find this image in a high resolution, it would be a decent candidate. Here you can see it zoomed in a bit, but with a watermark unfortunately. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, we'd want the original painting, not the engraving based off of it. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it was the most decent image I could find. Sorry :-\ tough luck. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. I'll see if I can find anything in the local libraries and antiquarian bookstores. Never know: Scotland has strong historical ties with France. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 11:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Raven delist nomination

Please see this discussion at my talk page. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what can I say? That guy does have a point. This whole raven story, which I only watched from a distance, was a bit embarrassing for WP:FP. --Dschwen 18:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations Viewer for WP:FAC, WP:FARC, WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, and WP:FPC

Here's a tool I made for myself that others might find useful. You can go to the script's documentation to learn more about it, including how to install it and configure it, but basically what it does is it collapses all nominations by default. You can expand the ones you want to read, and even click on "view nomination" to go directly to the nomination instead of having to click on the "edit" link first. This script will probably not be useful for those who like to just scroll through the nominations pages to find something they like, but personally I like to scroll through the article titles and when I find something interesting, I expand it to read it so that I don't have to first sift through some particularly long nominations.

This was just an idea that I had floating around a while back and finally got around to doing it. Feedback is welcome, but I may move slowly on adding new features if I've done enough coding for that day. One thing in particular that I might add is the {{la}} template, so that there are more links available to click on. It can, of course, be enabled/disabled on a per-user basis. Gary King (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So.... this is essentially a table of contents on steroids? ;-) --Dschwen 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics Category

I've noticed that mathematics images are thrown all over the place in WP:FP. Some are in diagrams and some are in science, others. Personally I don't believe that mathematics is a science, but that is up for debate. I therefore propose that a new subcategory of science be created for Maths. Any thoughts? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. upstate NYer 15:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea. Can't see why not. I don't really see it as a major problem to lump it in with science either though, as long as we're consistent. Sounds like the bigger problem is the design - only being able to choose a single category when the image applies to multiple categories. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some images might actually be in more than one category. See this. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I've been thinking about this ever since I started closing. There are a few others I'd like to add too, but I can't think of them right now. As long as there are no objections to the idea, I'm willing to make the changes. BTW, I'm busy for the next 8 hours or so, but I'll close all the old noms (I think there are 4 or 5) later tonight if they're still open. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and just make one. I think quite a few images are going to fit in much better there. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the ones I thought fit in there. A few others could have gone in, but I left them out. I also might have missed a few. Take a look and let me know what you think. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. upstate NYer 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Should I rename Astronomy as Physics? A lot of things in Sciences/Others are actually physics images and astronomy is a subset of physics. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like Astronomy as a category. I think it's useful for people looking for high quality images of stars, galaxies, etc. Adding all the other physics images would just clutter that category. Physics could probably be its own category, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about a new top-level category, "space imagery and maps" to contain "Views of Earth from space and satellites", astronomy, and maps? Science and physics categories could then have a "see also" pointing to the astronomy category. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        BTW, virtually no subcategories have been created for Category:Featured pictures. I believe creating these could take care of some of your concerns about double-listing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More about mathematics and categories

I'm not sure what Noodle snacks was referring to by "all over the place", but I found a few at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Diagrams,_drawings,_and_maps/Diagrams#By_Wikipedians that might fall under physics, computer science, or mathematics - beauty in the eye if anyone wants to have an opinion on that. I moved Anscombe's Quartet because I believe I'm not alone in recognising statistics as a sub-discipline of mathematics. I also think we should eliminate Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Diagrams, drawings, and maps/Diagrams entirely because it's just a "miscellany" bucket for things that would be better classified elsewhere. If that means borrowing a categorisation scheme from Commons or some other wiki, then so be it - ours sucks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was lazy about moving Anscombe's Quartet. You were right to add it. Maybe the diagrams and drawings could be eliminated, but there definitely needs to be a maps category. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, maps are fine as a category, but I think diagrams are more usefully put in the existing subject-based categories, and you're right to suggest the same for Drawings (which btw contains a lot of things that aren't drawings at all). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And culture contains a lot of artwork, and a vehicles category is needed, and planetary science seems oddly dissociated from space. I've been thinking for ages that the categorisation and categories need to be improved and streamlined, but it's such a big job it needs more than just my head, though I'll pitch in when and where I can. Maedin\^talk 21:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Power in numbers. I'm sure we'll be busy for a while just implementing what's been suggested up to this point. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Butterfly Wing close-up.jpg

Hi, PLW and I seem to have a difference of opinion regarding some issues. I would appreciate your views on the matter here --Muhammad(talk) 13:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?????????????

What did I do wrong? Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think you just need to try again (having the page already created screws up the template somehow). If I delete it and provide you with the text, would you like to create it a second time? Alternatively, just create another one with a slightly different title and I'll clean up the "broken" one. Let me know either way, :) Maedin\^talk 21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed [[Aerial [[Surveillance aircraft|Reconnaissance]]→[[Surveillance aircraft|Reconnaissance]] which seems to have corrected the problem. Thanks for offering. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Figures it would be something so tiny, :) Glad you fixed it okay. Maedin\^talk 22:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From promoted to not promoted

This had a clear promotion with 7 supp vs 2 opp at the end of 7 days. While other images I had nominated with it were closed on time, this was left open for a longer time until it accumulated enough opposes for a not promoted close. Less than 24 hrs after getting those opposes, the nomination was closed. Isn't' that just plain WRONG? --Muhammad(talk) 14:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the long and hard discussion we had some months ago, things didn't change much in terms of clarity of the rules and transparency of the promotion process. The guidelines (still) read: For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Although I very much sympathize with Muhammad's problem (and agree that the picture should have been promoted in due time) we are just picking what we have sowed: ambiguity. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a clear promotion after 7 days. That's why it was left open. There were concerns which none of the supporters addressed. At best it was a "no consensus" result and after a few more days, it became a clear non-promotion. Sorry if it looks like I waited to close it until it got oppose votes. That's just when I happened to notice it. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with your frustration, Muhammad, but I can only agree with Alvesgaspar. The seeds of the majority of our conflicts lie in our ambiguous "rules", our lack of definition on multiple points, and the fluid nature of our end-of-nomination process. It's tough, but nothing about that closure, by our current practices, was "wrong", per se. The only point for complaint here is on how we run the process as a whole, and that is never going to change as long as we only take issue with the handful of specific cases where the loopholes in the system most clearly show their fault. I don't mean to be rude, but caring only when it happens to you (you as in anyone reading this) and then letting the problem fade from consciousness shortly afterwards is a good way to ensure that a) it happens again, to you or someone else and b) nothing changes for the positive. Maedin\^talk 11:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't just care when it happens to me. I have raised numerous closures in the past, and all of them have received the same response. Sympathy, a shrug of the shoulders and we move on. --Muhammad(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "you" wasn't aimed directly at you, and my comment was more along the lines of, "we only care when it turns out negatively, and we're even fickle about that". When there aren't any controversial closures, we should still care, because the ambiguity isn't going to go away on its own. As you can see, no one else is willing to do anything about that. Your two sympathetic, "shoulder-shrugging" responders here, Alvesgaspar and myself, pushed for, collaborated on, and started the review last June that was meant to address some of these issues. Would someone else like to be pro-active and try to drag some consensus out of the FPC crowd? :) Maedin\^talk 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would suggest you start something up. You seem to be good at that and everybody here appreciates that of you. --Muhammad(talk) 16:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would say 'finish' instead of 'start'. We don't need a new discussion. To me knowledge the results of the last mega-discussion were not fully reflected in the guidelines. Am I right?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Wellllll, from memory, there wasn't much in the way of "results". We found we were split on the majority of issues and couldn't establish any meaningful consensus; plus too many choices, to suit every whim, and any one thing was dependent on another. Lots of "I support this, but only IF that", ad infinitum. That's why it died, as far as I could tell. We weren't getting anywhere and everyone got bored with it. I think a revival could attempt to pick up where we left off though. Perhaps having had the time to reflect on our polar differences and see how poorly they serve us, participants will be willing to move a little closer to the middle and find common ground. Maedin\^talk 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The truth is nobody seems to care. WP:FPC is slowly dying. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Haha, this is just likle the BSD is dying meme from slashdot. Trust me, it won't. Not that I'd shed too many tears about the backwards standards that reward downscaled crippleware pictures and the abuse of FPC as a self-promotion platform, but FPC is bigger than that. All it might need is a cleansing thunderstorm. --Dschwen 02:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But we already had the cleansing thunderstorm (I don't rememer you participating, did you?)! The problem is the mountain gave birth to a mouse and nobody dared to write new guidelines full reflecting the results (I don't agree with you, Maedin). In the meantime some old farts died and the remaining (us?) resumed their interrupted naps in the club's leathery chairs. Like you, I'm not very sympathetic with the use of FPC as a self-promotional platform (though I consider the ego-feeding component necessary). But the fact is the place was much better attended when that kind of participation prevailed, for example, when Fir and all the other creators from the "other-side-of-the-world" were more active. If self-nominations stop we'll be left with historical pictures and restorations of old engravings (while they last). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you telling me there was epic drama and i missed it?! Oh noes! :-) Yeah, I guess that was during my absence from FPC. Ego-feeding is ok, self nominations are not inherently bad. But let me spell it out: I do not miss Fir's downsampled demo-versions of pictures one bit. And in fact we can thank him for setting a bad example that people like Muhammad, BenjaminTT and NoodleSnacks etc. are now unfortunately following. FPC guidelines are outdated and favor technically substandard low resolution pictures. Unfortunately those guys have too much of a fanblock, and too much of a monetary interest to ever tolerate or even agree an update of FPC standards. This might eventually choke this page to death. And it hurts the project (but just a little bit, as FPC is a rather small speckle on the big painting that is Wikipedia). --Dschwen 15:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Blatant trolling is far more damaging. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm what? Muhammad, you asked for more input here. And you got it. Be a good sport, deal with it. Actually not just deal with it, but mabe even listen to the points that were brought forward. Those go way beyond whether you get one more little gold star or not. --Dschwen 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was meant to question whether it was right to remove an image from an article after one saw it at FPC. --Muhammad(talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And again it boils down to the same putting the cart in front of the ox that sparked the whole discussion. FPC is completely insignificant when comparing it to the main mission of this site: building an encyclopedia. An editorial decision should be completely unaffected by little photo-hobby-groups like FPC. --Dschwen 15:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Let's assume for now that Muhammad's motivation on that issue was simply to improve the article and had little to do with collecting gold stars. I don't see the problem with how Muhammad handled the removal of his image in the article. He and PLW disagreed so he raised the issue for the attention of a third party. Granted, as you alluded to, it would have been better to raise it on the article talk page than FPC's talk page, but aside from that... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I completely agree, it was the correct procedure to ask for further input. But now he is essentially complaining that the input he got did not agree with him. --Dschwen 17:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swell in closings by occasionals

I noticed that since about the beginning of the year, all of the following editors contributed towards promoting images: Makeemlighter, Maedin, jjron, Papa, Jujutacular, J Milburn, Staxringold, Lampman, Shoemaker's Holiday, Noodle snacks, Elekhh, and Abecedare. Many also contributed to non-promote closures, including upstateNYer.

At the same time, it's my impression that in the first quarter of 2010, we had fewer complaints about closures, nominations got closed more or less on time, and there was greater acceptance of renominations for quorum reasons. Additionally and in my subjective experience, use of Template:FPC urgents always resulted in reaching quorum for an underattended nomination.

Overall, I believe transparency has been increased, with fewer discussions referencing dictatorship or cabal. I also believe that in order to carry forward this sense of égalité, it is important that as many people as possible participate in closures, including promotions, and in questioning them when they don't seem right. We're currently in good shape to continue doing this - if we keep at it.

I'll close with offering a vote of thanks to Maedin, who started Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which no doubt was a major contribution to the positive change we've seen. I'm sure that as we continue to meet challenges to the FPC process, we'll continue to need focused discussion of positive change like the above.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without trying to be cynical, we've had fewer complaints etc, but we've also had fewer nominations too. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't thank me; it's those who contributed constructively to the discussion who earned any praise. I only wish it had gone further and reached some positive and concrete conclusions. I agree that the feeling here seems eased and the conflicts are less frequent and less vociferous, but we do clearly still have some areas that, as Alvesgaspar says one section up, are too ambiguous. But the wider participation of users in closing is an encouraging step and I hope it keeps up, too. Maedin\^talk 10:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major update for Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer

I released Wikipedia:Nominations Viewer two weeks ago. Today, I added new features to the script in response to suggestions made by some users. The script now shows more information when viewing nominations, including how many images are in the nomination, when the nomination was submitted, how many people are involved in the nomination, how much support it has received, and how many co-nominators there are. If you hover over each piece of information, it will give you some extra details as well. The information shown can be re-arranged as you please, or removed completely, by using the settings as shown in the documentation. If you already have the script installed, you may need to bypass your cache to get the new features. Gary King (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/

This nomination was recently transcluded onto the queue. I have removed it. It's malformed, and the external link points to a non-free image, which isn't eligible to be featured. Could a watching admin delete that page? Jujutacular ^T · C 05:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for leaving a note at DieBuche's talk page. Maedin\^talk 05:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FPC discussion: implementation of consensus

Last June we had a long discussion on the FPC closure process. Browsing through the thread I realize that the existing guidelines do not reflect the opinion of the majority. Two points: a 2/3 majority of supporting votes should be enough for promotion (9 in favour, 4 against); and the voting period should be 7 days exactly (7 in favour, 4 against). Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not being intentionally difficult, but isn't it somewhat counter-intuitive to suggest a 2/3 supermajority along with another change that didn't have that same majority in favour? We do adhere (95% of the time or greater) to the supermajority definition for closures; if 7–4 doesn't even pass a nomination now, I don't see how it could be logically defended as passing a fixed seven-day term. Maedin\^talk 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until we agree what consensus is we'll have to count votes. Keeping the '7 day's flexible' option is equivalent to adopting the opinion of the minority. Is there a way out? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as clear cut as that; there was another straw poll later, after discussion developed, and there were only two supporters for a fixed 7-day period, with the other votes falling for some form of flexibility. The other options, I have to admit, seem a little silly and impractical now; I'd change my mind if I had to choose again, ;) Personally, I think a fixed time period is best but that 7 days is not long enough. I can't fathom why Commons, with its swarm of voters, has 9 days and we only have 7. I do realise that they also have more nominations open at any given time, but ours also take longer to review (except for the obvious ones). 7 fixed days may be the preferred option now, but I am sure it was not at the "end" (lol :p) of the review. We could take a quick vote, Joaquim; 9 days fixed, 7 days fixed, keep as is (noms closed anytime after seven days), and one of the 7-day "fixed and flexible" options (you'll have to peek at the review to see the three main ideas we came up with in that regard). By the way, the adoption of a 2/3 supermajority was not really in question; isn't the 9–4 whether it falls to 66% or 67%? Maedin\^talk 18:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there was some discussion of the minimum threshold being anything greater than 2/3 support. Kaldari (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Maedin -- I agree with (almost) everything you say. Yes, go ahead and launch a poll to decide the voting period (you have much better English than me...). But if we do not keep it simple we risk to go over the same mess again. I also agree that 9 days (fixed) is better than 7. As for the supermajority, 2/3 is 2/3 is 2/3 (0.6666...). Meaning that 6 sup/3 op. is ok. That was the result of the initial poll. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also think a straw poll would be a good idea. And I agree let's keep it as simple as possible. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm drafting it as I write this. Should be uploaded shortly. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New poll - please participate

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2. Any comments on formatting and structure? (not content please - see below) There are instructions at the top, which I encourage people to read. Please participate, because while this is an early stage at which we're trying to understand what the main issues and alignments are, it will (as is the nature with straw polls on WP) probably be used retrospectively to justify changing, or not changing, the way the project works. I've done my best to allow people to express dissent even with the questionnaire itself, hope it works out for you. The current idea is that open discussion will be restricted to the second round, which will also include a set of "contributed questions" if there are any (contributeds are divided into two groups mostly to accommodate early and late questions). Please let's not discuss poll content here - you can add further questions and/or reply options to the poll itself. Best regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not allowed to comment on content then I guess there is not much to discuss (i.e. structure looks fine to me). --Dschwen 17:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The structure is excellent, and it's clear and user-friendly. Thanks very much! Maedin\^talk 18:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent PLW! I like this model, it enforces discipline and organization. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your kind comments. @Dschwen: I hope you can participate nonetheless - please do use the opportunities for creating new reply options for each question, and/or new questions (the latter at the bottom of the poll). Try to follow the format if possible, and try to ask simple questions that are geared towards understanding what people want, rather than tailored towards particular proposals. Also a reminder to everyone that discussion should be avoided altogether if possible on the poll. Rather than discuss, you can propose new parts to the poll, as outlined above. There will also be lots of discussion at the second stage, but not at this one. If you have questions about the procedure, layout, etc., put them here for now. If there's lots to discuss, we can open a talk page for the poll itself, but let's keep it here for now. Final reminder (I'll shut up after this) that unless it's to clarify weakness of wording in the poll (which I should have said I'm happy to hear about), your preferences for change in FPC should be expressed as new reply options, and if your areas of concern are not addressed in the poll, this should inspire you to formulate one or several poll question(s) to determine what others think about the same aspect.

As is inevitable with a first draft, there were a few areas that I didn't cover. To fill these gaps, I added 7 new questions. These are at the bottom of the poll under "contributed" - to give weight to the fact they were added after the start of the poll. Apologies for the late additions, and thanks for the participation so far. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, just cast my !votes :-). One tiny detail: the example signature should be removed, leaving only the bullet, that should make the poll a bit less cluttered, and by now we have enough real signature to serve as examples. --Dschwen 16:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is okay, I guess, but I do have one criticism. I don't like the notes and criticisms that some choices have. It's unfair to list the criticisms of some of the choices but not of the others. For the nomination period, for example, you have a positive note for fixed duration (no hassle) and a criticism for the roughly on time closing. Why not add that fixed duration limits discussion or that people might not see the nom until it's nearly closed? And why not say that accepting late votes contributes to consensus building and ensures that everyone's voice is heard? It seems odd that you only want us to vote at this stage, holding discussion for later, but you insert your own comments on the options. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your comment before, but I've just made the changes (which I think you would have been fine to do yourself). PLW did tweak it after your comment: [4] I'll guess that you hadn't seen that, and the extent of change you were looking for was possibly misunderstood. Maedin\^talk 11:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this poll still open? NauticaShades 18:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, :) Maedin\^talk 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on POTD credits

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Picture of the day photo credits. howcheng {chat} 20:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License violations... anywhere to report them?

After all these years, I still don't know my way around the labyrinthine bureaucratic processes of Wikipedia/Commons as well as I should, but I've just spotted a fairly blatant and serious misuse of Wikipedia's photos, and I'm not sure if there's a team who would be interested in investigating further. Here's the source of the issue: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/11/1117_best_places_to_raise_kids/1.htm. A number of the photos have been ripped from Commons without citing any sources, giving attribution or providing the license details. For example:

This image has been used here.
This image has been used here.
This image has been used here.
This image has been used here.
This image has been used here.

I'm really just scratching the surface with above. I haven't checked all 50 states but I'd say a quarter to a third of the states I had a look at were taken from Commons. It's just so blatant. And the worst part is the photoshop work. So tacky! So low budget. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, unless you yourself are the copyright owner of the image, there's not much you can do. See Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess notifying the authors of the images would be a good idea (I can do this if you want). And yeah, those are pathetically blatant. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great number of my images have also been misused and sending a letter does nothing. That's one of the drawbacks of wiki and yet photographers are expected to release highest resolutions. --Muhammad(talk) 04:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*squeeze* Yes, they are expected to release highest resolutions. What difference does it make to you whether a high or low resolution picture gets infringed? --Dschwen 13:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With lower res, we can minimize the infringement to internet only. Higher res would allow the prints to me easily made as well --Muhammad(talk) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are essentially providing a less useful version. That amounts to punishing the entire project Wikipedia and all legitimate users to avoid a few cases of infringement. Cannons to sparrows. --Dschwen 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles do not essentially require very high resolution images. Open any physical encyclopedia and you will hardly ever find a large picture, so Wikipedia does not lose out a lot. I am open to changing my practice of course if Wikipedia guarantees that my work will not be misused. --Muhammad(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physical encyclopedias are completely irrelevant here, and you have no idea what the potential educational uses for your images could become (classroom posters for developing countries maybe, who knows). Your comment is just a red herring, as you very well know that Wikimedia cannot possibly guarantee that. I stand by it, you are exercising collective punishment which hurts legitimate use with absolutely zero upside to it. --Dschwen 18:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be appreciative of the contributions which are being made instead of whinging about wanting more. We're all volunteers and Muhammad doesn't have to release anything at all. We know you want more resolution. We're all greedy for something. Please climb off the hobby-horse now. Maedin\^talk 18:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hobby-horse?! I can really do without such condescending language. And I don't really need the whining about misuse. I don't need people who upload downscaled version nominate them as the best wikipedia has to offer, because it just isn't, even if a bunch of hobby photographers on FPC thinks so. Anyhow, this isn't leading anywhere. --Dschwen 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No condescension intended, I was going on the definition: "A topic that one frequently brings up or dwells on; a fixation." As the topics of misuse and resolution like to dance merrily together, I think that a cease and desist on your favourite topic will bring about a correlative reduction in the other. Just sayin'. Maedin\^talk 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Maedin. Re Daniel, I usually provide the high resolutions to legitimate individuals, be it teachers or students or even organizations such as http://arkive.org/ when they request for such a copy after seeing it on wiki. This is my way of minimizing misuse of my pictures. --Muhammad(talk) 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that license compliant uses are more common than infringing uses? Outside of Wikipedia and a few direct mirrors, it often seems like most people get the license requirements wrong. Dragons flight (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think a more strongly worded letter from an official at the Wikimedia Foundation or something might carry more weight than from individuals like us. It would show that the project takes the licensing seriously, instead of leaving it to individuals to chase their own images up. Having said that, it's a complicated issue, especially when we can't be certain that these images have not been sold or given away elsewhere. The only way to know is to contact the contributor and ask. I actually did contact the author of the first image, and he most certainly did not authorise this use, so it wouldn't surprise me if nobody else did either. They're not exactly high quality stock anyway, but it's the principle that I'm standing up for. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I know, it's simply not the Foundation's place to go running around after potential license violators- as the photographer themselves are the one being fucked over, it's up to them. Theoretically, of course, you could now start threatening legal action as they have failed to act... I suppose they're working off the basis that hobbyist photographers are not going to call in the lawyers. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'd like to think that if we support the project, the project might do something to support us. Wishful thinking, perhaps. ;-) They haven't failed to act yet though, as I haven't contacted Bloomberg. The author of the first image has or will contact them though, after I made him aware of the misuse. I would say it's just another case of blissful ignorance of the license conditions - the assumption that everything on Wikipedia is public domain. It's unprofessional for so many reasons though. A large number of people who're interested in living in those cities may actually visit the Wikipedia article to learn more and notice that they've ripped the photos from the article. Makes Bloomberg seem a bit cheap. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the copyright holders is obviously worthwhile, but (when certain that copyright has been violated) Commons:Template:Published can be used to record unauthorised reproductions on file discussion pages. In general, do be aware of the possible implications of accusing a company of having violated someone else's copyright -- one doesn't want to get sued! NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation has its own full-time counsel, and presumably a legal fund. All we need is a project for copyright infringement/violation reports/suits (WP:CIS is still available, for instance) and the willingness to push the Foundation to fork out money for it. Get a T-shirt printed, make people wear it at Wikimania, and talk to the press. I'm pretty sure there are APIs for bulk snail mailing, so just get a developer on it, and start hurting the infringers with the cost of having to deal with the incoming mail. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postage costs would probably be higher than any financial hardship incurred by the violators. Having the wikimedia foundation pursue legal action on behalf of photographers is also probably untenable. The reason being that the copyright holders would be the ones to financially benefit from any legal settlement, and the foundation would be hard pressed to recoup what would obviously be substantial legal costs. Complicating both proposed remedies further is that many of the photographers reside in different countries, making any kind of joint legal action, or mailing program complicated. I have essentially no knowledge of international copyright regulations, but needless to say a scenario where: a photographer living in England is represented by a Wikipedia lawyer in the United States who is pursuing legal action against a violator in India, is rather bewildering. Summarizing this post: us photographers are screwed. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You misinterpret the economics of this. It would be an investment on the part of the Foundation to get access to more pictures, namely those from the people who at the moment wouldn't upload because of exactly the kinds of problems reported in this section. And while the Foundation isn't a legal aid charity, it's still a charity and would be conducting charitable work if it helped out contributing photographers in a small way. Professional photographers will probably want to choose their own representation anyway. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helped out contributing photographers? Seriously PLW? The little help we do get from the credits is being threatened and you are suggesting we will get more help? I doubt it --Muhammad(talk) 17:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubting is the one thing that certainly will not help. :) I'm providing my thoughts. What you make of them is up to you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letters can work, though their effectiveness varies. I've seen people ignore the issue. I've seen people make prompt corrections. I even know of a few cases where Wikipedians have received financial settlements over truly gross abuses. When one is talking about blatant abuse by corporations that should know better, I find that sternly worded personal complaints are generally better than the standard violation notice. Of course, the one sending the complaint really has to be the copyright holder if you expect results. Dragons flight (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no technical barrier to that, although copyright holders would have to provide their name and address. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the above, it seems like contacting the copyright owners is the best way to go. I just created a page in my Commons userspace which might make the job easier. I will also post a message seeking help going through the pictures on the Commons Village Pump, unless anyone here has any objections. I don't have time to contact every user, so any help would be appreciated. The page is here: Commons:User:NotFromUtrecht/Images used in Businessweek. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, It is up to the copyright holder to make a complaint to the infringing party. The best thing to do if you see infringement is to inform the image author. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I meant -- but there are 50 categories that need to be checked, and potentially 50 copyright holders to contact. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I recommend supporting NotFromUtrecht's initiative. If y'all ever want some official support to be given for license enforcement, you really ought to support it *now* while someone is actually being bold and donating their good hours to devising a procedure for it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Commons Village Pump announcement is here. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review of closure process poll

Apparently a second review of the FPC closure process has been undertaken with little prior discussion. The review was underway for eight days before I was notified of it. The opening statement discourages open discussion and implies that it is the initial part of a (secretive?) second phase. It is unclear where or how consensus formed to make such an important set of decisions this way. My first impression is to disregard the thing as lacking legitimacy, but quite a few people have participated. So perhaps I've misunderstood. Would someone explain? Durova⁴¹² 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you need explained? There is an Announcement a little up the page. Showed up on my watchlist. Did you expect a personal invitation? Maybe you should explain where you get the secretive idea. Doesn't sound like AGF. --Dschwen 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, saw that. Looks as if one editor decided to start that with minimal prior discussion, and set up a two phase structure which discourages discussion without announcing the details of phase two. That has at least some of the characteristics of a push poll, and my first inclination was to disregard it as lacking legitimacy. Am willing to be persuaded if that impression is mistaken. Durova⁴¹² 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with being notified, I apologise. I felt that as a regular contributor, you should be invited to participate even though you did not respond to the initial announcement. While you're here, maybe you can tell us if there's going to be any news on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River because I was thinking of closing it as stale. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. The principal concerns are of a different nature, though. Where did consensus form that another closure process review was needed and to structure it in this unusual way? Durova⁴¹² 22:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the above sections, you'll notice that dissatisfaction with current FPC processes is continuing. The last review was insufficient as there was no consolidation and it degenerated into a wide-ranging discussion that decided nothing. The present poll has clearly been designed to set out the principal issues and points of discussion for later (which everyone is welcome to add to). In any case, why would it require a consensus-forming process beforehand? I don't understand why you have an issue with this, nor how it could be considered secretive or underhand. Maedin\^talk 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any opening statement that specifically discourages discussion runs the risk of a chilling effect. Looks like one editor designed a process-heavy format unilaterally, and hasn't disclosed what the second half would be. Durova⁴¹² 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

process-heavy, unilaterally, chilling effect, hasn't disclosed. Come on can you cram any more pejorative language into one post? PLW is making a good faith attempt to get some results here. The last discussion (which took place without me) didn't seem to work out so well either. It seems like a good idea to me to reduce the talk and with it the emerging of more and more only marginally different options and the resulting vote spread. Plus he asked for comments on the format of the poll. So it seems unfair to accuse him of a unilateral action. --Dschwen 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a disappointment to open a discussion with the candid willingness to be persuaded out of an impression, only to get castigated for expressing it. It does not take much reading between the lines, though, to conclude that customary editorial dialog is no longer welcome. Durova⁴¹² 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wondered about the legitimacy of the poll, but I felt compelled to participate lest my opinion never be heard. I figured that no changes will be made based solely on the poll without discussion, so I might as well express my opinion. As I expressed above, I too have concerns about the poll. Unfortunately, no one responded to me there and it looks like your comments aren't going to receive serious consideration either. I hope, though, that you will express your opinions in the poll anyway. You've been a major contributor and anything you can add will be helpful. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Per the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, am leaning more toward abstention. Durova⁴¹² 03:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But no one is suggesting it as a substitute for discussion; it's an opportunity to realise where our topics of discussion need to focus. This isn't the decision-making process; you seem to be confusing this with the stage at which changes are implemented. Please explain how you actually see harm in this; as Dschwen mentioned, it's a good idea to reduce the talk for a moment and just gauge current feeling. At no point has it been even implied that this poll is binding, nor that it will contravene any part of the straw poll guidelines. It's no wonder users are so reluctant to step up and help make changes for the benefit of the community. I suppose you had a better idea and were willing to spend hours enacting it and making it user friendly? Maedin\^talk 03:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your so called candid willingness to be persuaded was unfortunately buried under a pile of bad faith assumptions. I don't see anything more disappointing than that. --Dschwen 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin: discussions that begin with polls have a poor track record at this website. Often the questions aren't framed in a useful way, since the participants haven't yet clarified what the issues are. A more serious problem is that polls tend to line people up into opposite camps: it identifies differences rather than common ground and it structures discussion toward binary responses. Nuance gets lost, and viable third paths get overlooked.
Dschwen: this is the third time in this thread where you have sidestepped the substance of my concerns. Really, it isn't possible to reprimand someone into participation at a voluntary poll. An endeavor at civility would be more persuasive. Please be a model of good faith when you suppose someone lacks enough of it.
Durova⁴¹² 04:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please stick to the facts. Right now you are the one who is castigating people for pointing out your malign language. Four times you have basically repeated the same bad faith allegations, completely ignoring any comments which do not fit your view. And who is trying to reprimand you into participation anyways? You have the respect of the community as a productive contributor, but that does not mean that you should talk down on people like this. For me it is EOD here. If the other participants are willing to put up with this, then fine. --Dschwen 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, yes, I can see how that is often a concern in certain settings and understand the potential conflicts outlined. If I may be so bold as to suggest that the more negative outcome isn't necessarily the path that polls must take and that this is one of them that won't? For a start, the poll allows for flexibility and nuanced camps, which, by the number of "don't agree with the question" responses, is being made use of. I've been following the poll so I've seen how it has grown and been shaped and changed by participator involvement (though granted it could have been more so!). Second, reading through the poll, I don't get the impression that there is any bad feeling present or even binary responses; I think the majority of respondents have also replied elastically and show a willingness to discuss the issues at a later time. The third thing is that, when talking time comes, we will already have a pretty good idea where to focus; e.g. "it looks like there's a misunderstanding on what quorum is and how we treat it; let's talk about it. Here's what's been said and voted so far. Why, and what else?" I guess the final point which I feel is important is that, historically, FPC has been a game of very few players, and that we've hashed the same tired issues again and again, or stirred up feelings with pointed remarks on nominations. Beginning with that same conflict and text-heavy contention discourages participation; less involved members aren't interested in inserting themselves into our drama, even when they hold an opinion. With a sigh of relief on their part, I think they finally see a flexible, open-to-all, non-scary poll that allows them to see the issues at hand, have a think about them, participate, and then be 1,000 times more likely to come along at analysis time and share their views, too. I don't know about you, but what I really don't want is another endless round-and-round debate between the same big 9 that goes nowhere (again). I think we could actually achieve something this way; give them a model that doesn't frighten off with tldr and vociferous arguments and then let everyone be heard at deliberation time. Okay, wait, one more thing (promise!), which is that if "discussions that begin with polls have a poor track record at this website", then "discussions for the sake of discussions, especially when trying to get something changed, have an even worse track record at FPC." The model hasn't usually worked for us, just as WP:NOTADEMOCRACY hasn't been popular here, either. Just time to try something new, a little different, and try to structure it so that multiple options and refinements can still come through. If you're still convinced that it hasn't worked or won't work, I guess the least that can be asked is for you to see that it's all been done in good faith. As I started the previous review that petered out so disappointingly, I'm obviously keen to see things change and am willing to try and back almost anything, and I do at least see this getting somewhere, hopefully, :) Obviously your participation can't be forced, though I think we all need and want you to be involved, considering the important role you've played within FPC so far. I don't want to blackmail you into joining in, but your abstention could throw a sour feeling on the proceedings which seems unnecessary. In any case, regardless, I hope you contribute when the discussion free-for-all opens up (and hope this isn't tldr; too!). Maedin\^talk 08:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Forgive me for disagreeing but I don’t think we need another long discussion. We already had one, in which most issues were addressed in detail and people had the opportunity to express their opinions. Now it is more than time to reflect the results of that discussion into the written guidelines, something nobody had the guts to do last time. In my opinion that is what this poll is about (at least, that was my concern when I raised the question two weeks ago). Yes, we may have to come back to one or two more technical or controversial themes, like the image size. But the purpose of this poll is certainly not to start everything over again. It is significant how the results achieved so far eloquently confirm that most people agree on the two issues that triggered this initiative: the voting period and the concept of supermajority. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The current process gives the impression of being structurally flawed on several levels. Examples to illustrate that opinion will not be glowing. Those examples are about the process. To respond in terms of the proposer's good faith (or lack thereof) is beside the point. Thanks go to Alvesgaspar and Maedin for followup responses that were more on target. Those reasoned responses might be persuasive except for this: in this discussion one individual had a strongly negative response, and nobody pointed out to him that he was reacting to things that I had never written. I don't feel up to embarking upon another discussion where I'm left to fend for myself in that way. For several weeks I have had little time to edit; a notice at user talk states reduced availability. There was a death in the family yesterday. Good luck with your review, and here's hoping the concerns were mistaken. Durova⁴¹² 06:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on captions

I know we're currently in the middle of a closure procedure discussion, but I'd like to say that I think the way we deal with captions is a bit flawed. The caption we come up with here is nice, but what do we use it for? Usually, nothing. It's for our own happiness (or some other similar term). I would suggest that the caption that is proposed here be used as the caption on the image page when/if an image is promoted (and links to relevant articles should be strongly suggested). This would press captions to be more general, and make them that much more informative to the viewer. Captions on FPs have a lot of potential, but many times they don't come even close to it. So what do we do? Add a step to the closing procedure that has the image page caption updated to reflect the FPC caption.

Here's a few examples, images that were promoted last month:
1. Dirce Beauty Butterfly. Note how as many words were used to describe where the photo was taken as about the subject, in the image page caption:

FPC caption: The Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce) is a butterfly found in Central America and northern parts of South America.
Image page caption: Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce) 1758 Linnaeus (Nymphalidae). Taken at Botanischer Garten, Munich, Germany.

2. Dharmaraya Swamy Temple

FPC caption: The Dharmaraya Swamy Temple located in Bangalore is known for being the place where the Bangalore Karaga festival takes place. It is the only festival that is brought about in the temple
Image page caption: Dharmaraya Swamy Temple, in Bangalore India.

3. NURBS surface animation; more information on how rendered than what it is.

FPC caption: NURBS surfaces are a method for easily creating complex, aesthetic, or technical shapes in 3D computer graphics. With NURBS, a minimal number of control points (the small spheres) on each path (lines) influence the directions for very smooth, organic surfaces to follow.
Image caption page: Animation of a NURBS surface. Modeled and rendered in Cobalt.

4. Cassiterite

$FPC caption: Chemical formula SnO2, cassiterite is a tin oxide mineral. An important source of tin, cassiterite is commonly mined, with major deposits in Bolivia, and its presence in the Democratic Republic of Congo contributes to the conflict there. High quality crystals are considered collectible and used as gemstones. Twinning is common, usually occurring at near-60° angles. Its lustre may be adamantine to splendent, and perhaps greasy on fractures. These bipyramid samples are from Sichuan province in China and the edge length is approximately 30 mm.$

FPC caption: Chemical formula SnO₂, cassiterite is a tin oxide mineral. An important source of tin, cassiterite is commonly mined, with major deposits in Bolivia, and its presence in the Democratic Republic of Congo contributes to the conflict there. High quality crystals are considered collectible and used as gemstones. Twinning is common, usually occurring at near-60° angles. Its lustre may be adamantine to splendent, and perhaps greasy on fractures. These bipyramid samples are from Sichuan province in China and the edge length is approximately 30 mm.
Image caption page: Cassiterite bipyramids, chemical formula SnO₂. locality Southeast slope Xuebaoding, Pingwu country, province Sichuan in China. Edge length ca. 30mm. Collection M.R.

No offense is meant to any uploaders or photographers by this, by the way. The images picked above were generally random. upstate NYer 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no particular order:

I often just poach parts of the article when writing the caption for noms. I know that some others do this, too. In those cases, no new information is being produced.
There may have been an idea at one point that the caption at FPC would be used as the basis of the one for POTD - if someone has time to confirm this one way or the other, thanks! I can't really think of a good reason against this.
The last two examples above have important information missing in the FPC caption - in one case, the exact locality of the sample; in the other, the identity of the generating program. Both of these are essential information and should not be simply overwritten on the image description page. There may also be a concern about the authenticity of the information given on the image description page, where inaccuracies could be introduced by third parties that weren't witness to the event, or, in the case of private collections, the owners and hence "acting chroniclers" of the work. I think this would be an argument for putting "our" caption in a separate template on the image description page if we want to go ahead with this.
I think the general feeling will be that nominations should still pass or fail based on the image, not the caption. I'd also prefer not to bring content disputes to FPC nominations - some captions might contain claims that are contested. As long as they're just for our own happiness, people probably won't mind, but if our caption goes on the image description, it will seem to have more serious ramifications for people with a POV.
Even Commons now links back all the way from image description pages to the usage of those images on individual projects, which means that interested parties can easily find the corresponding FPC and use any information given there.
The one case where I definitely support updating the image description is where the uploader answers questions on the nomination that aren't answered in the image description or EXIF, e.g. was it stiched/focus bracketed/HDR/flash used/etc. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe not exactly blind copying of the FPC caption, but "improving the image description page with information from the FPC", since the FPC is not always superior. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. upstate NYer 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think it should be worded so that the onus is on the nominator, rather than the closer, to give the image the best caption possible in the article. And it's also on us as reviewers to check how the image looks in the article. If this is added to the closing procedure, it should be more like something to verify, rather than have the closer go about fixing captions all the time. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to "not promoted" instructions

I propose adding the following line to the closing procedure, for nominations that are not promoted:

"If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing a note on their talk page informing them of the closure. Encourage further participation and don't bite."

I consider this fairly non-controversial since it has been taking place a bit already. What does everyone think? Jujutacular ^T · C 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there should be a message left after non-promotions. Silence implies not caring. I'd suggest making a template for this, makes for shorter instructions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from a note left by Makeemlighter: {{NotpromotedFPC}}. The instructions could read:

"If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} on their talk page."

Jujutacular ^T · C 23:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was using that for nominations that I closed early per WP:SNOW. I'm not necessarily opposed to notifying nominators of non-promotions, but I'm not convinced of the necessity. Don't nominators monitor their nominations? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the idea behind "If the nominator is not an FPC regular...". I believe we should be encouraging as many new people to participate as possible. If someone new nominates an image, a disappointing result (whether WP:SNOW closed or not) may discourage them from future participation. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds fine to me, then. A non-promote takes very little time, so I don't see this as a burden. I'd say get a few more opinions and then implement it. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've ask a few more people to comment. Feel free to ask anyone else. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with it provided the one who do the hard work closing the nominations are fine with it. --Muhammad(talk) 08:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As per Makeemlighter, a non-promote doesn't take very long. So adding this, especially using a template, will not increase workload significantly. Thank you for the input. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with suggestion. Good idea. upstate NYer 02:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the line to the the instructions, unless anyone brings up an objection. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually have only just come past and been having a look at it, and although I may be a voice in the wilderness, beyond whether it's necessary, I personally don't especially like it. It seems a bit of a 'kick in the guts' to me for someone whose nom has failed to then have it announced for all on their talkpage and to be continually reminded of it. Perhaps this is just an alternative take on whether or not it will encourage or discourage them to try again. Having said which, at least the wording in the template itself is fairly positive. However the wording in the instructions is possibly a bit wishy-washy - "If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing..."; so the closer has to decide whether it's a regular or not, and then to just 'consider' placing the template on their talkpage? If it's going to stay maybe that could be tightened up? --jjron (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I worded it as "consider placing..." because I thought there might be instances where the note wouldn't be appropriate, but I didn't have anything specific in mind. I do understand your sentiment thought. What would you suggest? Jujutacular ^T · C 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps not the best person to ask since I don't especially like the idea at all. However I'd say a few decisions need to be made: (i) do we really want/need this? (ii) if we have it, under what circumstances would it be inappropriate? (iii) should all non-promotes get it, or only the uncertain 'non-regulars'? Without answering those it's hard to say any more on how the wording could be changed, because depending on the answers you almost have to leave it as is, or something quite similar. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, to answer your first question, (i) yes I believe we do. Myself and four others above expressed the desire to include this in the instructions. (ii) Its use is appropriate when the closer believes that the nominator feels discouraged by the nomination, and has not nominated a picture before. If the closer is unsure about using the template they should default to not using it. (iii) All non-promotes should not get it, as this would definitely have the potential to be harmful. A stack of templated "I'm sorry your nom didn't go so well" messages on someone's user page would be terrible. All in all, I believe our closers have the common sense to use this when it is appropriate. Perhaps we could change the wording from "If the nominator is not an FPC regular..." to "If this is the nominator's first nomination..." Jujutacular ^T · C 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd say two others were keen, with another two more not objecting after a bit of a push, but anyway... I'd also say PLW for example was suggesting wider usage, like for every non-promote? In the manner you're proposing it here it sounds OK, with the default being not to use it they think it may be non-beneficial, and without it being overused. I don't know if you'd say it's just for first nominations, but how else to word it, 'If the nominator is new to FPC...'? Not really sure. What you've said here makes for greater clarity, so it's a matter of getting that simply into the instructions. --jjron (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I made a couple changes, hopefully your concerns are now addressed. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

The poll has been closed. Shouldn't we discuss the results? NauticaShades 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thanks for prodding. We can start by implementing the points where consensus was quite clear, e.g. 9 days, fixed period, 2MP. The rest needs to be more carefully presented, I think, e.g. the majority for giving amnesty to existing FPs is quite thin. That's just one case where some actual numbers might help us to come to a clearer decision, in this case: how many FPs would actually have to be reviewed because they fall short of the raised criterion. I've been working on molding some of the other ideas into sensibly worded proposals, but I have RL commitments as well. Update: Just got the Commons template working on en now, that should reduce the drama (quoting Noodle snacks) a bit for now, and hopefully keep the ball rolling. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe someone can delete Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/TestNomForLaterDeletion. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Maedin\^talk 05:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait. We weren't supposed to discuss things during the poll, and now that the poll is over, we're going to implement the results. Did I miss where we had a discussion about the different options? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Makeem. From WP:!VOTE, "straw polls are never binding". We are obligated to discuss the results before implementing any changes. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well then if you want me to prepare the second round as was originally planned, you'll have to wait a little longer, I can't put more hours in my day, sorry! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NORUSH :) Jujutacular ^T · C 08:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Pretty sure the vast majority of my pictures are above 2mp, but it isn't worth the work immediately delisting hundreds of featured pictures, particularly when they were promoted only months ago in some cases. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think there was a consensus that old images not meeting size requirements would be kept --Muhammad(talk) 13:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the poll

While PLW is busy in real life let’s make a short summary of the poll. Two groups of issues are listed below whether a clear consensus was reached or not (please feel free to correct or add useful information). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group A (clear consensus, no further discussion needed?)

Nomination period should be: fixed, 9 days
What to do in case of no consensus or no quorum: close the nomination normally keeping the possibility of re-nominating
Minimum nr of votes for promotion: 5
Quorum refers to: overall number of (!)votes
Outcome should be determined on the basis of: vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count
Majority is understood as: at least 2/3 of the !votes
Pixel resolution should be: strictly the dimensions of the image
Withholding EXIF info is: OK
Weak support or oppose counts: ½ of a full !vote
Delisting period should be: fixed, 2 weeks
Nominator’s support should be: considered
Creator’s support should be: considered

Group B (no clear consensus, further discussion needed)

Minimum image resolution should be: 2Mp
Not uploading the maximum resolution available: is not a problem
Criteria: should be: the same for all categories
When FP size criteria are raised: old FPs can stay (marginal majority)

Conclusion, Next step?

I'd really like to see something come out of this poll, there is some clear consensus for change in some areas. Can we narrow down which is a uncontroversial change, and agree to make those changes? Then discuss the less clear stuff? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this - how about a second phase where we list the items in the two groups Alves outlined above, with areas for discussion of each. Items with "clear majority" (Group A) will be implemented unless further discussion deems the consensus isn't clear. Items with marginal majority (Group B) will be discussed further, with the hopes of reaching a consensus on the issue. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse Alvesgaspar's summary and raeky's proposal with the minor alteration of also leaving the "what is quorum" item for further discussion per (a) the "neutral votes" thread below, (b) the general confusion caused by the poll question (mea culpa), and (c) the problematic edge case brought up by Snowman in his poll vote. I have prepared proposals for this and another item on the list (spoiler: in favour of 2MP->1.9MP). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?????

What did I do wrong? I thought i transcluded it right? Here is the link to the page. Can somebody please fix it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barrack_Obama_Portrait Sorry! And thanks. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did it right, but you made a spelling error in the title of the nomination which you didn't re-produce when you transcluded, :) I added an r to Barack which fixed it. You might want to move the page to Barack Obama Portrait, though...if you do, just fix the transclusion to take out the r again. Maedin\^talk 21:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a million :) --Iankap99 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Maedin\^talk 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two easy closures waiting

Here are two that have been sitting there for too long now:

All of the other noms with similar expiry dates have been closed, some of them by me. There's no point in letting these remaining ones gather dust. I'm "involved" with both of them and can't close them unless there's general consensus that it's okay for one of the participants to close them - I see both of them as promotions. If you'd like to close one of these and haven't closed a nom before, the instructions are at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Closing_procedure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I closed Africa. California Trail needs more comments on the edit. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus?

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sambar deer Cervus unicolor.jpg. Looks like a clear promote to me. 7 supports and 3.5 opposes. Can anybody please let me know what is going on? --Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly borderline, but I would agree with you. However we are both involved parties. Let's wait for an outside opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7-3.5=3.5, and 3.5 is less than 5, so traditionally that would not be a promote... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minimum of 5 supports and a 2/3 support/(support+oppose) to promote. --Muhammad(talk) 05:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to close it as "no consensus" earlier in the evening, but I thought I'd give it a little extra time. Since PLW saw a lack of consensus as well, I'm comfortable with this result. I guess it's borderline, but seeing as how everyone opposed had the same reason (lighting), I think there are legitimate concerns that led to a non-promotion. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why would it be closed as no consensus. There is a 2/3 majority support. Seems like a clear promote to me and I am starting to get irritated by the awry closures of my nominations --Muhammad(talk) 10:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the poll we have a strong consensus that a weak vote is 0.5 of a strong one. We also have strong consensus for "6 Supports and 3 Opposes" and "8 Supports and 4 Opposes" being promotes. Using linear interpolation I'd therefore suggest the nomination in question is a promote too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we also established above that the consensus from the poll is not to be implemented yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be implemented yet or not, that was the norm even before the straw poll was put up --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have promoted the picture but the truth is the (purposeful) ambiguity in the guidelines justifies this kind of decision. What we have to do is to proceed with the discussion and reflect the consensus in the new guidelines as soon as possible. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that we have to proceed with the discussion but IMO this a promote and necessary changes should immediately made to reflect that. It has always been clear that 2/3 support is romote provided the minimum 5 supports are attained. --Muhammad(talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this how this is going to be left? A nomination with clear consensus not promoted because the closer didn't want to? I am seriously reconsidering my contributions to FPC if the process is abused like this --Muhammad(talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't do closings but I had also thought our existing custom was 2/3 supermajority, with the 5 minimum supports. I also thought a weak oppose was a 1/2 oppose. Is this wrong? So, I would have thought this one would be a promotion (disclosure, I supported). Is anyone disagreeing with the math? Or are were any !votes invalid? Our process can be debated, but whatever it is, surely it must be applied consistently? Fletcher (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, even among regulars. FPC is NOT a vote count. For as long as I've been around, it has not been one. And I hope it stays that way. Closures are based on consensus, just as things work throughout the rest of the encyclopedia. The 2/3 supermajority is nothing more than a guideline. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that. But if the guideline is not going to be followed, there should be a reason given. It can't be applied haphazardly from nomination to nomination, depending on the whim of the closer. Fletcher (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Flesher. Even accepting that the 2/3 majority is just a guideline, it's not legitimate to replace consensus by an arbitrary decision of the closer, based on his personal opinion. I propose to revert the decision and promote the picture (even agreeing that lighting is not good). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My last statement wasn't clear enough. I meant that the supermajority helps the closer determine consensus; it is not itself indicative of consensus. A 2/3 supermajority IS NOT consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even accepting that a 2/3 majority does not represent a clear consensus for promotion (with which I do not agree), better deciding in favor of the majority of opinions than on the arbitrary opinion of the closer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unless there are valid reasons like sock-'puppeteering', the FPC main page states "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support" --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, it's pretty silly that we have that. The important part is the "generally" and a bit later: "If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        So now that's silly because you don't like it? And if the decision is made on a case by case basis then this should have been promoted. All the supports were from well established users while a few of the opposes were from the newbies. Like it or not, this is a promote and I wonder why the one responsible for the mess is not owing up or defending himself. --Muhammad(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Silly because that's not how consensus works anywhere else on the encyclopedia. For this nom, as I said earlier, since there was a legitimate criticism from several reviewers, I would have gone with "no consensus" as well. I'm really not trying to be adversarial at all. Please don't think that I am. It's unfortunate that the close cases lately have all been your noms. I guess the thing to do at this point is to re-nominate that image and see what happens. Or, I guess, re-open it for further review. Not sure what else there is to do about it... Makeemlighter (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Admittedly it has not been formalised yet, but it seemed like the initial conclusion that we reached in the last poll was that we'd like, for the sake of simplicity, a 2/3 majority to be the default method for determining consensus, with wiggle room in the case of particularly good reasons for support/opposition that can shift the nom in the other direction. I don't think that some opposes with 'legitimate criticism' should override the 2/3 of the supports unless, as I said, the reasoning is particularly strong. Otherwise, any remotely legitimate opposition would effectively act as a veto. After all, it could equally be argued that the support votes were equally legitimate. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Also agree. The last poll made clear what the present consensus is on the definition of supermajority and the way to reflect it on the outcome. Knowing that the guidelines will be soon adjusted according to such consensus, doing otherwise is rowing against the flood and the opinion of the majority. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Okay, a few things. First of all, this is why I was concerned above about implementing anything without a discussion first. The straw poll did not allow for the discussion we need. To Diliff's point about whether the opposes with legitimate criticism should override 2/3 support: you suggest that shouldn't be the case unless the reasoning is particularly strong. Shouldn't we insist upon such strong reasoning for the supports as well? In this nomination, we have legitimate criticisms from the opposers and less than strong reasoning from some of the supporters. Look at the support again: of the 7, 1 has no reason, 1 says only "nice", and 1 comments only on composition. That's over 40% of the supports lacking compelling reasoning. I'm not suggesting you ignore those supports; rather, I think in these close cases we should weigh every vote carefully. Really, this is what consensus is all about. To Alvesgaspar's point: this is what I've been arguing against all along. The opinion of the majority is not necessarily consensus. And the results of the straw poll are not necessarily consensus either. WP:Consensus specifically says that quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a majority or minority. Anyway, as I said earlier, these are the sorts of discussions we should be having before we implement any changes. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So the results of the straw poll are not valid either. Why do we then even bother to have FPC votes? Why not just let you (pardon me) and PLW choose which ones you want to promote? I am sure Noodle snack can speak for himself but if I were to scrutinize the votes and choose carefully, I would take the opinion of an experienced photographer like Noodle snacks, Diliff, Mila or Alves over a newbie's. --Muhammad(talk) 10:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This violates the spirit of the Free Encyclopaedia. Nobody should be "more equal" here, not even the closers. And the allegation you're making singling out two of the closers (why aren't you helping out btw?) are not particularly substantive. I've recently had two nominations go up in smoke with fairly questionable opposes, and I didn't raise a complaint about it; I've also encouraged everyone to contribute more to closures - if you choose not to, that's entirely (100%) your private problem (not to mention you're harming the community, but I'll let that be your private pleasure...). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is just the two closers who I referred to who currently refuse to abide by the 2/3 majority. Both the straw poll and this discussion clearly show what we want consensus to be. What right do the minority then have of enforcing their will on the nominations? I am not closing nominations because there are people doing it but if this is the current method, of closing a nomination as not promoted when a majority support is there, I wouldn't mind closing the nominations where I would prefer to vote oppose. --Muhammad(talk) 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always thought that we should have better reasoning for support votes, if not for consensus then at least for a bit of courtesy, so yes I agree with you. But given that our current voting convention doesn't really put much importance on this, you can't assume that just because a support vote doesn't show good reasoning that the voter did not have good reasoning. And it's a lot harder to fully justify a support vote than a oppose vote. An opposer only has to mention an issue with one of the 8 criteria for their vote to be 'valid', whereas technically a supporter would have to explain why the image meets each of the 8 criteria to be equivalently valid. To expect that is obviously ridiculous, so we have to assume that the supporters have read and applied the criteria to the image when they vote. I agree that vote counting alone isn't ideal for determining consensus, but we can't easily weigh up the strength of most votes, especially in light of the inherent weakness and general lack of detail of support votes that I mentioned above. For that reason, vote counting as the primary method of determining consensus is the only one (IMO) that:
  1. Gives everyone a fair and equal voice, and
  2. Doesn't require mind-reading skills. ;-)
Sure, in extreme cases, where an opposer brings up something fundamentally wrong with the image and this isn't addressed or acknowledged by any of the supporters, that might be grounds to ignore the supermajority, but otherwise, it's too messy. And yes, I realise that this is best discussed as part of the review, but I thought it was important to bring up here too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The belief that support votes should have a detailed rationale can be led ad absurdum by pointing out that for a perfect picture, you'd have to comment on every technical and other aspect of the picture - bokeh, DOF, aperture, exposure (duration), composition/framing/cropping, ISO, suitability of subject, suitability of background, justification of EV. I believe both "support per nom" and "support" are perfectly good reasons. If people want to be more specific, let them, but note that this frequently leads to protracted arguments whose purpose is none but to expand the text length of the nomination to a point where further commenting is discouraged by the burden of having to read through a big chunk of text first. The nomination may then fail simply by not reaching its minimum number of supports, regardless of whether there's any *real* sizeable opposition to the nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've taken a reasonable scenario and taken it to the extreme though. Nobody (especially me) suggested that a perfect picture demands a perfectly detailed support. All that needs to be demonstrated is that an image above the levels we require. The point I was trying to make was that it is easier to demonstrate that an image fails one or more of the criteria than it is to demonstrate that it passes all of the criteria. Therefore, all things being equal, a closer would find it easier to see the strength and legitimacy of opposition than support. By the way, you're ABF to suggest that contributors argue with the intention of preventing further comments. It might be the unfortunate result on occasion, but don't try to insinuate that it's a deliberate ploy to stifle opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; if someone just says "Support" it can be inferred they agree with the nominator's rationale. An Oppose needs a reason, but Opposers can also cite someone else who did give a reason. Too bureaucratic to force people to retype a reason someone already gave.Fletcher (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't think that every support vote must have a detailed rationale. But once someone raises a concern with the image, whether through an oppose vote or a comment, the supporters should address those concerns. As it says under How to Comment: "Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly." When opposers have legitimate criticism and the supporters do not address those criticism, the scale toward non-promotion. In a 4-2 (or 6-3, 8-4, etc.), legitimate criticisms which are not addressed push the nomination toward failure. And don't say "but the majority..." because the FPC page specifically directs voters to monitor nominations and update votes and warns that votes may be disregarded otherwise. So yeah, "support per nom." is fine, but if someone points out a problem with the image, you'd better comment on it. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I suggets then you re-open the nomination and leave a message on the pages of all those who supported before the oppose and ask them if they want to change their opinion. --Muhammad(talk) 03:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The procedure you suggest has no precedent and is not practical. Watchlists already serve that purpose. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        All the better then. That means that previous supporters noticed the opposes and still maintained their opinions. This should be promoted then per Makeem's reasoning --Muhammad(talk) 16:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It specifically instructs to update votes. That means at least say acknowledge the criticism even if they maintain their opinion. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have tried to explain earlier, during the first big discussion we had some months ago, we usually do not take decisions by consensus here because such model is disproportionate to the objectives of FPC and would have been impractical to implement. But the process you are defending here isn’t 'consensus' either. By assuming the power of judging the validity of the reviewer’s opinions and considering, or not, their votes for determining the outcome, you are acting like a dictator versus his senate. Yes, such model is still defended by a few of us but rejected by an overwhelming majority, as clearly revealed by both the last discussion and the recent poll. It isn’t justified by the letter (or the spirit) of the present guidelines either. Going back three or four years ago, we realize that the tendency is a relatively recent phenomenon, having reached its peak with MER-C, whose closing options started to be strongly contested by the users. Running the risk of repeating myself over and over again, the model you are trying to implement, in which the closer is the dictator and the reviewers are his senate, has not the support of this community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to deal with this concern is the for the closer to follow the 2/3 guideline by default, but if some !votes are invalid or are notably more persuasive than others, the nominator gives a rationale explaining why his or her judgment differs from the norm. (When the outcome is a foregone conclusion it shouldn't be necessary to give a rationale.) The closer has to make a judgment - or nominations are never closed - but the judgment can't seem arbitrary or suspicious to other contributors. Fletcher (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I probably should have said at some point that I agree with the >2/3 in general. But the noms right at 2/3 are questionable. Those are the ones I'm really talking about. I resent the implication that I have consistently ignored the 2/3 guideline. What I have done is, on occasion, close as "not promoted" nominations with 2/3 support. Anything >2/3 has passed. 2/3 has long been a grey area. What I am suggesting is that we actually think about the closing decision rather than automatically promoting or not promoting an image with exactly 2/3 support. Very early in the FPC days it said near the top of the page that 4-2 was a non-promotion - that's exactly 2/3 support. And for quite some times it has said on the FPC page that decisions about close candidacies are made on a case-by-case basis. Some 2/3 noms will probably end up passing and some will end up failing: it all depends on the nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW

I've noticed that WP:SNOW has recently been invoked in closing a number of nominations. Commons FPC lays out exactly when WP:SNOW can be used. I don't know if the Commons definition was used in these cases or not, but I certainly think we should have exact boundaries for what constitutes a valid WP:SNOW closure and what doesn't. Notably, I've never seen a WP:SNOW-closed promotion, and that's a reason for concern. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because in practice, SNOW often gets used to minimise distress to the nominator/author, and because the image in question is just so far below our expectations of a FP that we deem it pointless to continue. It's far less likely that we'd worry about giving a nominator/author an inflated ego, and it's also less likely that a nominated image is just so overwhelmingly good that further judging is pointless. This is especially true since a flaw noticed late in the nom might bring down what looks like a certain promote, whereas with many 'SNOW' noms, we know in advance that no amount of work can bring the image up to FP standard. So I don't really think it's much reason for concern - there are good reasons for the difference. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't address the first point, which is that we have no definition of what constitutes a valid non-promotional snowball. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The essay page explains what concept of a "SNOW closure" is; a FPC-specific definition would be redundant to that, surely? J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's no concrete definition like Commons FPC has, and I find that unsatisfactory. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you me point to the concrete definition of snow closure at commons FPC? Also, are there any specific instances where you feel that SNOW closure was applied incorrectly here (or it wasn't applied when it should have been)? Jujutacular ^T · C 17:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Commons:FPC#General_rules point 8, which says:

8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)

Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. However, as I alluded to in my other question, I feel that our current system works fine. Unless you can point to some specific instances where this rule would have improved the process, I don't feel a concrete rule is needed. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree here. I'm not crazy about adding rules like this. And I'm also not convinced that modeling our system after Commons (in this instance and in others) is necessary or even wise. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I generally speedy close when the nomination has a bunch of oppose votes and no supports. With even a single support, I'm inclined to leave it open. This, of course, varies depending on nomination. For what it's worth, we do have something of a standard: "If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case." It's just that people rarely call for speedy closure (maybe they don't know they can). The outcome of these nominations seems obvious, though. There's no reason to run them out to 7 days when they'll never pass. By the way, this is one of the many reasons why all these strict guidelines that have been proposed are not great ideas. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announcing the Reviewer Summary script, used to summarize information on reviewers

This script was originally suggested by User:Mike Christie to be an extension of the Nominations Viewer script. However, this new script requires a different set of functions from Nominations Viewer, so it had to be written from scratch. What the script does is, when used on a Featured Log page such as the one for successful Featured Articles, it shows the Reviewer Summary table, which summarizes all the editors who edited the nominations found on the current page. See the script's documentation as well as the screenshot below for more information. The table's information can be easily copied to be used in discussions, as well (see the first point in the screenshot below). Hopefully the script will come in handy for analyzing nomination reviewers, etc. Gary King (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral votes

Hi all. I've a question for everyone. How do we handle Neutral votes? In the past, I've essentially considered them an oppose since they water down the support. By that I mean, 4 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose is only 57% support while it would have 66.6...% support without the neutral. So, the neutral vote would prevent the nomination from reaching the supermajority. If you follow +1 -2 and call neutral 0, however, the neutral vote is essentially meaningless. In this case, though, that person's opinion does not factor into the closing decision at all, assuming strict closure by vote counts. Which one of these situations in preferable? In my preferred alternative, where 66.6...% noms are determined by strength of argument, this problem disappears since you can ignore neutral in calculating support percentage and then just weigh the arguments. Since this alternative is not at all popular, we should probably decide which of the above treatments of the neutral vote we like. Thoughts? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer the latter - making the neutral vote essentially meaningless to vote counting. In my mind, if someone is writes neutral, they are trying to have no negative or positive effect on the nomination. It could be likened to simply commenting rather than voting. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neutral votes should count for the quorum, but nothing else. NauticaShades 13:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always took neutral to mean just that, i.e., it doesn't count either way. In essence it pretty much means the same as a 'comment' to me, not even sure it should contribute to reaching quorum, or even whether that's here or there. But I would certainly say it shouldn't be taken as a de facto oppose. Where neutrals can, and often do come into play, like with comments, is that they can sway other 'voters' in their votes, so if the argument in them is made well it may sway others to commit to either a support or oppose based on the opinion stated. In fact sometimes neutrals/comments state opinions, usually negative opinions, better than the actual !votes themselves. Seems to be a bit of a push back to vote counting here though. --jjron (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Besides, nominations already need two thirds support to pass, it seems a little unfair for a non-vote to effectively water down the support. But if you look at the poll, we've already leaned back towards vote counting as the primary method (not the only method). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off topic, but I was unaware that oppose votes counted as -2. Can someone clarify this for me? Cowtowner (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There are two ways of looking at it. You can calculate the total percentage of supports and promote any nomination with >66.6...%. Or you can add up the supports and opposes, giving the former +1 and the latter -2, and promoted anything with a positive result. Since an oppose is worth twice a support, you need twice as many supports to hit 0, which amounts to 66.6...% support. Promoting nominations with positive results thus equates to promoting noms with more than 2/3 support. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. It didn't seem logical to me that an opposer got two votes! Cowtowner (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments...Neutral votes counting for quorum seems sort of odd since they would then be disregarded in deciding the result. As far as neutral votes swaying other voters, this relates to the discussion we had above regarding the FPC page's suggestion that voters monitor nominations and update their votes. That's a different discussion (that we probably need to have), so I'll leave it alone for now. As for the fairness issue, there are two hidden assumptions there, namely that a neutral vote is a non-vote and that being neutral does not alter the support percentage. I'm not so sure a neutral vote is a non-vote since the voter could just have easily called his vote "comment" instead. I agree, though, that calling it a de facto oppose is going too far. This leads into the second part. Should neutral factor into calculating support percentage? Again, it seems to me that it should since "neutral" is a vote and not just a comment. Calling neutral 0 in +1 -2 would eliminate that problem but still renders neutral meaningless. And all of that sidesteps the issue of how the neutral voters argument weighs into a close call nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not sure that's it's really here or there if you count it to quorum, e.g., if a neutral takes it to five votes and the other four are supports, well it now has quorum but still doesn't have its five supports (or have I missed something about this while I've not been around?). In terms of swaying voters, often it won't change existing votes, it's usually more a case of swaying later voters. I think if you want to treat it differently to comments you'd need to be explicit somewhere about terminology - i.e., define when someone should use 'neutral' and when they should use 'comment', otherwise you are likely attributing a vote to someone that they didn't want to make, and it seems that if anything it's going to function as an oppose. Also creates the issue in vote counting of it working differently in percentages and the counts, as you've outlined, so again for that reason I think you have to discount them. When making a close call I'd say all statements are considered, whether called comment, neutral, support, oppose, the original reason, or just part of a general discussion - they're the tough ones. OK, I spose here's my take - I use 'comment' if I just want to say something about the image but will possibly not be voting or haven't come to any real decision; I use 'neutral' if I feel I want to make a vote, usually a support, but there's possibly some fixable niggle that's not necessarily enough to make me oppose, but that I feel I want changed before committing to a support, e.g., a crop, or fixing up a diagram (like with that heart one); if it's fixed to my liking I'll probably change to support, otherwise I'll leave my neutral or perhaps even oppose...so take that as you will, but I'd say I generally wouldn't want you to turn my neutral into an oppose or I would have stated that myself. --jjron (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a requisite number of supports? Is is the same as the requisite quorum? If so, what on earth is the point of the quorum? The idea of a quorum is the required number of voters present. Let's take a hypothetical nom: This nom as four support and nothing else. Clearly the majority supports promotion, but the quorum (five voters) has not been reached, so there is no promotion. Now let's imagine there are four supports and one neutral. This time there are five voters, so the quorum is reached, and there is also supermajority support for promotion. So, the closer could go ahead and promote. I'm quite sure (don't quote me on this) that legislative bodies count all their members, even those who abstain from voting Yea/Nay, towards a quorum. The roll call happens ever before anyone casts a vote. Of course, here in WP:FPC, we have to take our 'roll call' post facto, but I'd consider abstain votes in a legislative assembly as similar to Neutral voters here. It's a little confusing, but I think this is how a 'Neutral' should be differentiated from a 'Comment'. NauticaShades 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quorum is a confusing term that came into use even though there is no quorum on FPC in the literal sense. All we have per the instructions passed down to us, is a minimum number of supports. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in simple terms quorum is the minimum number of voters, but looking briefly through recent discussions I'm not sure many people understand that. I'm probably responsible for introducing the term when I was closing noms that only had a few voters and I was giving a simple reason for why it failed, even though it say may not have had any opposes. What I was getting at above is that it's really neither here nor there whether a neutral counts to quorum, as a nom needs to garner five supports, not just five voters. It's not good enough to have a majority of supports in that five votes (otherwise 4S, 1O would pass, as would even 3S, 1O, 1N), it needs to get five supports minimum, at which time it will have quorum anyway. Yes, neutral could be considered an abstain vote, another term that is occasionally used. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding EV vs. spamming

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA red line rerouted, Jjron (talk · contribs) called into question my recent addition of the nominee to several articles and noted that it was consistent with my activities in two other current nominees Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Night‎ and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play‎. He mentioned the term DOF, with which I am not familiar, and alluded to spamming. I personally, believe that each nominee belonged in many more pages than it was in. If I were to put any of thes images in an article like Illinois or Cook County, Illinois, that might be spamming, but I think these images improve the content of each of the pages by adding a high quality image that depicts something not already seen in the page. I mentioned that at one time one of the picture review processes use to make some distinction about images being on a page for 30 days to establish true EV, but I see no mention of such a consideration any more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA red line rerouted and I found the image placings to be fair. I think the danger exists when a nominator place an image in an article that is already laden with images, or when the nominator removes other images to make way for his own. If we were to promote an image that was placed in this manner, it would constitute editorial decisions, which I believe to be outside of the scope of FPC. However, at least in this first nomination that I analyzed, all the articles benefited from the added images in my opinion. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DOF = Depth of field. NauticaShades 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems. (Focus in that image is only on the very front of the train, so DOF is too narrow). --jjron (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is we need to be careful to avoid article spamming (not just TonyTheTiger) and that voters should not confuse number of articles an image is used in for EV, or be misled in this regard. A check through the page shows that images Tony has nominated tend to be in an unusually high number of articles on average (are they perhaps just particularly high EV?), but on a closer examination many of the articles seem to be getting the image just before or during the nomination. We had a similar discussion last year when he was submitting heaps of images to PPR and was having a bit of a tendency to overuse some of them, especially in response to EV questions (see the archives). Jujutacular talks about the train nom for example - could a picture of a train be used in six articles? Sure, it could probably be used in twenty. So the question then is should it be used in so many articles? And that is the gist of what I'm getting at, how widely these images should be getting spread. Re the thirty day limit, that was at VPC where it had to be in one article for at least thirty days, so I'm not sure of its relevance to this discussion. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I have gone through commons FP to find some of the best pictures that have not been nominated for FP here on WP on behalf of WP:CHICAGO (I am director of this project). Since these are FPs on commons they are high quality images and worthy of consideration at some level. For example, the nominee that I have listed that is on the most pages (13) is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Night‎. This is a fantastic photo that finished 12th in its category of over 100 images in the commons PotY contest. It is probably a higher quality image than every other image in every page it is now in. Even in long articles where I added it somewhere in the midst of the main body, it is still contributing examplary photography of a highly relevant subject. Going forward, I will be running out of commons FPs, but hope to be able to put forth other promising Chicago images. Unlike last year when my personal point and shoot submissions at PPR, I am submitting high quality images this year. I think on a case by case basis you should evaluate EV. However, before I nom a picture, I consider articles where it would add EV and place it in those articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joint nom of image and crop

If I want to nominate both File:Michelle Obama official portrait crop.jpg and File:Michelle Obama official portrait headshot.jpg, should I do it as one joint nomination or two simultaneous separate nominations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the community is unlikely to make both of them FPs, but others may feel differently. I would open a single nomination. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please just pick one. Personally I would prefer File:Michelle Obama official portrait.jpg as I don't really see the advantage of cropping out her fingers below the knuckles, but maybe that's just me. Fletcher (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one you prefer is not being used anywhere. Each of the others is being used in at least 4 articles on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't check that. I might oppose the crops, but you are free to nominate. I do think it's not good form to nominate multiple versions of the same image, though it's not against the rules AFAIK. It would be more typical to submit one as an alternate version within the nomination for the other. Fletcher (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the meaning of alternate version in this sense?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means one or the other image would be selected, but not both. You don't want to do this a lot - or add multiple alternates - because it's frowned upon to try and force people to pick one image among many, and it complicates the !voting process. However, it's common for an edited version to be submitted correcting flaws in a nomination, and there's no reason a nominator can't do this if he or she thinks the alternate might be an improvement. Fletcher (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another crop consideration

United States presidential election, 1988

United States presidential election, 1984

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1984

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1988

For an image like the ones to the right here that are included in many articles in multiple versions, does the fact that another version is also popularly used, affect the candidacy of an image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate jjron's comments above, EV is not about an image's popularity on the encyclopedia. It just needs to significantly illustrate one article. (See the footnote at WP:WIAFP #5). Now it may be that some reviewers would prefer a different version of the image if one is available, but I shouldn't think the use of a different version in the encyclopedia should hurt a nomination's chances, as long as the nominated image contributes significantly to an article. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 454: / Line 454: @@
 I'd really like to see something come out of this poll, there is some clear consensus for change in some areas. Can we narrow down which is a uncontroversial change, and agree to make those changes? Then discuss the less clear stuff? —&nbsp;<b><i><font color="#6600FF">[[User:Raeky|raeky]]</font></i></b>&nbsp;<sup>(<font color="#0033FF">[[User talk:Raeky|talk]]</font>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<font color="#00CC00">[[Special:Contributions/Raeky|edits]]</font>)</sup> 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 :I've been thinking about this - how about a second phase where we list the items in the two groups Alves outlined above, with areas for discussion of each. Items with "clear majority" (Group A) will be implemented unless further discussion deems the consensus isn't clear. Items with marginal majority (Group B) will be discussed further, with the hopes of reaching a consensus on the issue. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 07:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
+::I would '''endorse''' Alvesgaspar's summary and raeky's proposal with the '''minor alteration''' of also leaving the "what is quorum" item for further discussion per (a) the "neutral votes" thread below, (b) the general confusion caused by the poll question (mea culpa), and (c) the problematic edge case brought up by Snowman in his poll vote. I have prepared proposals for this and another item on the list (spoiler: in favour of 2MP->1.9MP). [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 == ????? ==