Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:27, 27 July 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 a FP candidate, please make it at Featured Pictures talk.

FPCs needing feedback

Archives

Sorted by date:

"Reviewer" userright

The "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

The Flagged Protection trial is going to be starting very soon, and non-admins who have had access to edit semi-protected articles since roughly Day 4 of their editorship will now have their edits going into a vetting queue unless they are granted autoreviewer and/or edit reviewer permissions by an administrator. This will have a significant impact on editors who have, for years, been working on quality content. More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you have not already done so, please request this "right" at WP:PERM/RW or ask any administrator. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Dabomb.I enabled the reviewer right for two FPC regulars before deciding that others may not wish to have it pushed on them. If you would like it or think you may have a need for it, you can just quickly ask here and I can do the honours (or J Milburn/other admins if they're up for it). Maedin\^talk 16:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have it already, I think several of us do by now, wasn't hard to get with rollback rights. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I saw that most rollbackers had it, but a lot of FPC regulars aren't rollbackers. At least if they ask here, we are already familiar with their edits and will save administrator time. Maedin\^talk 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] True, is the FPC pages going to be put under this protection level? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, it will be for 2000 or so pages only, for the trial, mostly high-risk articles. A list is here: WP:Pending changes/Queue. Maedin\^talk 17:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Soup me up, if I am not already.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] You've already been taken care of, :) Maedin\^talk 17:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd like that as well if you get a chance... Fletcher (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done, :). Maedin\^talk 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I'm happy to grant it. Just ping me on my talk page or on IRC. Matthewedwards : Chat 20:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just want to make sure: this will not affect any of the FP/FPC pages, correct? Makeemlighter (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Correct, it won't, not at this stage. If the trial is successful, who knows? But even so, any wider deployment is probably some way off still. Maedin\^talk 04:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is this meant to eventually replace protection, or is the idea that it will eventually be used across the encyclopedia? NauticaShades 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It wouldn't replace protection, but it currently doesn't really have the support here for use across the encyclopedia. I believe there are varying ideas about how extensively it should be used. It is already implemented on the German Wikipedia on every article. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Josh SundquistThe subject in question wrote in the nom that he was willing to release the image for Wikipedia's use. I know he didn't go via OTRS, but shall we just consider the matter sorted? It isn't by the book, but shouldn't we just deal with the {{no permission since}} tag on commons and promote the image at this point? NauticaShades 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]It would need OTRS, send your e-mail conversation to the otrs e-mail with full headers and that should suffice if he gave you permission and confirmed the license? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can add the OTRS Pending template and remote the no permission template, if hes willing to e-mail the otrs e-mail and confirm the ownership of the copyright and license. It's fairly trivial on his part, one e-mail. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Adding the OTRS pending tag would not be correct there- we add that tag when the email has already been sent. And no, in answer to your initial question, we certainly can't consider the matter sorted. If we can't follow the procedures with regards to our FPs, where can we? J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] All right, well I leave it to you all, then. NauticaShades 20:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Has anyone made any email contact with him? I have a feeling he hasn't come back to check. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]VPC noms needing closureThere are currently 3 old VPC noms that need closure. I have taken part in all three, so I am unable to do so. All three are unanimous support and have met the VPC minimum support of 4 (including nominator). If someone would like to confirm the results, I could take care of the grunt work. Simply add the following to the bottom of the nomination:{{VPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}} --~~~~ [[Category:Ended valued picture nominations]]The three nominations are: Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Dominican Anole, Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Patti Smith performing in Finland, 2007, and Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Nancy Reagan (it's been closed by Elekhh). Thanks in advance. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]4 isn't enough to promote correct? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oops, must be here. I was thinking FPC. :D I'll close one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Did both for ya. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks! I would've posted at the VPC talk page but I doubt it has a similar number of watchers :) Jujutacular ^T · C 02:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] No probs, I personally watch both, just don't participate in voting there as much. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Control Tower 18 and loop junction‎How can I request a nomination be suspended?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Done. However, I would recommend starting a new nomination when you're ready. It's gotten quite messy there. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Daniel and I have been using hugin to produce TIFF files. commons is doing something funny with them. See File:CTA loop junction edit 3.tif and File:CTA loop junction edit 4.tif.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Common's currently doesn't support tiff, it's a proposed addition, but currently it won't recognize it as an image. If you want lossless you can use PNG, but I think it may have issues for truly huge PNG files... JPG at Quality 10 (max) is usually more then sufficient for anything, since there is virtually no visible loss to the quality. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] See commons:Commons:File types — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] You can download the tiffs; you just can't display them in the browser. Of course, saving a jpeg as a tiff isn't true lossless, as the original conversion to jpeg was lossy. But tiff would be a better working format considering that jpeg quality degrades when you resave multiple times. Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] PNG is just as good as TIFF, better even since it's compression is better, and does display in the browser. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Join_or_DieThis has 4 supports and one weak support at the moment: Is that a pass or a fail? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Strictly speaking, it would fail due to the requirement of 4 supports beyond the nominator's initial support. It still has a day or so to get a few more comments, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]It would be a shame if such an iconic image of the American Revolution as this can't even get 5 supports... *sigh* — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thumb qualityI have noticed that .pngs don't seem to thumb as well as other formats. Is this my imagination? See Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Demetri McCamey signals a play for example.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Different algorithms may be used, I don't know. I know the server uses ImageMagick as the server-side software to make the thumbs, and the png in those sets of 3 images is the largest file size, if you note at full resolution it's blurry, whereas the slightly downsampled jpeg's are sharper at full resolution. I don't know if that is the cause with the different way the server processes the two image types or not. PNG is great for having transparencies, and line art, but is probably unnecessary for photos. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's not your imagination - it's true. I believe it is because sharpening is applied to the Jpegs after they're resized to thumbs, but not with PNG thumbs. Hence the PNGs don't appear as sharp in thumbs. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I redid it as .jpg and it looks O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] PNGs don't have sharpening applied to them, JPEGs do. The dev team don't care to fix this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Oppose based on image placementI thought I was told that voting based on image placement would cause my votes to be ignored. Now I see others are doing it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]If someone is voting based on flawed premises, their vote will be ignored. That's always been the case. I'm not sure what you feel moaning here will achieve. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is a the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Kevin Grady where he says he is not evaluating all the uses a valid vote?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brandon Graham pressures Terrelle Pryor‎ where it is based on use in a secondary article valid?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I have no great opinion on either, though I suspect image placement is of more importance at VPC- you will have to ask there, as I am somewhat out of the loop. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mike GodwinOriginally raised with Juju, he pointed me here. This just seems like a rather silly close to me. Five people supported, no one opposed, no one raised any issues that were not overcome, and, so far as I can see, no one was reasoning based on flawed premises. However, as one support was "weak", this wasn't promoted. I gather the rules have changed recently, but I would point out that the rules, as written, would seem to support the promotion of this image-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. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis.Even if our rules did technically say that this should not have been promoted (which, so far as I can see, they don't), this seems like a pretty obvious candidate for us ignoring the rules. If people disagree with me, do we have a rule concerning how quickly an image may be renominated? I can't see one, but I'm gathering not all of our rules are actually written down. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I agree, rules are currently 4 support threshold, and it has 4.5 according to current way we count votes. One of the proposed changes I think is to make it 5 as a minimum now but that hasn't been implemented yet. It probably should be promoted. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]The minimum was changed to 5, see here: [1]. Technically, we're not yet "vote counting". This was one of the review's biggest points as it comes up over and over and over again. Lots of support for vote counting but not official. By vote counting standards, yes, it's a fail, even though that's harsh and I sympathise. As it's not law yet (and maybe never will be) you could claim that leniency and consensus should have been applied, but I gather that supporters of vote counting will be up in arms? Maedin\^talk 16:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry if I appeared harsh. I really was just trying to apply the rules we've been closing by for the past ~6 months. I am neutral on any possible overturn of the closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It only appears harsh because it's inflexible, and apart from Makeemlighter, that's how we've all been closing. I might have done the same. There's nothing necessarily wrong with what you did—as with the majority of these fuzzier closes, it comes down to interpretation of the guidelines and established practice. Maedin\^talk 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd support either a promotion citing WP:IAR or a quick renomination. NauticaShades 17:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] LOL Maedin...that's only for noms right at 2/3!! To be honest, I was struggling with this nom. I watched it the last few days hoping it would get another support to make things easy. There is precedent for promoting with less than the required number of supports: I remember seeing (although I can't find now) a nom where MER-C interpreted a comment as a support. In this case, though, jjron's comment cannot be interpreted that way. This nom could probably be re-nominated, but I don't think it should be changed to a promotion. There's a reason a voter went with "weak support" instead of "support" and it's best to respect a distinction between the two. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was just going to fix that when I edit conflicted with you! I eventually realised I got that wrong, doing the washing up is one of those times when my conscious brain knocks and asks to try again, please. Sorry about that! In any case, if it had been down to me, I'd have left the nom open indefinitely until something happened to make it a sure thing either way, because I'm a kitten and don't go for tough calls. That excuses me from being obligated to have an opinion at all, I think, because I wouldn't have done anything with it anyway, :) Maedin\^talk 17:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] No problem :P I probably would have left it open too, but the bright red "Don't vote anymore!!" scares people off. This is a gray area: leaving it open for an extended period makes it tough to decide when to close it; closing it leaves us with this situation. I wouldn't be opposed to re-opening this and setting a 3-day limit on further comments. Still, re-nomination is probably the best way to go. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why don't we relist when there're few comments? That seems like it would get around this problem... J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It has been suggested before. The reason it has never been implemented is, I think, mostly because a lack of activity on a particular nomination indicates a lack of interest and/or several unspoken opposes (probably weak ones). Additionally, re-listing gives some noms more visibility than others, which (you can guarantee) will be considered unfair by some. We already have the FPC Urgents template to help give some visibility to noms that are struggling to reach a firm conclusion. Maedin\^talk 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, just to add my support to leave the closure as it stands, since it's not actually incorrect. Personally I tended to take 'weak supports' as a support, depending on the comment, and thus probably would have promoted, but there seemed pretty clear consensus at that recent discussion (that I wasn't involved in) to count 'weaks' as half votes. I know that has never been made law, but hodge-podge implementation has occurred, such as the addition of that big red 'no more votes' which of course will discourage more input, and could be used to argue against votes made after that time. Relisting is just a bad idea as Maedin suggests. Re time limits on the renom, there are none, though it's usually recommended to leave it a while, say a month - having said which there's been somewhat too much fast-tracked renoms for my liking recently. --jjron (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]On a related note...Presumably, a similar thing has happened with another of my current noms- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-browed Finch 2. Though there is an opposer, there are more supporters, but the general lack of interest is going to mean it's closed as having failed... Do I just nominate really boring pictures? J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]No, it's not boring. Chances are that Raeky's oppose resonated with would-be voters and they decided not to say anything. Those who had a definite opinion voiced it, those who weren't sure either way didn't (like me). Also, in terms of photography "rules", the focus is not on the head, and, nice as the picture is, that will have killed it for some, but they may have felt it was not enough to oppose over. I think it's very rarely about "boring" or "not boring". I think encouragement to stay out of a nomination is usually down to the subject or file type (an svg on a technical subject, perhaps, or a literary illustration from a book most have never read), minor technical or compositional faults, or a legal/licence/usage issue. Not about boredom, but comfort zones. Daren't make us think, J, :-) Maedin\^talk 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]New CategoryWikipedia:Featured pictures/Sciences/Materials science - It catches a lot of things that should not be in Geology (which does not include man-made substances), as well as a number of things under "other sciences". Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured pictures/OtherIs it just me, or are about half of these better categorised under some subcat of Culture, entertainment and lifestyle? There's a couple more for Geology, the earthquake disaster relief ones could be history, and a number of the others could be placed under a "Photographic techniques" header. Any objection to reshuffling? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply](ec)You're welcome to move any of them. The only one I closed, Clifton Beach, is a picture of a beach that illustrates exposure in photography - there didn't seem to be a good place for that. I think most of the others don't fit too neatly into any category, so it was just easier to put them in Other. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've cleaned out all the obvious ones. The earthquake could go in a couple places, so I'm not sure. Might do more, we shall see. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Photographic techniques, terms, and equipmentThought we had enough images for this division. It's more useful to classify, than to have things in "Other". Trying to decide whether we need a shipwreck category; maybe under engineering and technology? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Final change: "Fungi" is now a top-level category, which makes it a little easier to find. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]As for the shipwrecks - I'd say go ahead and place them in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery. A separate category for 2 pictures isn't worth it IMO. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] What about the Titanic one? That could be history as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] The images displaying under "Other lifeforms" at Wikipedia:Featured pictures is now confusing - they're all fungi, but fungi aint there anymore... --jjron (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) And "Other" shows three images no longer found in there. May take a long time for these things to rollover. --jjron (talk) 09:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Manually replaced. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Cheers. Could of done it myself, but am pushed for time. --jjron (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Should we go back to four supports being sufficient to promote?We seem not to have the activity we had when we changed to five supports being needed: Should we go back to four? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Nah. :-) --jjron (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would consider it perhaps if we analyzed some statistics on how many !votes the average nom gets, how many FPCs we are passing, and what percentage of FPCs pass (compared to, say, a year ago). Jujutacular ^T · C 01:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think we should definitely not close a nomination if it has no opposes and less than four supports. In such a case the nomination should be extended indefinitely until enough opinion can be gathered, otherwise we're eseentially "punishing" nominations in a biased manner based on the ebb and flow of FPC participation. Cat-five - talk 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's a good point - has it been considered before? I can see a mandatory five votes being a compromise that placates those who nominate less popular but equally legitimate FPCs (the usual suspects have been restoriations). If after five votes, they don't have at least four supports, they could still be failed as per any other nom. It would be the only exception to the standard expiry period. All other noms with sufficient votes would be closed when they hit the cut-off. I'd support this idea, unless someone can point out a fatal flaw? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] As far as restorations go, that was considered in the poll (direct link to relevant section) but apparently nobody wanted it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would anyone object to me starting a new thread on this page to poll interest in changing the rule so that the same supports are required to promote but if there are no opposes the nomination will be extended until there's enough supports or someone opposes. To even it out we could even say leave it open for 24 hours to allow opposes after the last needed support comes in, it slants things towards opposes (which I'm not entirely comfortable with) but it's always been that way with FPC. Cat-five - talk 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] There is one problem with the proposal, which is that it will require some research and subsequent instruction to make this work in concert with the template that was imported from Commons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm willing to compile some stats on this, I can start by a spreadsheet of just the # of unique voters then the S and O #'s for each nomination in the archive going back, I think 3 months maybe? Any other data I should extract? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] here is the start of the spreadsheet, it's going to take a while to pull out all that data, but I think it will be useful for the purpose of the proposal. I'm not sure we need all 3 months worth of data though, that is A LOT of nominations.. maybe the last 100 nominations only would be enough numbers to decide. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just for the record I would be opposing this implementation on a number of grounds. --jjron (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]FalstaffFalstaff (opera)Y'know, I think my next FPC may be a while. I really want to finish this image, which I've been working on, off and on, for literally years (well, more than one, anyway). The image has issues: over-inked, the blocks were poorly aligned when it was printed - but it's also one of the rarest of images: An image of the première of a major theatrical work, and the last work of the composer. It's worth the effort. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's nice, GL with the restoration... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's going pretty well, but there are still a lot of things I want to fix before I can consider it FP-worthy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]FP categories workThere are now two new FP categories: molluscs and crustaceans. As a result, "other animals" is a lot tidier. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks. Should we add a physics one under science? Noodle snacks (talk)At a rough estimate, without searching too much for things hidden elsewhere in the category tree, I don't think we have enough images for Physics to make it a good split. Medicine might be useful, though: There's plenty of that under other sciences. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think there's just about enough images for both of those categories, and creating them may actually encourage submissions, so it would be a Good Thing imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Review results closed, now on to last proposal stageSee the summary on the linked page. We could have the remaining proposal(s) and discussion here on the talk page, might be easier and keep more people involved. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think the first 11 (section 1) is fairly uncontroversial, and most if not all of us here don't object to those. The one I'm interested in hashing out is the increase of the minimum size to near 2MP... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I think most people will be happy with 1.9MP, as proposed a little later in the poll. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Probably last proposal: 1.9MPThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. No consensus for a change in minimum resolution requirements. Reasons cited include deterrence of newcomers, size being overrated, a less concrete line being better, and the fact that people generally act sensibly about sizes given the subject. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] A large number of people at the review poll were in favour of increasing the minimum size to 2 megapixels; however, one editor (Ks0stm) made the suggestion (supported by some) to put the peg at 1.9MP so that images at 1600x1200 could be considered (see poll responses here). Furthermore, all but one that commented on historic images, animations and video, supported an exemption for these types of media (in fact, video and animation already have a lower bar under current criteria). I therefore believe that a raising of the bar to 1.9 megapixels for all but animations, video, and historic images, would have broad support in the community - please comment below! I suggest leaving this open for discussion for nine days (in the absence of snowballs). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support Seems reasonable enough. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Already a de facto criteria anyway. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] 1.9mp for pictures is fine, i'd perfer higher, but I'll take what I can get. We need a minimum for videos set as well, imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. NauticaShades 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, even the right hand has increasing standards in most review processes as WP improves.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Propose amendment Please state the amendment. Example signature 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Support amendment. Example signature 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose amendment. Example signature 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose A 1.9 or 2MP limit will confuse even more newbies and uninformed voters than the current position for little gain (awaiting the opposes because the image is only 1.5MB for example). And making exceptions for historical images just opens a can of worms. Retrospective application on delists will occur, regardless of what is said here. Obviously filesizes would prohibit applying this in any meaningful way to video or animations. --jjron (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] How would you feel about a smaller step to 1.5? This doesn't leave much available to delist and images rarely pass below about this anyway. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think there were other proposals that may lead to less confusion and less retrospective delisting. Say shifting to 1000px on the smallest side, or shifting to 1500px on the long side would basically have the same effect, while lessening the negatives. But regardless, size can be overrated. --jjron (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I oppose this, as I'm really not seeing the need. We already sometimes oppose images that just over our current requirements for being small; equally, images just under sneak through from time to time. Drawing a line in the sand then setting it in stone is not a great idea. J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I guess this is the time for me to make my own preference known. I actually think the current criteria are fine. I think raising the bar will close the door on a lot of third party pictures, including many from flickr, and from public institutions that are interested in opening their archives, and for whom getting their images declared to be among Wikipedia's best might be an incentive. There are already a large number of high-quality images out there that are just slightly below the bar and therefore non-featurable. Raising the minimum resolution further is not going to make WP more inviting for new people</sarcasm>, and is difficult to justify since when I last checked, the most common display resolution was 1280x1024, which is much less than 1.9MP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Weak Oppose, per J Milburn. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 14:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, oppose. I see no benefit in it. Raising the resolution bar may suit a few photographers here, but they will provide the same content, regardless of the minimum requirements. Being reliant on the few instead of embracing the many is contrary to the wiki ethos. For the rest of us, upping the requirement would discourage nominations and restrict the potential of the FP library by a hefty margin, but for very little gain and even less value. It's already difficult enough to get smaller sized images to pass when they do meet (and often exceed) our current requirements, and that same buffer will apply to any new minimum that hopefully won't be instated. As reviewers, I think we can judge well enough, case-by-case, if the age, type, source, subject, and composition of an image demands more than the present minimum required. Maedin\^talk 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Maedin. The current requirement is still pretty good in a lot of cases. I think, though, that certain subjects call for greater sizes. An oppose vote with the reason "too small" even when the minimum requirement is met should, therefore, no necessarily be discounted. It all depends on the nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Makeemlighter, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Maedin: Where the current resolution is enough, it's enough. Where it's not enough, then that's a valid reason to oppose. People usually act quite sensibly with this. Where I disagree with Maedin is only thus far: It can be useful to set high standards, as it sometimes encourages people to release higher quality material than they would otherwise. For example, requiring our images to allow commercial use meant that we have a lot of images that allow commercial use, when we'd have far, far less if we hadn't. However, I am only objecting to that part of the logic behind the oppose, not to the oppose itself: I agree that 1000 px is often sufficient, and, where more detail is needed, we can call for it then. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's an interesting point about how raising the standards might result in people releasing higher-quality material. With a higher standard, we might get better material, but then slightly smaller pictures that are FP-worthy but don't strictly meet the criteria would only qualify as exceptions. The problem, then, is how to decide what's an exception and what's not. We have a similar (but opposite, I guess) problem now: how to decide if something that's large enough according to the criteria is actually large enough. I guess I'd rather oppose even though it strictly meets the criteria rather than support even though it strictly fails the criteria. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Weak Oppose. We should be able to make excepts for any media, not just historical or videos. Lots of images smaller than 1600x1200 are still worth featuring, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment Suppose this proposal goes ahead. We've got a pretty big body of work that is below this new number (5-10%). Do we start delisting all the stuff a bit below the new minimum resolution? Noodle snacks (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, the conclusion was that the amnesty of old FPs would be accepted unless further discussion arises making a case *pro* delisting. So at the moment, nothing would get delisted as a result of this action. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is this going to be practical to ignore the new size for new noms and not for current FPs. I think the mindset of voters might be that the 1.5 MP image is small they might be biased against such images. Has there ever been a rule with separate standards for current and new FPs before?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's pretty simple, we bump up the minimum to 1.9MP, and we don't allow delist arguments to count against an image if it still meets old requirement. Maybe in the future if we bump size minimum up again (and we probably will), the images that would currently be protected from delist could be delisted, but thats a future problem. We've modified FP critera many times in the past that caused images to get delisted that don't meet current requirements, this is no different, except we're giving them an amnesty period. Keep in mind most low-grade consumer digital cameras are >10mp now. Having a minimum of 1.9 is EXTREMELY low compared to current modern cameras. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Let's keep in mind that when Henry buys a current modern camera, he might own it for five years before he buys another. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Where did you get Henry from? In any case, decent digital cameras have been capable of more than 2mp since for at least ten years - I had a 3mp camera in 2001. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] A lot of mobile phones will take 5 - 10MP images these days, but the quality is in general rubbish. As I say above, size ain't everything. --jjron (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, absolutely, but the fact still remains that mainstream P&S cameras have been capable of decent quality 2mp for ten years. Cheap, rubbish mobile phone cameras sporting 10mp sensors doesn't diminish that fact. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] But we also repeatedly find here that even with photos taken using relatively decent P&Ss, and even when downsampled to say 1.5MP, they still struggle to pass here on quality grounds. I'd suggest the 'higher' we set the size limit, the more exclusive we make the FP contributor club (with the possible rejoinder that the 'affordable' prices of low end DSLRs and high end compacts like the G11 these days opens that market to far more people). --jjron (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Fully agree with Jjron. Also, there is a big gap between "historic" and "since 2001". A jump in requirements would only further alienate several decades of good material. Maedin\^talk 12:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why an exemption for historic images? Most of the ones I've seen have been well above 2 megapixels. In general, if it's available at all, it's usually possible to get the requisite size. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know much about it, but this FP has been kept a couple of times now, and we apparently still can't get a larger size, so I think the answer depends on whether the question is, can we get historic images of large resolution, or, can we get a large enough resolution of a particular historic image that we consider to be of exceptional value. Also, a higher resolution can be of reduced value and utility if the scan is so blurry as to render the resolution redundant. This does seem to affect nominated historic images more than it does contemporary photographs, which no doubt reflects the different reasons why images in the two classes get nominated. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, okay, but I don't think it should be labelled as an exemption for historic: It should be images where no possibility of getting larger reasonably exists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.NASA picturesI’m not sure about the fair or free-use requirements for NASA pictures, but I thought I would point out this picture, “Aurora Australis Observed from the International Space Station” that NASA took in case someone wants to go get it, use it in an article, (if all that hasn’t already been done), and nominate it. Whereas it might not be as noise-free of as other images that have been featured here, I assume the technical challenges of low-light photography means NASA did the best they can with available technology. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]All US federal government work is public domain: commons:COM:LICENSING#Works_by_the_US_Government. That image is already used in Aurora (astronomy), although it seems the uploader performed some strange post-processing on it: File:Aurora Australis From ISS.JPG. Not really FP material anyway, in my opinion. Prefer: File:Polarlicht 2.jpg (which failed FPC here a couple years ago). Jujutacular ^T · C 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I would support a version of that space image of the Aurora that was unedited, the one that is used now is WAY to post-processed. Although the image Jujutacular linked too is of course way better on technical grounds, it's shot from the surface with modern camera equipment. The one from NASA is shown from space, which from that prospective adds VASTLY more EV to the image, showing quite vividly how it's an atmospheric effect. For many nasa space shots we don't judge as harshly on the technical side due to the limitations of equipment in space to make the shot. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] You hit the nail on the head, Raeky, as regards my reasoning. A view from space: How unique and interesting is that? Greg L (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Heh, I saw that photo in the newspaper a few days ago and was almost motivated enough to go and hunt down a copy for WP, which is unusual. It's a beauty. BTW, the current version on here is rubbish (what did they do to that?) but is much bigger than the version Greg links to (which I fear may be overcompressed and arguably overdownsized to succeed here). Maybe the uploader here did a big upsizing and wrecked it? --jjron (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Now nominated. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, Adam. Nice work. Greg L (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Fast Tracking ClosuresI note an increasing trend recently to fast track closures, e.g., out of the current 13 'recently closed' noms, 5 have had their closings fast-tracked. This has been done mostly unilaterally by the closer, for example another voter has not suggested a "speedy close". (Is this partly a side-effect of the recently 'extended' !voting period?). I believe it had been agreed in the past that closing noms early was in general discouraged, and definitely a no-no for promotions (some of which have been promoted in as little as five days)? Or was this consensus view changed while I wasn't around much? Comments... --jjron (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I've never fast-tracked a promotion, unless you consider a few hours a fast-track. Since I started closing, though, I have tended to speedy close more noms than past closers had. I think, at least. After 3 or 4 days, if there are 4 or more oppose votes with no support, the picture is probably going to fail. I started linking to WP:SNOW as an explanation. Basically, if there's no way that a nom can pass, close it now so the page isn't cluttered. SNOW only applies to things that are not going to pass, though, so I'm not sure what the rationale for a early promotion would be. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I was thinking about bringing this up as well. I don't see any need to promote early even if there is no opposition. Early SNOW non-promotes have been the norm for a while however, and I'm fine with it. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] A few hours early isn't an issue (though probably less likely now that that timer and the big red banner comes up), but 5 days vs 9 days is very significant. The rationale behind giving noms their full time even if apparently clear cut decisions was, IIRC, along the lines of: Promotes - sometimes an issue comes up late in a nom which can turn it; not overly common, but we've certainly seen it with things like diagrams where someone identifies an inaccuracy late in the nom turning an 'obvious' promote into a fail; Non-promotes - unless an obvious fail (things like joke noms, or noms that are becoming humiliating), or a withdrawal, we used to work under the premise that while it's unlikely these will turnaround, leaving the nom open, even if clearly failing, can be beneficial as a learning experience. This is especially for nominators, but also just for general observers. The use of "Speedy close" was introduced to allow a nom to be closed before its time, but still involved the collaboration of at least two users as a check, with a lead time of generally about a day for others to oppose this, rather than just being a unilateral decision by a closer. I personally think this is a better way to work. --jjron (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Odd, I just got through suggesting “speedy close - not promoted” for the begger-in-France image. It doesn’t have sufficient resolution and, thusly fails a key, minimum requirement. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think we're gonna have to be more open to speedy closes now we're getting a lot of noms and holding them longer. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Delist and Replace?Original Male replacement Female replacementI've managed to take two photographs of the Eastern Rosella, one male and one female. They have consistent lighting, backgrounds and so on. Being taken at nearly the same time I'm of the sex of each animal. I feel that either of these individually is superior to File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis.jpg. The backgrounds are less distracting and there is more visible detail. A male/female pair in the taxobox would also have greater EV in my view. Is a delist and replace the best way to go about switching them them? I ask since there isn't a 1:1 correspondence here. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes, a delist and replace strikes me as the best route. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Will see how it goes. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Two FPs... of the same thingI'm having trouble working this one out- what we have here, in effect, is two FPs of exactly the same subject. In neither case is one displaying something in particular- they are all just a "this is x" type image, perfect for infoboxes. How can we justify having both as FPs? J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]My understanding is that Chichen Itza "with tourists" was retained because it has more EV for touristy articles such as Tourism in Mexico. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Delisting and replacing someone else's different image feels rude and could easily generate ill-will. This is the case even if the new image is a genuine improvement or one is a bit better than the other. Sometimes people just don't notice that there is another FP too. In the Kookaburra case I'd argue that the new one is definitely better (much more plumage can be seen, considerably more detailed), so if we only keep one then that should be it. I find it less clear in the second case. One has nicer lighting and one has greater detail - if you want to delist one I'd just ask people to vote and decide which to delist. Broadly speaking if there are redundant images it might just be best to let it go to a vote.Non-breeding Plumage (Not a FP) Breeding Plumage Juvenile, but was thrown in taxobox without being labelled as such Should probably be delisted (File:IMG 8332 1000.jpg) is perhaps better in EV termsAnyway, whilst this is raised White-faced Heron is worth talking about. It currently has 3 FPs, one of which doesn't seem to be in the article. The image that was slapped in the taxobox is actually a juvenile and there isn't a featured pic in non-breeding plumage. I intend to delist and replace the last image, but I feel there is room for three here since each adds new EV. Seem reasonable? Noodle snacks (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yeah- if the article's good enough, I can see room for plenty of images- male, female, juvenile, nest, eggs, etc. However, in both nof the cases I listed, they are of the same thing, and are pretty much being used to show the same thing. The old temple image was kept because it was added to a related article- quite why that one should have been added and not the other is beyond me; alternatively, if that one is better, quite why the new one replaced it in the first instance is beyond me. It seems fairly clear that we only need one FP in that case. Asking people to vote on it is nice, but we don't actually have a procedure where we say "which one do people want", which is what is needed in this case... J Milburn (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Plants/OthersThis category has a lot of seeds, nuts, and other seed delivery vehicles, probably because the main page shortens "fruits, nuts, and seeds" to "fruits". Is there a clearer term we could use, or should we just spell out the category in the link? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Technically 'Fruit' covers all those things, which is why the category was named that (well not 'seeds', because the fruit carries the seed, so maybe it could be 'Fruits and seeds'). It's probably just that the people classifying the FPs didn't realise it while closing the noms. I say just dump the ones sitting in Others back into Fruit. --jjron (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]FP countAs of this writing, the featured pictures page says that we have 2,363 featured pictures. I just went through and extracted all of the pictures from WP:Featured pictures thumbs into a word document, did a line count, and found 2,369. I was careful to make sure each picture took up one line. The error was probably introduced when a few closers forgot to increment the count. I propose that the it be incremented by 6. It would be appreciated if someone else is available to double-check my work. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I wonder if one counted the uses of the FP template you'd get another number again. The only way to really be certain is to go through all the closed nominations I think. That said, I've forgotten to correct the count when closing, but never forgotten to add the image to the galleries. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] The template definitely is not used on all FPs, not correctly at least. I was actually in the process of checking the galleries, thumbs, and templates a while back but got distracted. I'd guess that, in addition to the reason NS suggested, some thumbs might not have been removed after a delist nom. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] As of this writing, {{FeaturedPicture}} is transcluded onto 2347 file pages. This can be checked by using the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1&target=Template%3AFeaturedPicture&namespace=6&limit=2347 - then changing that last number by trial and error until it is the exact amount of transclusions. I would venture to say that this is less likely to be accurate: I found 2 missing the template just going through Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 01. It often gets left off when a file is moved to Commons. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Compare the two sets and check the 22 (or more) that are on one list and not the other? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, a quick AWB check should be able to resolve this. J Milburn (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I've constructed a listen of possible problem FPs, if anyone wants to help. I'm halfway-ish. Feel free to strike once you've verified everything is right with it (note: some may not have anything wrong). Post here or on my talk page if you're unsure of anything. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]File:Impact Sprinkler Mechanism 2.jpgWasn't on thumbs. Added. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Indischer version3.jpg Looks fine -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Jimmie W. Monteith Jr. Gravemarker 03.jpg Added FP tag Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Keswick Panorama - Oct 2009.jpg Added FP tag Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg Added FP tag, but the image has issues, and I'm going to nominate it for delisting. -Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Lake Seal Mt Field NP edit.jpg Added to thumbs. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Lower Fort Mason abd Downtown San Francisco.jpg File moved on Commons. Requesting deletion of old page, new page tagged as FP. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Luminol2006.jpg - Unable to find a discussion to promote this to FP, taking to delist candidates. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg Added to thumbs -Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Mariano Rivera allison 7 29 07.jpg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Meehan Range and Old Beach.jpg Add FP tag; appeared to be a novice closer error. --jjron (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Milvus migrans -Kathmandu, Nepal-444.jpg Added FP tag. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:NYC Top of the Rock Pano.jpg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Olmec Heartland Overview 4.svg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Oxalis Triangularis Photonasty Timelapse.ogg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Pentagon crash site, Sept. 14 2001.jpg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Pleiades large.jpg God,t his one was awkward! Found evidence of its promotion in the end, but Commons Delinker really buggered this one over during a temporary, accidental deletion. -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg Added to thumbs -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Sarcophaga nodosa.jpg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Shroudofturin.jpg File:Shroudofturin rotated.jpg (20 and 21) rotated version was only for POTD purposes, never promoted; I accordingly removed the star from it Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Snail diagram-en edit1.svg Added FP tag -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Spanish-iris-crop-only.jpg - deleted as copyright violation on Commons, removing from FP thumbs. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Steppe-Eagle444.jpg - Redirects, not actually used in any article - Delist nom suggested to try and find it a place in an article? -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The wrong name (the redirect) was being used in Black Kite, I just fixed the name there. Should be okay now. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Stocking factory2.jpg Added FP tag File:TakakkawFalls2.jpg This was replaced years ago, then the replacement was delisted about a month ago. For some reason User:Fastily re-added the FP tag to the original at about the same time the delist was happening. Have removed FP tag and added Former FP tag. --jjron (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:The Dakota 1890b.jpgWasn't on thumbs. Added. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall - Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al.jpg -Looks fine. --Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine edit.jpg File:Twin Linear Aerospike XRS-2200 Engine.jpg (29 and 30) FPC decision was overruled by Commons (although afaik Majorly is a WP admin too - oops?) [2] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Have seen that type of thing a number of times before. It's not so much that the Commons machine 'overrule' things, as that they just don't bother to check what's happening with the images anywhere but on Commons. --jjron (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is a quandary. The delist discussion opted to delist the original and keep an edit that, as PLW identified, has now been deleted. The second preference in the delist seemed to be to go with the edit listed here. Both are currently tagged as FPs. I'm inclined to remove the tag from the Original and leave it on the edit. Neither appear to be listed in FP Thumbs, so needs to be added there. The other issue is that the original, rather than the edit, is used all over the place (in terms of Wikipedia here and elsewhere), so could be lots of replacements to do if anyone wants to go to that effort, and which is why I haven't just done it. --jjron (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm about to nominate an edit to replace both of them. If that fails, we can still do a joint delist. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] PLW's edit passed, so I think we can consider this dealt with. And, god, that was not a fun close. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Tycho-supernova-xray.jpg Commons Delinker strikes again! -Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpgDidn't have FP template. Added. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I tried to remedy errors and reconcile the counts less than a year ago as we headed into FP 2000, but I doubt I actually got it completely right back then. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_23#Massive_stuff-up. One big problem (and yet another reason I hate them) is the inconsistent handling of those shonky featured sets. Some closers include only a representative image for the set at FP Thumbs, some include the full set, some tag them with FP stars in different ways, etc. How they should be handled at FPC, how they should be closed, and even whether they should even exist has still never been tackled or agreed upon. At one point I was going to go through and at least do something consistent with them all, but then I found better things to do. --jjron (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd suggest deciding soon: I have a first edition copy of The Magnificent Ambersons, and it contains 5-8 illustrations (not going to pull it out at this moment). This would make most sense as a set. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I just want to thank Jujutacular for his work here. It was something that needed to be done, but must have taken a lot of work to do. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Also, is that all the problematic images done, think ye? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, as far as I know – besides the 'set' issue. Oh and thanks to everyone for helping out with this, the task was a little daunting when I first looked into it. But the collaboration made it fly by! Jujutacular ^T · C 04:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] There aren't a huge number of sets. We should probably decide, though. I'd say that A. Every image should appear in the Galleries/Thumbs but B. We should use a tag that lists all the images in the set and links them together. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Minor change to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Closing procedureJust added a line in each case for people to remove closed noms from Template:FPC urgents, and reordered the "add image to X" lines into one easy group. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DustyBot has diedI happened to notice that some of the promotions from early June didn't have FP tags placed on them at Commons, so I undertook filling in the missing ones. Dozens later, I finally had a brainwave and checked out DustyBot's contributions, and realised the bot hasn't been adding tags for us since 15 Feb ----> [3]. Even my patience wouldn't last through placing all of those tags manually. The bot's operator, Wronkiew (talk · contribs), hasn't made an edit on any project since July last year, so I don't have much hope that a ping will rouse him to fix Dusty for us. Does someone else have access to Dusty? Do we have another bot we can rely on? Should I be asking at Commons instead? I recollect that Dusty expired not that long ago and the problem was fixed then, so the answer to this may be very obvious, but I suppose I can't be the only one who doesn't know who pushes DustyBot's buttons, :) Maedin\^talk 20:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Is his source available somewhere that you may know of? If so we can just have someone else with tool server access to run it... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I haven't a clue. That facet of Wikimedia is foreign to me. Maedin\^talk 20:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I recall, bots are required to release their code in order to be allowed to operate on Wikipedia. Is that correct? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Wikipedia:Creating_a_bot#Considerations_before_creating_a_bot - makes it sound like they don't have to. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If they're ran on the tool server all you have to do is convince one of the tool server people who have root to give you access to that account or copy the code over to your directory so you can run it. I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to get that done if your an admin. I've tried to get tool server access myself and wasn't successful due to virtually zero level of people processing the requests. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure if you're talking directly to me or not? I have toolserver access but that doesn't mean I can or would want to get involved in running or reviving the bot. I pinged FastLizard4 on IRC for help; he can't find the source. From a quick search, it looks like most who relied on DustyBot for various tasks have already found alternatives. We're a bit slow on the uptake here, ;) Our best option, it seems, is to submit at WP:BOTREQ. Maedin\^talk 07:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've hit Wronkiew with an email requesting assistance; will let you know if he gets back to me. --jjron (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for doing that. Toolserver access is suspended after six months if it isn't renewed, and the bot expired about six months after Wrokiew's final edit, so that seemed evidence enough to me that it's a lost cause. But it's worth trying, thanks! Maedin\^talk 12:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No reply to the email yet, so I'd say proceed with other options regardless. --jjron (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] From my experience, BotReq is very good. This should be simple enough (sadly, not so simple that my bot could do it) so a quick request would probably deal with it. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Does anyone want to volunteer to put together and submit a request to WP:BOTREQ? Or, it looks like Svick (talk · contribs) has created bots to pick up on some of Dusty's other tasks, so I suppose we could hit him up directly. Maedin\^talk 12:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'll do it, but let's decide on the tasks first. These are the old ones, plus some possible new ones: Check all FPs against commons, tag those missing tags (using {{commons:Assessments}}.) 1a: Ditto, Featured Sounds. FPC Urgents updating [not really necessary?] [New] Help maintain FPC by occasionally checking Thumbs, the subpages of Wikipedia:Featured pictures, and the files categorised with {{FP}}, and listing any anomolies. [New] Make a list of FPs not used in articles, so they may be dealt with? Anything else? Are 3&4 useful, or should we save that for later? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think 3 & 4 are useful, but not sure how easy they'd be to implement. --jjron (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Photo of a light waveI am tempted to contact the researcher (Jonathan Marangos at Imperial College London, UK) who pulled this off and thought I’d see what others thought of this amazing image. It falls far short of having sufficient resolution for FPC, but given the profoundly microscopic view it encompasses, I thought it might be forgivable and it might be good enough. I am speaking of this image of a light pulse. This is something I thought I’d never see. It shows two oscillations of a laser pulse lasting 2.5 femtoseconds (2.5 billionths of a millionth) of a second. The laser pulse was so intense, it ionized neon atoms through which the pulse was passing, which in turn emitted electrons revealing the location of the neon atom. Since the electrons are emitted in only 80 attoseconds (billionths of a billionth of a second), they are a snapshot of that neon atom reacting at that instant to the laser pulse. Thus, we see an electron-written image of light waves. You can see here how the electromagnetic radiation is oscillating in one plane under the influence of an electric field oscillation, and in the other plane due to a magnetic field oscillation. The article is here: NewScientist: “Fastest-ever flashgun captures image of light wave”. Greg L (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think that, if we can get it free-licensed, that would be an astounding image to have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Poll on changing how noms with no opposition and less than 4 supports are handledI wanted to propose a change to the procedure that would say roughly the following...If a nomination has no oppose votes and less than four votes supporting move the nomination to the more input required section (currently section 7 on the TOC) until more support has been garnered or until the nomination has been opposed and reasonable time (I'd personally propose 24 hours after the first oppose vote) has elapsed before closing.I think this would prevent nominations from being unfairly denied because the nom isn't popular enough to immediately recieve votes while at the same time balancing the system to prevent noms from being extended indefinitely and preventing ninja oppose votes from scuttling nominations just because they were extended and 1 person decided to oppose after the nomination was extending. Of course WP:SNOW could also apply in case a lot of opposes came in after a nomination was extended and the time limit after oppose could be something other than 24 hours, it might work better at 72 hours. Cat-five - talk 18:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]SupportSupport, prefer 48 hours for the oppose, and a maximum of one week extra. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Propose amendmentKeep it simple and have no special 24/48/72hr rule about opposes. Given that the nomination period is now 9 days, you could just leave the undervisited, unanimously supported noms for an extra five days, making two weeks total, and then close each one depending on the overall votes on it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support amendment. Signature, Date This seems reasonable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree, a simple reasonable rule, give it 5 more days then close it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I support this, makes it a lot more simple and eliminates the chance of confusion. I'd suggest that it be 5 days but if the unlikely event occurs that there is still not support or opposition that it be extended another 5 days and so on and so forth otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of this change. Hopefully this would be a very rare case though because people give more attention to the needs more comment section. Cat-five - talk 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't like the idea of open-ended nominations for FPC, thats kinda how it is at VPC and it just makes the page to static. One 5 day extension, then it should end. The nominator can always nominate it again at a later date... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm with raeky on that one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree - it's great if the page is little-frequented, but for a mature process such as this... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose amendment. Signature, DatePropose amendment 2Also include images on the cusp of passing, that is, 4 or 4.5 supports and 2 or less opposes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Support amendment. Signature, DateOppose amendment. Signature, DateOpposeOppose -- As per our long previous discussion. A picture not able to draw the interest of enough reviewers doesn't deserve the FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per above. Keep the 'rules' as simple and consistent as possible. Additionally this would seem to in fact bias things towards noms that can't garner enough attention in the normal time frame. --jjron (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] How so? I'm not seeing it. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] 1. Gives them more time on the page to drum up votes; 2. Focuses attention on them after their usual time has expired; 3. Past experience suggests late 'after-time' votes for this type of thing favours supports, as the implicit oppose-cos-didn't-vote people mentioned elsewhere often won't bother to look at it again, or won't bother to go to the effort of justifying an oppose. --jjron (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'd like to see some hard data about the third claim. While it's possible that nominations in this category would be different, the general pattern seems to be late *opposes*. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I don't see a good reason to do this. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Kaldari (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]CommentsI'd hardly call it unfair for a nomination to fail because it hasn't received enough support. At one point, the general feeling was that nominations which weren't getting much attention probably weren't particularly interesting or compelling, which would mean they fail criterion 3. Regardless of whether that's true, I'm not sure leaving these nominations open would be beneficial. We already have the FPC urgents template. And we've already extended the voting period from 7 to 9 days. It's a lot easier to just re-nominate the image later than to leave it open. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC) By the way...yes, I realize I said in one of our earlier discussions that I favor leaving nominations open until consensus forms. I still do, but that's incompatible with any sort of strict voting period. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I sympathise with the general feeling that there should be no systemic bias just because people feel uncomfortable with their expertise on certain areas, or because some aspect of the work (colour choice, perhaps) isn't currently popular, or because the subject is difficult to capture well in a photograph (sometimes true of medals, coins, jewellery, for instance), and I can't really see any way that the proposed change could be "gamed", but I'd like to get a second opinion from Alvesgaspar on this (notified). Please note that I'm not yet supporting the motion, but suggested an amendment nonetheless because it seemed like an obvious amendment to suggest. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The more input the better. I really hope this can't be gamed, I thought about this for quite some time (a couple of weeks) before posting this and figuring out how to word it specifically so it would be hard to game either to pass a nom that shouldn't or to last minute veto a nom although that's alreayd possible to a certain extent. The proposed amendment I think deals with that issue better than my original suggestion on how long to leave extended noms open. Cat-five - talk 04:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure this is necessary, because I think on some level if someone sees an image and chooses to not even vote on it it's in a way voting against it. One of the purposes of a featured picture is one that really grabs attention in an article and if it can't grab enough attention here to get votes it may not be FP worthy. Nominations that fail simply because they fail to get the 5 votes really have no problems with be nominated again later, noone would object to a renomination. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't honestly have an answer to the comments about no interest = uninteresting other than I think it's very easy for that to be a fallacy because there are so many other things that could lead to a nom not getting noticed or getting noticed but with nobody bothering / willing to vote on it. Cat-five - talk 04:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Something not being "interesting" does not mean it is not FP worthy- I don't care a jot about some things, but I still do my best to vote in lots of FPCs as I hate to see them go the 9 days and there to be no comments. While we have the waiting period. I agree that there is a problem, and certain subject matter currently suffers- portraits, for instance, are generally less interesting (unless it's a very recognisable person) but deserve their time, as it were. Highly technical images will also, inevitably, suffer. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Another thought- how above moving these less popular noms back to the top of the list? They're more likely to be seen there than the "more input" section. J Milburn (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I just checked Template:FPC urgents and found it to be empty. Of course it doesn't work if people don't use it. While I previously said that people should add other noms in need of votes whenever they update, not just their own(!), I do think, excepting complete newbies, that it's every nominator's responsibility to make sure his/her nom is listed when needed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]As it happens, I just updated it before reading your comment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]A toast to TonyI want to propose a toast to TonyTheTiger, because after starting off with a slightly different mindset to everyone else, he's coming round to now making *sensible* suggestions for articles to place FP candidate images on, and I think that's a really valuable job that should be encouraged. Cheers! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Bot requestAt Wikipedia:Bot_requests#DustyBot_replacement_for_WP:FPC - check that I've not neglected anything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks, Adam, it looks pretty good. Just a couple of points: The bot needs to add more than just enwiki=1 to the assessments template, it also needs to add the link to the nom, e.g. enwiki-nom=Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Edward Teller, 1958 (2). That's useful, but not required. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The bot needs to take care of delisted images, too, by replacing 1 with 2: enwiki=2 That's of lesser importance, though - and is a much harder bot task. It'd be better to add that to the delist closing procedure. I could be wrong, but don't the majority of nominations not follow this format: {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.EXT}}? The closing instructions specifically say to use that one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Normally it's just {{FPCresult|Promoted|}}- no filename. From my experience, anyway. J Milburn (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I include the filename on promotions and thought most other closers did, as Adam suggests. Non-promotes don't include it. --jjron (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, sorry, you're right. I'm imagining non-promotes. J Milburn (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] And actually, I just didn't have a clue what I was talking about! The closes do follow that format. I was, quite bizarrely, thinking of the nomination page titles, not the closing text (better not to ask how...). Ignore me, sorry! Maedin\^talk 11:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps these were details you were saving for once we'd snagged some interest; if so, sorry to tread on toes, :) Maedin\^talk 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Large number of nominationsWe currently have 25 nominations, along with seven other pages needing input. This is the most I've seen for a while, so let's put in the effort to make sure they all get attention. I'd hate to see any slipping through the net because not enough comments were given. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ones currently threatening to slip through the cracks are:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/1910_Houston_Pano Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Edward_Teller,_1958_(2) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Willis_Tower2 Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Eidsvoll_riksraad_1814The rest have either a quorum, are quite new, or are heavily opposed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It'd be nice in situations like this if we could filter out those that have basically already failed, just to keep the number of nominations down- I know there's been a lot of fighting about this recently, but I don't see any harm in clearing out this, this and this, among others. What did we agree in the end? Would there be major objections to me picking off some of the week-old "no hopers" in which I have not participated? J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think there was a hard and fast agreement, but my proposal was to use the 'speedy close' suggestion, then someone else can close it, just to ensure at least some degree of collaboration. --jjron (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Gone ahead and suggested a few speedy closes, if anyone wants to do the honours. It'd be good if we could make more use of this- especially when we have such a high volume of noms. J Milburn (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]To be fair, with the new ten day discussion period, we're gonna consistently have well over 20 noms open at a time. Speedy closes for images that have obviously failed may be a good means to keep the numbers down. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Was there a clear consensus to go to ten (or is it nine?) days? Personally I've always thought the straight week was easily enough; some occasional noms may need clarification after that. Without checking closely, I'd say nearly all recent noms since the introduction of the timer have gone 'cold' within that 7-day timeframe as well. --jjron (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Apart from those with trailing arguments. I don't think we need ten days, but I can't complain, I wasn't involved in the discussion. I think we need an injection of reviewers most of all. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The nomination period increased by only two days, to nine, and so is now the same as Commons. At the time the change was suggested, we were struggling for reviewers and noms were foundering. Participation here seems to go in waves; activity levels will tail off again and we'll need the extra days. It wasn't just a blind idea; because we were leaving noms open to votes after the seven days, a fair amount of voting took place after the seven days was up (but very few realised). Now that we have a fixed voting/closing period, the extra time it took to gather votes has been incorporated. Maedin\^talk 17:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, there wasn't a clear consensus to change the length of nominations, just a poll without discussion. From what I've seen so far, the extra time has done nothing but clutter the page. Seems like people rarely comment after 5 days let alone 7, so the extra time is mostly wasted. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not to give Maedin's comment short-shrift as she makes some fair points, but what Makeem says has been my impression as well, but like Milburn I wasn't involved in the discussion. I see no reason to ape Commons (for some reason I actually thought they had two weeks). Does anyone else think we should have a go here at altering the timer to seven days to fit in with our previous practices? In the big discussion we had last year there was a fair bit of support for a 7 + 2 proposal, not sure what happened to that. Another alternative could be a 7 or 2 (the 2 for clear cut noms), or even 9 or 2 if people preferred. --jjron (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Now I wish I had taken a screen shot of it, but before this recent pouring forth, we had dwindled down to something like six open nominations, and about as many reviewers. That is our problem, the fact that FPC interest is not static at a good level, and the activity which now looks so promising won't last. I hesitate to be critical, but I think that "clutter" is a poor reason to do something that is, at other times, useful. If I had the time I'd get some figures on the number of nominations from the beginning of the year that only reached a definite conclusion past seven days. Btw, this isn't about aping Commons at all (they work quite differently from us), just that two days seemed appropriate. Maedin\^talk 06:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It must just get busy when I'm around. ;-) --jjron (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Teller and Willis are still half a vote short of quorum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Another questionI gather these rules exist, they just aren't written down anywhere. Are speedy closes on promotions considered appropriate? I remember there being an argument about issues found late in the day, as it were. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Bit of a discussion on it just up the page. --jjron (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (Hmm, I thought Maedin also had a relatively lengthy response there, including talking about why leaving 'promotes' open was good, that seems to be gone...?). --jjron (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] She retracted it. I agree however it was a good argument. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you want to display recently supported pictures, make a template for it and stick it at the top of the page. I don't buy the argument that opposed noms are "feel-bad clutter" that has to be purged, whereas supported noms are "feel-good clutter" that has to be kept on the page. I thought we'd agreed to stop SNOWing things, but instead people now seem to be pushing for SPEEDY. Why are we so reluctant to give nominations their fair chance? Nominators have always withdrawn their noms when they couldn't take the heat, and the sheer volume of good images on Wikipedia will, in time, necessitate splitting FPC up into sections by day nominated, much as is the case at AfD and other processes. Politixing to cut nominations short will not be an enduring tactic, because it creates dissatisfaction among nominators, and doesn't give fair consideration to all images - why would we do something that will keep voters happy and at the same time frustrate nominators? There's something wrong about that. Commons has a slightly different recipe that allows it to deal with a larger number of nominations, but their simplified process has been unpopular here in the past, so unless consensus has changed, I don't see it as an option. Clearly, any argument against speedy promotes also goes against speedy closes, and incidentally a required minimum of two speedy close votes seems petty when no less than five are required for promotion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] "Clearly, any argument against speedy promotes also goes against speedy closes"- false. Problems can be found late in the game with regards to what were previously thought to be good images, where as an image that doesn't meet the criteria at the start isn't suddenly going to start meeting them. J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Counterexample: EV added late in the nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Granted, hadn't considered that. I was imagining more technical problems, as has been the issue with speedy closes recently. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]FPC urgentsI've just updated this. It's pretty ridiculously long, and most of the images are only just short of quorum. Please vote, so we can start removing some =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Possibly some overly ambitious use of that though? Some of these noms have over 5 days left on their nom (i.e., they're less than halfway in). Perhaps we should have a rule of thumb, say things only go in there if they're within two days of closure and don't appear to have a consensus? --jjron (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dunno. I think it's better to do it earlier, because if you wait until the last minute, there's rarely time for consensus to develop. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Sorry Adam, but that is a little overzealous. FPC Urgents will lose all meaning if it's used that way. Jjron's suggestion is good, although I think those of us that have been updating so far have been sticking to an understood but unspoken ~2 day inclusion threshold. Maedin\^talk 07:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]{{FormerFeaturedPicture}}Are we still using this? E.g. File:Platycercus eximius diemenensis.jpg? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]As far as I know, yes. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Proposal: Delist and replace changeAt the moment, images replaced in a delist and replaces are fairly hidden - the thumbs are put in where the original was; the notification pages Wikipedia:Goings-on and Template:Announcements/New featured content are not updated, and so on. I believe they also do not get a chance on the main page. While this may make sense where the changes are minor, I don't think this is appropriate for a new image of the species, or even just where the improvement is substantial. I propose that the closing procedure for delist and replace be changed to more resemble that for a standard promotion, except where the changes are minor. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Unless the changes are minor, it should really be a delist and a new nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think Adam is right to point out that this needs some new regulations. I can see two potential solutions: Either change the instructions to say "when it's an entirely different image..." OR create a new section for exactly those kinds of D&Rs (let's face it, only experienced FPCers choose this kind of D&R nom as a format - although I agree that it's appropriate in the recent cases that we've seen). I would also suggest that the noms could be placed on the FPC urgents template when participation is low - I think prevailing practice hasn't yet included them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]SNOW closures back en vogue?Can someone clarify for me what closure Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Temple Grandin at Ted is? By the argument that if it looks like a duck, it's a duck, this would be a SNOW closure from jjron, who doesn't like SNOW closures? I'm not sure what's going on. Are SNOW closures back en vogue? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's a speedy close? I don't know if that's the same as a SNOW close- the image wasn't going to pass, at least two people thought it was worth closing early, and (due to the longer nom times) we now have an awful lot of open FPCs, so early closes are, in my eyes, a good thing. J Milburn (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Who is the other person? I see you asking for a speedy, nobody else. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] jjron thought it was worthy of a speedy close, otherwise he wouldn't have carried out my request. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Even if he had made that explicit (which he didn't), closers should never be involved, so I'm going to overturn that decision and extend the deadline by an appropriate amount. In addition, it has come to my attention that canvassing was involved. I find this very regrettable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That was not canvassing in any way, shape or form, and your rules (where are you getting these rules from, anyway?) are pointless. What on Earth is gonna be gained by bringing that nom back? Have you really got nothing better to do? J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As an aside, what gives you authority to overturn closes? J Milburn (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you look at past closures, you'll see that participants rarely close, and closing as a participant is usually remarked on here. This has led to a tradition that if a nomination can't be closed by a non-participant, a participant will ask on WT:FPC (i.e. here) if his closing view is acceptable to others. You will find several such discussions in the archive. The required thresholds are detailed in the instructions for discussions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Minor correction there: speedy closes have no officially recorded threshold, the two minimum were based on information contributed by jjron. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Firstly, your argument is horribly fallacious. Just because something has been done in the past, doesn't mean it should be done now (and, seeing as you seem to love precedent, is there any precedent for unilaterally overturning closures?). Secondly, even if your argument was valid, it doesn't apply here- jjron's first edit to that nomination was to speedy close it. He wasn't involved. Thirdly, you are apparently the only person who has issue with the close (including the nom...), and, so far, that seems to be for purely academic reasons. If not academic, then, I ask you again, what is going to be gained by unilaterally "overturning" this closure? J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's not how votes work. You can't vote by closing. Everybody else abides by that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you please read my last post again? J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've had the pleasure, and I'm not sure where the confusion is. Jjron seconded the speedy closure (off the nom, so nobody saw it but three) and also closed it. That's involved. Maedin\^talk 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Since my name is being taken in vain here, sorry but the only place jjron seconded the speedy closure was in his brain, if you happen to regard that as off the nom - but surely everyone who closes anything uses their brain while doing so, so therefore everyone who closes anything is involved by your and PLW's arguments, and therefore no one can close anything! If you're both referring to that comment on my talkpage that PLW links to (sneakily hidden so no one could see it, just so that we could collude to sink this nom! Oh, and evidently Makeemlighter is on our little ploy as well...), that does not even refer to this nom, if you had actually cared to read it. Maybe this type of petty nonsense is why, as you've told us above, participation here was flagging so badly a couple of months back. --jjron (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec) If you want to make a conspiracy out of it, that's up to you. Fact is, good practice and procedures weren't followed where they should have been, and that's regrettable. You didn't abide by your own earlier declaration, and we still haven't had a satisfactory discussion about how to handle the absence of guidelines about speedies and SNOW closures, and the larger volume of noms. Contributors to FPC have worked hard to dismantle the "power to the closer" ethic that prevailed here for a long time. This is at the heart of the "vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count" rationale (if I'm remembering that phrase correctly) that was agreed on by a large number of contributors. We need to all work consistently to act out and enforce that new consensus, and artificially shortening the 9 day period that was supported by a lot of people cannot be the way forward. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] You admit that there are no guidelines for it now? Perhaps you'd like to revoke your "OMG 2 SUPPORTERZ" comment, and perhaps, now we have at least three people supporting the speedy close, you'd like to go back and close it yourself? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you've got the wrong end of the stick again. I simply accepted jjron's statement about culturally passed down thresholds in good faith - the two of you should be the last to complain if I acted on information that you supplied. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, I'm gonna put this very simply. Do we have guidelines on speedy closes? If yes, where are they? If no, on what grounds do you feel you have the right to overturn? J Milburn (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] You're right, I had missed that, my apologies. I had read it but hadn't noted well enough the names of the nominations. However, further up the page, you said that two votes should be required for speedies, but you seem to have changed your mind? Maedin\^talk 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Right. I'm not frightfully concerned about that, as I have no idea where these rules are coming from anyway. However, for the fourth time, what is to be gained by reopening this? 16:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (e/c) What was to be gained by closing it early? Really, are we so twitchy about a full page of nominations that we have to make a mad dash to clear them? Do we also fret if a spoon is put away with the forks? Half the time we say, "gosh, it's so quiet, what's happening to FPC?" and the rest of the time moan about lots of activity. We'll cope, really, are any of us still on dial-up? The answer to the issue with speedies and SNOWs or whatever other semantic games we'd like to play is that we need to develop, write down, agree, and understand how to handle them, when they occur, what makes them valid. I also think it was poor form to contact someone you knew was of a similar opinion in order to "conspire to speedy", if you'll forgive me being cute, :) And this isn't just about you or this situation, I've frowned over several speedy closures before. Now, we have nothing firm, and lots of vague opinions, on whether or not we SNOW and, if so, when and how. We could have a proactive discussion on that, right? That would be a good place to start. Maedin\^talk 17:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] More discussion would probably be useful. However, actively reopening it achieved nothing; that's the point I'm making here. Keeping the page free of clutter to draw attention to the noms that need attention can only be a good thing. Even if you disagree with the "need" to close it, you can agree that reopening it was pointless... J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] For what it's worth, I contacted jjron about speedy closes on his talk page as he had just replied on this talk page. I was a little manic on that night- you'll note it was the early hours in my timezone... J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Right, clearly you can't think of anything to be gained by reopening it, so I'll try some more key questions. Where are these guidelines written down? If they're not written down and it's just something "everyone abides by", how come we've had so many uncontroversial and useful speedy closes recently, none of them with this requisite two speedy close recommendations, from a variety of FPC regulars? J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Whoa! I go to sleep for a few hours and this is what I get to wake up to!? I think I'll avoid commenting for now other than to say that PLW should have struck through the closure rather than removed it entirely. It's inconvenient to have to check the history to see what in the world is going on. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, that could have biased the nomination. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Anyway, maybe this will cause us to make some new rules for speedy closures, but otherwise this is pointless. The nominated image clearly does not meet the FP criteria. Nothing at all can be gained from leaving the nomination open past the point someone recognizes that. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Makeemlighter, feel free to speedy close it again yourself. At least three people would agree with that action, and PLW has not answered either where he is getting his "rules" from or what he hopes to gain from reopening the nom, despite being asked both at least three times by me alone... J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I answered those questions at the beginning of the discussion, but you keep insisting otherwise. I can't help you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Could you please link to the diff, or answer again? I clearly missed it. I suspect I know the answers (there aren't any rules, and nothing will be gained) but I'd like you to confirm that... You seem to have gone back and forth on the rules issue, while I honestly can't see you answering my other question. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Bot request updateIt's gotten zero interest. The best option may just be to add tagging it on commons to the closing procedure, then go through en masse and tag what we have. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I don't think we need to give up so easily, :) I'll try contacting Svick. Perhaps our own Dschwen could help? He hasn't been around lately and probably hasn't realised there is a need, but I'm sure he's more than capable of putting something together for us, so I'll ping him at Commons and see if he bites. Maedin\^talk 10:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Speedy closes, againOk, I think it's time we had another discussion on this issue. With the increased nomination time, it's clear that there's potentially more need for them, and the fact that there are plenty of regulars requesting them in noms (as well as regulars granting them) shows that there is at least some support for them. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not before four days have passed, unless it has truly major resolution problems without mitigating factors. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am against using them for speedy promotions - as problems could be noticed late in the nomination. I am neutral on speedy non-promotes. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I don't buy the argument that opposed noms are "feel-bad clutter" that has to be purged, whereas supported noms are "feel-good clutter" that has to be kept on the page. I thought we'd agreed to stop SNOWing things, but instead people now seem to be pushing for SPEEDY. Why are we so reluctant to give nominations their fair chance? Nominators have always withdrawn their noms when they couldn't take the heat, and the sheer volume of good images on Wikipedia will, in time, necessitate splitting FPC up into sections by day nominated, much as is the case at AfD and other processes. Politixing to cut nominations short will not be an enduring tactic, because it creates dissatisfaction among nominators, and doesn't give fair consideration to all images - why would we do something that will keep voters happy and at the same time frustrate nominators? There's something wrong about that. Commons has a slightly different recipe that allows it to deal with a larger number of nominations, but their simplified process has been unpopular here in the past, so unless consensus has changed, I don't see it as an option. Clearly, any argument against speedy promotes also goes against speedy closes, and incidentally a required minimum of two speedy close votes seems petty when no less than five are required for promotion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Additionally, it looks like a minority of editors are now trying to strong-arm against an established consensus for a 9-day nomination period. The recent increase in SPEEDYs was initiated through canvassing by a small band of editors; it does not constitute a broad acceptance by a larger number of editors using Speedy votes independently of each other. I close by noting that from a closer's perspective, it makes no difference whether a nomination is closed early or late - the workload, to a first approximation, remains the same. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] This makes no sense. Just a little while ago, you closed a bunch of noms early, including speedy promotes which had never been done before as far as I can tell. See these: promoted after 6 days, closed after 3 days, promoted after 5 days, and promoted after 5 days. In none of these cases did anyone call for a speedy closure. And, if I recall correctly, you never explained any of these closures. I'm having trouble reconciling your comments with your closures. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's really very simple: Either we do it one way, or the other, but complaining about SNOW closures (jjron) and then being overeager to SPEEDY-close noms is not a good recipe. If you want to continue doing SNOW closures, you had better explain why they can't be used for promotes, because elsewhere across Foundation space, they are. You also should continue to expect your closures to be seen as controversial unless we have a guideline (as Commons does) about when they're permissible (and yes, Commons has well-defined SNOW closures for non-promotions as well as promotions). Please note: This is not about making WP like Commons, this is just about having a logically coherent way of doing things that doesn't put people off. I've heard no response about my proposal above: Divide FPC up into subpages by day nominated - because the nomination volume will keep increasing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't see why it's so terrible that we have not banged out explicit guidelines. There are no guidelines for SNOW closes at AfD- hell, I doubt there are guidelines for SNOW closes anywhere on enwp. Can we not expect closers to have a little common sense? That's the point of SNOW closes. If anyone has issue, a quick note on the talk page will no doubt get the nom reopened- no pain, quick and easy. J Milburn (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If that's the case, it shouldn't have been a big deal overturning the rushed SPEEDY. I find this to be in stark disagreement with your recent behaviour. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It wouldn't have been, had you had any reason beyond "OMG LOOK AT THESE RULES I'VE MADE THAT IT DOENS'T MEAT". If, for instance, you had subsequently supported the image, added it to a new article, uploaded an edit or anything that suggested you thought it had a chance in hell of passing, you would have provided a genuine reason to oppose the speedy close. As it happens, your reinstation appears to have been bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know why, having started a predominantly reasonable discussion, you'd endeavour to let it degrade to what you've just put there. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that's great. I know this is difficult for you, but could you try and remain on-topic? J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just stick to the topic you set out, and you'll find everything will be fine. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was. As I explained, my "recent behaviour" was a concern that you were engaging in pointless overturning, not that overturning itself is a bad thing. The whole point of SNOW closes is that they are outside of the process- they are merely there for common sense closes. As I said, there seemed to be no common sense reason for your reinstation of the nom (this would have been different had you supported the image or... as above). You didn't provide a reason, and no one else could see one- it seemed to be based purely on your beliefs concerning guidelines which don't actually exist. Even if what you were saying was in any way accurate, we're talking here about what should be the case, not what is the case, so my past behaviour is irrelevant. So, to get back to the point, is there any reason we shouldn't be using speedies far more often? J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Is there any reason to be using speedies at all? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (undent) There's often no point in leaving nominations open for a week longer than they needed. When it's clear that something has failed, unless there's ongoing discussion of interest (no doubt more generally than about the image itself) it may as well be closed. Just keeps things tidy. J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't see how tidiness trumps giving nominations their fair run. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] A "fair run" is an artificial concept. If we know an image clearly doesn't meet our guidelines and clearly isn't going to pass, and the same thing has been said by several others, what's the point in letting it stagnate for a week? It's just more efficient, if nothing else. J Milburn (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's the damage in letting it "stagnate" for a week? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As such, nothing. Equally, there's no "damage" in having FPCs wait a month. It's just not efficient. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Consensus strongly favoured nine days. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Erm, alright? The point I'm making is that we don't have to wait so long that something is actively doing "damage" before dealing with it. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] What damage? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Can I just point out that having a productive discussion with you is worse than pulling teeth sometimes, and clearly I'm not the only one who finds it to so. Why don't you make an effort not to be so obtuse? I know you can do it when you want to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. PLW, it was you who referred to the damage. I said there was no damage, but that this was not necessarily supportive of your point of view. J Milburn (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If there's no damage from leaving nominations open for the full nine days, this should be the end of the discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Equally, as I have said, there is no harm in leaving them open for a month... The point is not about "damage". So far as I can see, you're the only person against speedy closes, while I could easily find several editors in support. If we don't use them, it will leave us as pretty much the only process with a time-limit without them. Let's get back to basics- do you agree that a speedy close would be appropriate if, say, someone nominated a non-free image for FP status? Or if the image was deleted as a copyvio during the discussion? J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Those kinds of noms do not require the speedy mechanism. We just close them on sight unless there's active discussion or suspend them if there's a good reason. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ok, good, then we are agreed that there are occasions when we should close nominations before the ten days are over. I'm glad we've got over that point. We would close such nominations because they have no chance of passing- all I'm suggesting is that, equally, we close other nominations that will not pass before the ten days are over; as I say, you seem to be the only one who is so vehemently against this idea. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (e/c) I am also against the way that speedy closures have been applied recently. I am sure that others are, too, only they're not stupid enough to insert themselves here into the den. I could point out several examples of terrible speedy closures/suggestions. The fact that new information and improvements can be made later in a nomination's run is just as true for "obvious" failures as it is for "obvious" promotes. There should certainly be ground rules for speedy closures, starting with a minimum period of time that 99% of all nominations deserve to run. And it should be reserved only for blatant disregard for FPC criteria. It would be helpful if the eager proponents of this tidiness obsession could stop speedy closing long enough for us to reach a conclusion. Maedin\^talk 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Point them out, please. I'm curious to see what you think is a terrible speedy closure/suggestion. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (undent again) Damage from leaving nominations open? Not exactly. But the whole point of SNOW is to avoid running something through a process if it's certainly going to fail. A doomed nomination clutters the page, making it more difficult to find other nominations. If the volume of nominations is really going to increase, we need to keep the page as clutter-free as possible. People just aren't going to scroll through nomination after nomination to get to the end. We saw last year, when people were hoping to get the 2000th FP, that a large number of nominations resulted in little participation for each one. Removing nominations that cannot pass from the page can help mitigate this problem. As for speedy promotes: this is a completely different issue. Issues often come up late in the nomination period. Similarly, voters may not notice a nomination until it's been up for a while. An early closure could, therefore, result in a promotion for an image that doesn't meet the criteria. This problem does not happen with non-promotes: once someone recognizes that a picture doesn't meet the criteria, it's toast. Moreover, it's a lot easier to re-nominate than to run a delist nomination. I think that covers everything... Makeemlighter (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yep, all sound points, as I see it. J Milburn (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's being run through the process anyway. Template:FPC urgents takes care of undervisited noms. Use it. One of the benefits of the nine day period is that people who visit FPC less often get a chance to comment on noms before they're closed. By allowing speedy closures, we bias participation in favour of regulars. I've already dispelled the myth that there is a fundamental difference between early promotes and early non-promotes. You can soon forget about scrolling as a solution because the volume of nominations is increasing, and I see no evidence of the rate of increase declining. I've (twice) proposed a solution for this that nobody has commented on, so I'm left believing that my solution is good. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That diff you linked to doesn't do what you says it does. Most speedy non-promotes occur because of obvious failures of technical criteria, not because of a lack of EV. An image that doesn't meet the technical criteria at the beginning isn't going to meet it at the end. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The increase in nominations has actually driven the increase in speedy closures, and not because we're trying to keep the page tidy. Rather, we're getting rid of junk that never should have been nominated. Picture peer review is vastly underused. It would save us from having to speedy close anything. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] There isn't a single technical criterion that doesn't require interpretation and isn't occasionally being bent for images with special redeemable qualities. Even licensing issues, which you'd be forgiven for thinking are fairly factual and clear-cut, have recently been debated at length on several nominations. If insufficient use of PPR is the problem, then insufficient use of PPR needs to be fixed. Speeding here will achieve nothing towards that end. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No, but if five people who know what they're doing oppose in the first couple of days while there is no support, I think it's fairly clear, usually. Speedy closes were used here long before I was a regular (I know from my occasional forays into FPC in the dim and distant past) and this is the point- it's about a person with some clue making a judgement call. Sitting here and trying to make guidelines for it is a little silly for just this reason. (Out and out opposing, as I feel I demonstrated above with the "image deleted" or "non-free image" cases, is ridiculous- we all accept speedy closes are acceptable, it's just some people don't seem to think we can rely on other people having common sense.) J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Except common sense isn't being applied. You suggested speedy closures on two perfectly reasonable nominations, less than 8 hours after they had been posted. One of them is an FP on de wiki, and "too much like a snapshot" is, I hardly need tell you, both subjective and not part of the FPC criteria. You didn't even give the nominators the opportunity to see where it was headed and withdraw—there's this thing called "time zones" and another called "real life". How can anyone find that time scale acceptable? We're not battery farming here! This is a collaborative project, a discussion, a learning curve. I'd be totally put off finding and nominating an image if I knew that as soon as I transcluded it, a horde of regular "common sense" dictators would scrutinise it with the intent of finding out how quickly they could sweep it away. Such bad faith and discouragement, and such a corruption of the spirit here (the spirit as it should be). In the name of tidiness? Maedin\^talk 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I know you're referring to the Biden nom, but what's the other? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (e/c) Temple Grandin. Good resolution, dynamic, engaging, high EV, representative of the subject, and looked fine in preview. On closer inspection you can see that the focus missed the subject's head, but that's insufficient reason to not even give it the grace of 24 hours. Particularly considering that the nominator was new to FPC and that the image was not that poorly selected—talk about bite-y! I think it was entirely appropriate for the closure to be overturned. The Miley Cyrus nom didn't start out so well, either, should I have suggested a speedy closure because the subject's head is cut off? That seems like common sense to me and I might have even got a seconder. I'd like to think it has no hope of passing, too. But there are, and should be, exceptions, allowances, differing opinions, opportunity for changes, suggestions, improvements, and good faith aplenty should be our norm, not our "if-we-have-to". Maedin\^talk 08:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The reason Grandin was closed so quickly was that the nominator had (on my reading at least) effectively withdrawn it already following the suggestion for speedy close (being new I assumed they may have thought they'd just append a new image to the old nom, thus my comment along with the closure). If they had have instead disagreed with the speedy suggestion I too would say it should have been left open and would have done so. The nominator clearly confirmed my assumptions in the later withdrawal, following all the wikidrama that had been manufactured by the nonsense overturn. Sheesh - don't people read these things or think about them? --jjron (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I see your point here. Rather than discuss the merits of the early closure here, I have a question for everyone. How do we get images like that one submitted to PPR rather than FPC? If we can answer that question, the speedy closure issue will disappear, since images that don't have much chance will be dealt with at PPR. I guess that sounds kinda harsh, but in my experience, a significant number of non-promotes fail overwhelmingly. If we can take care of them at PPR, FPC will be a lot more efficient. PPR is a much better place for "changes, suggestions, improvements" than FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Section break(outdent) Okay, let's move on from discussing what we're already doing and figure out what we should be doing. I propose adopting the Rules of the 5th day from Commons. After 5 days, a nomination with 0 supports apart from the nominator are speedy closed as not promoted. Ones with 10 or more supports and 0 opposes are speedy promoted. I'm not crazy about speedy promoting anything, but the threshold seems sufficiently high to prevent any less-than-perfect images from getting through. Likewise, 5 days and 0 supports seems reasonable and is actually fairly similar to what I'd been doing a few months ago. Comments? Makeemlighter (talk) 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It makes no sense to outlaw speedy closes that don't meet certain criteria. When someone nominates a thumbnail, a non-free image, a copyvio, or a picture of their cat used only on their userpage, it makes sense to close it pretty much instantly. Take a look at RfA- plenty are closed early, and an awful lot of "no, you've completely missed the point" are closed within hours. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support the use of speedy non-promotions for nominations with 0 supports apart from nominator after 5 days. That is plenty of leeway to let anyone who thinks it has a mild chance at passing to place a comment. It also allows the nominator enough time to receive constructive criticism if the picture is not up to par. Re speedy promotions: I honestly don't think it is needed. @J Milburn: those kind of nominations aren't really the problem currently, maybe we could discuss them separately? Jujutacular ^T · C 11:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, as I said before, J Milburn's examples are not subject to the "vote speedy" mechanism, and can be discussed separately if anything else needs to be said about them. At the same time, Oppose what Jujutacular proposes. Speedy closes are not actually needed at all, and we certainly won't implement them in a one-sided way. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] We certainly won't? That's the de facto way we have operated for a long time... Jujutacular ^T · C 18:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] On second thought - 10 votes in support and 0 oppose is good enough for me. That is plenty of eyes to notice any potential problems. Full support the proposal. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (reply to original post by Makeemlighter) I think this would have to be a replacement of the current speedy mechanism: remove the instruction to speedy vote and henceforth treat all speedy votes as normal votes, i.e. "speedy close" would be treated as "oppose", and not counted separately if the person has already voted. If this were part of the proposal, it might be worth trying. I would suggest nonetheless to also get back to discussing what changes need to be made to the layout of the FPC page to accommodate larger nomination volumes, and to look into what needs to be done about PPR (at Makeemlighter's suggestion). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, yes. That's what I meant; I just didn't say it! We would do away with speedy close and replace it with the 5 day thing. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Then support in the spirit of my previous comment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]What makes the examples I cite any different? No, they aren't "subject to the "vote speedy" mechanism", because no nomination is, because that mechanism doesn't exist. We all agree that no-hopers should be speedied, we just don't seem to agree what a no-hoper is. J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] There are things that cause legal problems, and things that don't. Where no legal problems exist, I see no harm in leaving a nomination open. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's highly unlikely that anything is going to cause us legal problems just because it is nominated for featured picture status. Don't be so dramatic... J Milburn (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being made so complex? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The currently agreed-upon vote ratio to pass is—what(?)—5:2? So if an image has five “opposes” and one “support” vote, there isn’t WP:SNOWBALL of a chance that 13 pure ‘support’ votes with no ‘opposes’ are going to come in to reverse those fortunes. Zero chance. We are under no obligation to be constrained by anything here—no prior rules, no tacit agreements; nothing. All we must abide by are the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I would suggest that we need only abide by two other principles: 1) always do the right thing, and 2) don’t behave like bureaucrats who think we gotta do this or do that because that’s where the rut in the road is currently heading. Once we decide what “makes sense” (Wikipedia is not obliged to behave like the U.S. federal government), all we need to do is publish our guideline. If we don’t like the way our new “speedy close” policy works, we can always revise it again; consensus can change. Greg L (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ratio is 2:1, and people sometimes change their votes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I support Makeemlighter's proposal. It's a fair, easily understood, balanced, considerate approach. As he has pointed out, it's basically the way closers were working before, and no one had a problem. I also think we can have some useful discussions on page layout (as PLW's suggestion) and PPR (as Makeemlighter's), but let's implement this, first. Maedin\^talk 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]It's not SNOW closing but yes, it seems a sensible enough addition to current rules and practice. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's my understanding that there wouldn't be any SNOW closing besides this mechanism. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] You've already admitted that there would be; copyvios, thumbnails, non-free images... J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...and stated that those are not subject to SNOW closure, yes. Btw, thumbnails???! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] AKA a very small pic (~300x300). Jujutacular ^T · C 13:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Now you're just being ridiculous. What are they if not SNOW closes? If anything, they're the SNOW closes, where as these new guidelines offer a new type of close altogether... J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] “A new type of closure altogether”" Sure, “Don’t-have-a-prayer” SNOW closures. Moreover, the process seems to be that someone sees that it doesn’t have a prayer (horribly out of focus, for instance) and then someone seconds the proposal. We’re not deciding “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” here; this is about applying WP:COMMON SENSE and clearing house. Greg L (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The idea is to replace all the current speedy/SNOW closures with the 5 days rule. With a guideline in place, there will be no need to use common sense that may or may not be common. It's a compromise between 0 early closures and closing anything that "doesn't have a prayer"; it's a middle ground that will allow us to move on from this discussion to working on other issues we have at FPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] "there will be no need to use common sense". Brilliant. Well, I'm still going to quite happily SNOW close thumbnails, copyvios and non-free images if/when they come up. Yes, these guidelines are a sensible addition to our current guidelines, but they can't, shouldn't and don't replace common sense SNOW closures. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] You chopped short what I said and, apparently, missed the point. As Maedin pointed out above, what's common sense to one may not be to another. Putting in place firm guidelines allows us to avoid disagreements and all the lengthy (and mostly pointless) discussions we've been having lately. Compromise is the best option... Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Like I say, these guidelines are pretty good, and I fully support their implementation, but they should not stand in the way of common sense... As I have repeated many times, we all seem to agree that there are cases where the nom should just be instantly closed. J Milburn (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with J Milburn here. Your stated premise, Makeemlighter, that “common sense may not be so common” simply makes no sense if one literally parses that statement. Literally, it means that there might be morons out there with no common sense whatsoever. Well, Wikipedia is not constrained to a lowest-common-denominator for common sense. Bottom line: common sense is simply incompatible with “I reject your reality and substitute my own.” So please don’t poo-poo “common sense” now; I’ll have to thumb a ride on the next UFO off this planet if I can’t have even that. Now… what I think you really meant by that could best be translated as “one man’s ‘terrorist’ is another’s ‘freedom fighter’.” Well, that”s not what J Milburn and I are talking about either. We’re talking about only about not wasting our time with totally lost causes that have no prayer of every passing. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there is no reason to waste anyone’s time bailing when it’s obvious that the Titanic is heading to the bottom. Greg L (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be wasting anyone's time. Five days is not long, people usually don't spend much time on noms whose outcome is a clear non-promote - unless they disagree with that outcome, and closing the noms takes the same amount of time, whether early or late. And as Makeemlighter has said, we're basically formalising an existing practice and making it less controversial by introducing a clear threshold. The problem with your overall argument is that several editors have in one case been labouring to speedy-close a nom of an image that is an FP on another wiki, so it definitely wasn't a lost cause (your characterisation; and yes, you were one of the people involved). It's therefore clear to me that the speedy mechanism has outlived its usefulness and needs to be replaced with something more mature. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Biden & Obama picture is an example of a nomination that should have been put out of its misery soon after it started. That picture features both men. Yet Obama is so out of focus, it is apparent even in small thumbnails. Such a critical shortcoming violates the most basic requirements for FPC candidates: that they be of high technical quality and be in focus. That nomination’s fate was inevitable after only 14 hours of voting. There is no point pulling the duty roster clipboard off the pegboard and scheduling the tugboat captains to arrive for duty in New York for the arrival of the Titanic three days later—not after the radio operator has already told you the passengers are in the water.What J Milburn and I are solidly against is the mentality that “rules is rules and they ought’er be no gray area because some people have no common sense.” That’s what lead to this railroad trestle fire. After a wheel bearing overheated, the engineer stopped the train—unfortunately with the faulty wheel right atop the wooden trestle. They radioed their supervisors, who replied that the rule book is quite clear that you can’t move an unsafe train and forbade them from moving the train; not even a few hundred feet to get the wheel off the trestle. Milburn and I prefer to write rules books that allow people to collaboratively act out common-sense steps; like If a nomination clearly violates one or more fundamental FPC requirements and the voting and expressed voting rationale show there is an overwhelming, like-minded consensus, and the nomination doesn’t have a WP:SNOWBALL of a chance, then it can be nominated for early closure and removed after the nomination is seconded. It doesn’t matter to Milburn and me if—as you say—common sense isn’t often all that common; we prefer to use the Well… Duh! approach to things. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I strongly disagree that the Biden and Obama nom should've been closed after 1 day. To me, it's not all that far off from FP quality. Not every square inch of the picture has to be in focus. In fact, if it was simply being used to illustrate Biden, I would've said it's quite close to FP quality. All of this is really beside the point. The fact is, we are going to disagree to varying degrees on nominations. We must strike a balance between giving nominations a fair chance, and creating a well streamlined process. This proposal will do just that. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That’s fine regarding the “streamlined process.” As for disagreeing about the “Biden & Obama” FPC, I know your words are well intentioned, but they strike me as politically-correct Leadership Pablum,®™© which Wikipedia’s culture tends to cultivate.We both know that nomination—though a *squeaker*—is a lost cause. indeed, if one stops calling it a picture of “Biden & Obama” and started calling it “Biden with some sorta president behind him”, then it would have at least met the minimum FPC criteria for being in focus. As you say, not every square inch needs to be in focus; but if the image is to have EV, then the ‘stated subject matter’ must be in focus. That’s why the nomination is going down in flames and doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance-on-the-sun of passing. And that’s why it serves as a fine example of why the FPC processes needed to be revised: so we don’t have rules as the infamous gal at McDonalds interpreted them. She spoke into the microphone to say “Number 27, your order is ready” over the PA system when there was only one customer in the building standing right in front of her (and she took his order and gave him his change). Greg L (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Trust me, it's not just PC BS. I was actually considering supporting the nomination before the onslaught of calls for speedy closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think you are confusing blurriness with depth of field control, which are subtly different. The focus is on Biden, who is sharp (er, at least in this picture), while Obama falls outside the depth of field. That's not the same as the blurriness you get from poor technique or equipment. You can definitely question a photographer's DOF control as relates to composition and EV, but that is a more nuanced line of argument than saying the whole picture is blurry and should not be grounds for speedy closing, in my view. Further, you should have read the Snopes article on that train incident, which confirms it happened but not in the way you said. The car with the overheated bearing had derailed, and the fire had already started by the time the crew walked back to investigate. I'm not sure what would happen if they tried to pull forward with a derailed car on top of a burning bridge, but common sense tells me that's not a good idea. ;-) In fact the crew wisely unhooked the part of the train that was over land so they didn't lose everything. I'm ok with Makeemlighter's proposal; but the story above is a reminder that "common sense" is often a red flag for hasty assumptions and confirmation bias, and we don't want that to poison FPC just for the sake of processing noms more quickly. Fletcher (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That’s OK about the train. While writing that, I considered checking Snopes and then disregarded the move as unnecessary; intent on responding to a post such as yours with this… “Fine. Then consider it an apocryphal parable to make the point.” I’m sure you *get* the point, just as you do the one about McDonalds (regardless of whether it is true or not)?As for depth of field or focus, (I’m not *new*), the end result is the same: Obama—which the image is supposed to be half about—isn’t in focus. Depth of field, by definition, is the limit on the distance range that will be in focus. If part of one’s purported subject matter isn’t within the depth of field, then it will be out of focus, which it is. I think we’ve flogged this just about enough since the arguments seem to be being made here for the sake of argument (such as belaboring the distinction between fuzziness and focus and depth of field to account for a blurry president). We all know that the current nomination (based on the photo that is purportedly depicting both Biden and Obama) has zero chance of passing. I have no problem with it riding out the full, mandated time since there is a near-infinite amount of electronic white space to keep voting on it. I’m done here. Later. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I got your point about the train, but wanted to bring up the Snopes article because it shows a better understanding can sometimes be teased out through more discussion and research - which is directly relevant to FPC discussions. As for Obama and Biden, the EV really was unclear to me, but it's arguably good EV for Biden himself or for any of various vice presidential articles. Perhaps a better article could be found for it. EV is subject to argument and is often subjective, so I don't think it's a good criteria for speedy close, unless the image is completely unrelated to the articles it's in. Nor do I agree with cutting off a nomination just because someone thinks it has "zero chance." The first five opposes to that nomination were vapid ("snapshot" is not an argument IMO) and only when we got to your oppose did you bring up the focus issue, which may be right but is certainly arguable, depending on what the alleged EV is for. It's easy to see consensus moving the other way after a flurry of bandwagon opposes that miss something important. Let's save the speedy close for when there's objectively something so wrong with the image that further discussion is moot, not for images that just get off to a bad start. Fletcher (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Quoting you: …for images that just get off to a bad start. That reminds me of Emperor Hirohito’s “Jewel voice” surrender radio speech after both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed: “The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage.” Gee, Hiro, ya think? (*There I go; giggling at my own damn post—sorry*) Greg L (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Let's formalise thisOk; we don't seem to be getting anywhere with the issue of speedy closes, but there does seem to be considerable support for Makeemlighter's suggestion that we adopt Commons's rule about closing on the five day mark. So, 5 people opposing with no support (other than the nom) on day five, we close as not promoted, 10 supporting with none opposing on day five, we close as a promote. What do people think? J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I know I missed the earlier discussion, but I'll weigh in on this proposal and speedy-closes as a whole here. With regards to this proposal, I think that having 5 opposes with no supports after 5 days sounds fine. However, I disagree about speedy-promotions and see no reason that this should needs to go both ways. It takes only one solid reason for an image not reach featured status, it is therefore much easier to overturn previous support votes and consensus is more easily reversed from promote to non-promote. All nominations that are passed, in my view, should be scrutinized for the full 9 day period. I don't see this as an issue of clutter. Unlike ridiculous common sense rejects (the only images I would put in this category would be copyvios/non-free use, drastic technical shortcomings or images that are not an article where they serve a purpose), probable promotions don't detract from the appearance of the project. They demonstrate what likely (Consensus can change!) make up a FP and not allowing speedy-promotes portrays fairness as no one can simply jam a nomination through and circumvent the process.Briefly, with regards to the current application of speedy-closes, it seems far too liberal and falls outside of the bounds mentioned by myself and other users before. A number of these requests come in the first or second response and appear, to my eyes, unjustified. Cowtowner (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Why not adopt something more flexible? Sometimes nominations can be turds that need to be put out of their misery. And sometimes nominations will obviously and simply not comply with the minimum criteria. Other times, the voting may be “off to a bad start” and deserves a chance. I propose this: If there are at least five “oppose” votes and no “support” votes and one editor suggests “speedy” close and cites a valid reason (which can include WP:SNOWBALL as a reason), and if someone seconds the motion, then the moderator can—but doesn’t have to—do a speedy close. Moreover, in deciding whether to accept the recommendation for speedy close, the moderator would look at the vote comments to see if the voting consensus cites a common theme. Greg L (talk) 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think that SNOWBALL itself is a valid reason for a speedy-close, seeing as the notion is founded on SNOWBALL, the logic would be circular. I don't see how that proposal is more flexible -- only that more requirements are introduced. I think simply having five oppose votes makes it horrifically unlikely for a change in consensus, as mentioned above. I mean, when do we get 15 votes on a nomination, including 10 consecutive supports after 5 opposes? I think the simple 5 opposes would be sufficient. Cowtowner (talk) 05:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I see now, the circular logic to “WP:SNOWBALL”. So allow me a second try with tweaks per your teachings: A nomination may be “speedy closed” per the following procedure, which is intentionally drafted to afford the FPC community flexibility since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: If the nomination has at least five “oppose” votes, and; The nomination has no “support” votes, then; An experienced FPC editor (who can be one of the 5+ voters) motions to “speedy close”, and also; A second experienced FPC editor (who can also be one of the 5+voters) seconds the nomination. Then… A moderator should generally—but is not required to—speedy-close the nomination, provided that; The moderator considers the stated reasoning behind the ‘oppose’ votes and finds a common theme or a consensus.How say ye? Greg L (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Support Sounds reasonable. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Presumably, then, we would be able to vote something like "oppose, suggest speedy close", and, provided someone else seconded the speedy close, and there were three others voting oppose (with nobody but the nominator supporting) the nom could be speedy closed? Or do the "speedy close" votes have to be separate to the oppose votes? Just trying to understand this. J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Good point, J Milburn. I addressed it by revising, above, in the parentheticals. I see no reason with 5:0, and a clear consensus for the reasons *why*, and a moderator judging it, that we can’t have two of the five voters also suggest “speedy euthanasia.” Greg L (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] In my opinion, this seems like more bureaucracy rather than less. What was wrong with Makeem's suggestion for speedy non-promotes? Everyone seemed fine with that. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Would you please copy that suggestion to here? I arrived late and am not sure what exact text you are suggesting. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just up the page, under section break, with myself and a couple others supporting. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] “5 days and 0 supports” = “speedy close.” That’s the entire rule-set for “speedy close”? I have zero problem with his “10:0 vote = speedy promote” part. I would suggest that when the colonel walks up and summarily shoots a prisoner in the temple out in the street, that there be more hurdle than someone observing that the vote passed the “5 days & 0 supports” threshold. Granted, we all know that with such an early start, the odds are heavily stacked against it.Remember though, in some cases, the nominators are the photographers who took the picture, uploaded, it, got it into an article, and went through the mumbo-jumbo of nominating. I suggest that if we aren’t going to give such an individual’s work the full timeframe to be deliberated (and the vote count objectively tallied at the end of it all), that what I have proposed strikes a fair balance between pragmatism and euthanasia because a poor dog crapped the carpet five days in a row. With Makeem’s suggestion, candidates can get ignored to death (one “oppose” vote and nothing after that but a few comments) and it will clearly be awfully hard for some to accept a “speedy close” as a result of what amounts to a “pigeon-hole veto” (ignored to death). What I enumerated above pretty much simply describes the way things often work here anyway; I just formalized it in writing. I think it a virtue that my proposal requires that the community here muster a whole five-or-more votes (that’s not too much to ask) before bitch-slapping someone’s work. And it also affords us to flexibility to get the “don’t have a chance in hell ‘cause it’s a real stinker”-pictures cleared out faster because my proposal doesn’t have an arbitrarily set time period (like five days). Greg L (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict) I'm uncomfortable speedy closing nominations with just “5 days and 0 supports” since that isn't even REMOTELY like WP:SNOW. The procedure I supported is how I'd like to see it, where it's pretty much unquestionable it won't pass, with sold reason(s) why. On Commons they use a template when an image can't pass that effectively ends the discussion. So I Oppose speedy closing without sufficient oppose votes and solid reason why it should speedy close, and Support Greg's approach of it needs at least 5 opposes and no supports and solid reasoning why it can't pass. The idea here is to clear the que of images that can't pass, and some images are just simply unpassable and we all know which ones they are,and I think for the most part we all agree which ones will never pass. We should just formalize a method to quickly close those, even if it's less than a day. Make a template to throw on it after we decide to close it under this way, that explains things, and criteria and thanks the nominator for their nomination, soften it up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] And even if five “oppose” votes and two “speedy close” nominations come up in less than a day, the moderator—upon seeing the rapidity of it all—is always free to wait 24 hours to see if a miracle parts the waters. Greg L (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure what you're referring to on Commons. My proposal came from the Commons Rules of the 5th day pretty much verbatim. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was referring to this template: commons:Template:FPX. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] My bad. I forgot about that. The problem is, of course, that 24 hours may not be enough time for anyone to notice. Indeed, that's what set this whole discussion off, the short time-frame of some closures. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Quick thoughts without responding to anyone in particular. Without a minimum time period for closure, we're setting ourselves up for the same issues that started this whole discussion, namely nominations being closed way too quickly. Other than deleted images, I don't see why we can't get every nomination at least a few days (5 sounds good to me). Many problems can potentially be corrected, and the nominator/photographer/author deserves a chance to respond to criticisms and made changes. There doesn't seem to be much harm in letting an image sit for a few days - no more harm, at least, than shooting down a nominator after less than 24 hours. It's hard to encourage participation when we're so desperate to kill nominations that don't meet our standards. Really, I think, this isn't the discussion we should be having. We should be figuring out how to prevent potential speedy closure nominations by making the FP criteria more visible and promoting participation at PPR. Anyway, how about this as a proposal: no speedy closures at all? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In commons it can be closed within 24 hours of it being opened if people feel it doesn't meet guidelines... see: commons:Template:FPX. I don't see why we can't adopt virtually the same process. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]The only problem with nominations that are closed “too quickly”, Makeemlighter, is because doing so is often closely linked with closing nominations undeservedly and without due diligence. Merely waiting out five days-worth of time (where there could be one “oppose” vote and three comments about how the picture could be improved) doesn’t solve the problem. *Time* in an of itself doesn’t prove or solve anything. The proper litmus test for evaluating whether a nomination stands no chance is by assessing whether there is a clear and convincing, like-minded consensus that the image has no chance. Moreover, by employing a small measure of Robert's Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure (motioning to speedy-close and seconding the motion) and by giving the moderator some latitude to deny the motion, we are ensuring the right thing is done without encumbering ourselves with a time element that really has nothing to do with anything. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The time element certainly has something to do with it, because we aren't sitting down at a table together. We're editing online in various time zones on various schedules. Someone that won't get online for three days may have a very good point to make. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] What I’m saying is that we aren’t managing to count the number of heads that participate in a decision to “speedy close” by counting the time; one measures the participation in a decision by counting the participants directly. Specifying “five days” may result in one “oppose” vote and a couple of comments; that’s not decisive enough to speed-close. That’s not sufficient to boot out a nomination, is it? The proper metric to establish that a consensus has been achieved is to specify a minimum number of opinions necessary to establish a quorum. If we settle on a five-vote quorum as a minimum, then we accommodate for the time/day/time-zone issue you speak of, Jujutacular. If we happen to achieve a five-opinion quorum in less time, then that works too, doesn’t it? Sometimes lots of people weigh in quickly; other times not. My proposal is that it be five “opposes” and zero “supports” (and like-minded reasoning) to meet the minimum quorum and to establish a consensus. The rest of the procedure (making a motion, getting a second, and the role of the moderator) ensures that a true consensus (like minded view) exists. If we’re gonna be speedy-closing nominations, these certain minimums are quite necessary. Greg L (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's why we would require a minimum of 5 opposes, per Makeem's suggestion. This is the direct measure of participants you speak of. A minimum of 5 days is a good suggestion because it ensures that a good sample of the FPC population at least sees the nomination. Both elements, time and participation, are useful. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] (edit conflict)Fine, if you think that a minimum number of participants is needed. We can ignore for now that lack of support has been considered unsaid opposition. The problem of the short time-frame is still there. As Jujutacular mentions, different time zones and different schedules can prevent people from being online. If a nomination gets a few opposes and speedy close suggestions within 24 hours, the nominator (and other interested users) may never get a chance to comment, and for what benefit? I began this lengthy discussion with the feeling that we might as well get certain nominations off the page, but I don't feel that way any longer. Why are we so concerned with getting rid of some nominations? I don't think it hurts to leave them on there for a few days, maybe not all 9 but at least 3 or 4. Whatever system we end up with, I think we'd better keep it as simple as possible. This "x opposes + 0 supports + y suggestions for speedy close = speedy close but it doesn't have to if the closer decides it isn't" is too complicated. If the straw poll established anything, it's that people want firm guidelines with no wiggle room. Getting rid of speedy closure altogether is sounding better all the time... Makeemlighter (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a compromise be to take Greg's proposal above and tack on a 2 or 3 day age requirement? I think 5 days is a bit excessive, and would accept a compromise of 2 days MAYBE 3 day compromise. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I think it's a bit complicated, though (see above). But why is 5 days excessive? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Because with 5 or more people unanimously agreeing on nomination not able to pass, with at least two of them being "experienced" participants, plus the agreement of an closer should indicate it won't pass. Personally I'd rather like to see a near mirroring of Common's procedure of tacking on the FPX template, and if no one objects to it in 24h of putting on the template it closes. From my point of view we're talking about pictures that don't meet our criteria. Only images that don't meet our criteria would get that level of opposition to close under Greg's proposal, and in which case time isn't going to get you anything except just clutter and more opposes. 5 days is more then half the time frame of a nomination, 3 days is a 3rd of it, which I think is more reasonable. How about we create a template similar to commons:Template:FPX and instead of 24 hour give it 48 hour for close? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 04:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sure. Why not both? It’s not too complex. If people aren’t engaged enough to weigh-in within 48 hours, then we don’t need to hold our breath for them to bother stopping by. I see no reason why shouldn’t establish a minimum quorum of voters (5 for instance) and require that at least 48 hours has elapsed so all time zones are ensured a stab. Shall I copy what I have above with the “two-day” thing added for us to consider down here? Greg L (talk) 04:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(jumping the gun here):

A nomination may be “speedy closed” per the following procedure, which is intentionally drafted to afford the FPC community flexibility since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy:

If the nomination has at least five “oppose” votes, and; The nomination has no “support” votes, then; An experienced FPC editor (who can be one of the 5+ voters) motions to “speedy close”, and also; A second experienced FPC editor (who can also be one of the 5+voters) seconds the nomination. Then… A moderator should generally—but is not required to—speedy-close the nomination, provided that; The moderator considers the stated reasoning behind the ‘oppose’ votes and finds a common theme or a consensus, and then; May “speedy close” the nomination provided it has been up for consideration for at least 48 hours.How say ye all now? Greg L (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I oppose all proposals except the one by Makeemlighter that was simple, had reasonable support (4 supports iirc, including self), and is used on Commons. What's happening now looks to me like a shot from the hip to prevent (why, I have no idea!) giving more opportunity for work to be discussed and reviewed by a larger number of people. I also think there is confusion about what SNOWBALL is, what SPEEDY is, and I don't think any of the discussion led by Greg L has clarified anything. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Common's uses commons:Template:FPX as well, which lets voters end a nomination in 24h if they feel it can't pass. Why can't we have that here? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 11:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Makeemlighter’s proposal provides for lots of time for people to participate in a speedy-close, but it doesn’t guarantee it. After five days, there might be only one “oppose” vote; being ignored and dismissed would be hard to swallow for many a poor photog who may have self-nominated. The two-days I am proposing ensures everyone who might want to weigh in has an opportunity to do so. The 5-vote minimum guarantees that, as you say, Papa Lima Whiskey, a minimum level of participation—a quorum—when speedy closing. Greg L (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think you're confused Greg. Makeemlighter's proposal for non-promotes is 5 days, 5 opposes, 0 supports = speedy close non promote. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I am thoroughly confused. When I requested that someone direct me to a his proposal, you directed me as follows: “Just up the page, under section break, with myself and a couple others supporting.” There, I found this I propose adopting the Rules of the 5th day from Commons. After 5 days, a nomination with 0 supports apart from the nominator are speedy closed as not promoted. If we are going to discuss proposals, it would be valuable to explicitly state the exact wording being proposed for the policy. There is ample electronic white space, below. Greg L (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Ugh... no I was wrong, you were right. The proposal was indeed 0 supports after 5 days = speedy non-promote. Jujutacular ^T · C 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] No problem at all. I suggest that anyone who has an alternative proposal should best write the whole thing below in an enumerated fashion. I think the exercise of thinking through and addressing exceptions, extremes (like very few votes after several days), and caveats will ultimately save us all some time. It’s easy to suggest a sorta “Why not this simple thing”-idea. But the rigor of writing it down and addressing the details often helps us to realize that what seemed simple on the surface is not really as simple as one first imagined after everyone’s “But what about this…”-circumstances are addressed.What I have above is actually more straightforward than it looks because there is very little incumbent upon any one individual; it addresses the very few requirements and the responsibilities for all parties. It ensures that no nomination doesn’t get a fair hearing with sufficient unanimous input; it ensures that all editors around this spinning rock who frequent this venue have an opportunity to weigh in; and it allows us to quickly dispatch zero-chances, true stinkers when it’s obvious to us all that’s it is best to get it off the table and not further waste time on it. I rather like the touch where it requires a motion to “speedy close” (and a seconding) rather than making it automatic. Even though there might be no support votes after a certain number of days (or five “oppose” votes and zero “supports”), we can just let it slide all the way and give it a bit more of a chance simply by no one bothering to nominate for speedy closure. Greg L (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Meh, Oppose all. I say henceforth no Snows, no Speedies, no Withdrawals, no early closures for any reason - save all the wikidrama, save all the convoluted rules and caveats. If something's stinking up the page, then so be it, and let it serve as a lesson. Definitely no early promotes for any reason. No need to try to mimic everything Commons does. And I also propose we revert to our historical practice of seven day nominations, rather than the nine that seems to have been foisted onto FPC by a single user and which is contributing to clogging up the page for no conceivable gain. --jjron (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please check the data before you make claims. I also think it's foolish to blame the 9 days for "clogging up the page". The nomination volume is simply increasing - the 29% difference between 9 and 7 is hardly the problem (and 29% is the generous figure here). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am aware of that straw poll, but please point to a consensus discussion on the actual FPC:Talk page...I believe there is none. All other changes from these 'offpage' discussions have been brought through the 'formal' channel of FPC:Talk before any change was imposed. BTW, I think you need to check your figures - nomination is only increasing from unusually low levels seen earlier in the year; volume is still not especially high by historic standards. And regardless the 28.5% increase in time, applied to the current 28 noms, would equate to approx. 22 active noms if the the nomination period was seven days rather than nine; a not insignificant and more convenient volume. The extra two days simply means two days longer for dead noms and shoe-ins to sit around doing nothing. Or let me put this in a more positive frame - in the two months since you took it to nine days, can you point out any noms where the extra two days changed the outcome? My guess is there'd be very few. Out of the 62 currently in the July archive for example, there is arguably one that may have had a different decision (depending on the closer's interpretation of the 'mild support' vote) if closed at 7 days - all others were well and truly decided, and very few had any action at all in those extra days. That one that may have benefited is not exactly a strong nom, and all this is hardly a strong argument for having the extra days. --jjron (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] You know, I could get behind that last idea. We've tried longer noms, and it doesn't seem to be working. Perhaps the easiest solution to this whole issue is to go back to a shorter discussion period? J Milburn (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I see no reason to adopt shorter deliberations across the board as a mechanism to just clear the slate of a few pure stinkers that have no hope in the world due to fatal shortcomings. I think we should either put up with unmitigated turds that have no chance in hell, or adopt a thoughtful and fair way to dispense of them. What I would hate to see is non-thoughtful ways of doing “speedy closes”; any procedure should 1) provide sufficient time for editors in all time zones to weigh in, 2) ensure there is some amount of a minimum quorum, and 3) should provide a *touch* of Parlimentary procedure to ensure it really ought to be done away with. Greg L (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If you're so keen on parliamentary procedures, just leave the nominations be. Plain and simple, no controversy, we can just close them when they're done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] That’s another option. We can just ignore pictures that don’t have a prayer because of fatal flaws. But it’s not too hard, after seeing 5+ “oppose” votes and a common reasoning underlying the votes, to nominate it for “speedy closure.” If you’re not up to the task (we all know it’s not a Herculean effort), there are any number of regulars around here who would be interested in appending “Motion for speedy closure” at the end of their vote reasoning; ‘taint hard at all. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Came across this: Springtime“Springtime”, by Pierre-Auguste CotAll: While researching the color of our “The Wave” painting, I came across “Springtime” by Pierre-Auguste Cot. Does anyone think it deserves a chance? Something in it really captivated me. I was advised via e-mail this morning that Art Renewal are quite the experts in the colors of paintings. Supposedly, our “The Wave” painting came from them. I note Art Renewal’s version of “Springtime”. Prettier picture. If others are interested in A) this image going for FPC, and B) want the to have the one that is most true to the original, or C) the one that is prettiest, please advise. Greg L (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Commenting on the copy you transcluded, I think it would have to have less digital noise to succeed. Their version is brighter, so I would prefer something like that, colour-wise. I think the transcluded one is a bit dark. What's your plan? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Art Renewal’s is 1000px vertically and would just meet the minimum. Could we upload that? Is that kosher? Would someone like to second this motion? Perhaps I am in a romantic mood this morning (“Renaissance-like” romantic; not “amorous-romantic”), but I think this picture is just beautiful as regards the mood it evokes. Do others agree? It would allow Wikipedia to look a little less like a gaggle of bird watchers (though some of today’s are really well done) and allow us to be a little more timeless. Greg L (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Technically, the Renaissance is rather before the Romantic period. The romantic period is roughly late-18th and 19th century. </music and art geekery> Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]PhotosI've uploaded the first batch of photos from a joust I went to last week. If anyone sees anything in here they think might be useful or even FP worthy, feel free to grab it: commons:User:Adam_Cuerden/gallery There'll be at least a couple more batches before I get through this. It's a bit slow, as, well, the first batch is just up to the joust's start. After that, horses are moving very fast. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Addition to closing procedure?Is this something new I haven't heard about? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]News to me. We are sort of looking for a bot to take care of this for us (since DustyBot died), but I don't know if there is any progress on this. However, I think we should probably leave closing procedure to only entail enwiki work. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Eh, I think there were a few slip ups in the closing of a recent nom. I think he was trying to get the tagging to work on Commons and I assume trying to note it in the closing process for thoroughness, which is fair enough I guess, but when I found that nom it had three FP tags on it, so something wasn't right. Yeah, would tend to agree though that we should just leave the closing to en:wiki work, and hope a DustyBot replacement gets up and running soon to do that legwork. --jjron (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I just recently figured out how to "create" the Wikipedia image page. Still, that template seems to always be used, but if you're going to get a bot to do it (and maybe make the process of closing smoother in general) than the best of luck to that. --I'ḏ♥One 02:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Question:How often do you guys frequent peer review? Sorry for such and obvious cry for attention, but I really want some feedback on some images I've proposed there. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Usually a couple of times a week for me. But I may not always have time or inclination to reply. --jjron (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Peer review gets about one-sixth the visits by the community as does FPC. Greg L (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I think I've found some real great, valuable, possible additions to FP that I want to test the waters on there before bringing them to the shark tank that is FPC. PPR should get more hits, it'd much more efficient if people brought images and people could just suggest possible edits or direct if it should go to FPC, VPC or nothing at all. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Featured images that can't be viewedI'm a bit worried about promoting an image which a standard configuration can't view. [4] isn't working for me on Windows Vista with Mozilla, though it does under IE. There is a template which indicates this may be a common problem for others. Should such an image really be featured? Hobit (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Yes, because you can use the alternative viewer linked on the RHS of that template, and Wikipedia scales down images on the fly for anything but the full-size view, so with a little know-how, you can pick your resolution. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] A good point, I should read more. Hobit (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]TravelsI'm currently planning an ~ 8 week travel around Costa Rica, Galapogas Islands and possibly a little of Ecuador for this coming December. My itinerary is still quite fluid so if anybody happens to have any suggestions for photo/FP oportunities, places to visit, have been there themselves or just recently saw an epic photo was taken in that part of the world let me know :) I'd love to get a hummingbird shot in particular. Benjamint 10:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not sure if it's open to the public, but this hummingbird shot was taken at the "QERC" [5]. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, lots seem to be taken at Monteverde as well. With only one flash I doubt I'd be able to get anything good though.. might see if there's anything close to san jose i guess Benjamint 13:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Categories of nominations that are defacto bannedNote: Nobody here is talking about banning any categories of images, this is just a discussion of categories of images that are de-facto (please follow link if you are confused) banned due to strong public opinion that they don't stand out enough or one example is not distinctive enough from another. Cat-five - talk 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]"De facto is a Latin expression that means "by [the] fact". In law, it is meant to mean "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law" -From Wikipedia the Free EncyclopediaI wanted to make a list here of categories of nomination that are de facto banned. I won't even bother proposing of adding this to the nom guidelines but anyone who bothers to check the talk pages before nominating an image should be able to see if they are wasting their time.Coins Flags Maps Most diagrams (rare and exceptional exceptions) Portraits, there are rare exceptions such as [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ernest Borgnine]]Sports photography (but not sports stills), again some exceptionsAdd to the list and sign if you can think of anything else, with the exception of sports photography and depending on your definition of portrait all of those are pretty solid on not having many if any successful nominations in a long while as far as I have seen. Cat-five - talk 04:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm tempted to add aircraft to that list but they may succeed 15-20% of the time depending on the shot. Aircraft in the air are almost always rejected though as can be seen by one current nomination. Cat-five - talk 04:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Portraits and maps do fairly well, it depends on the subject. However, the portraits need to either be A. particularly well-done, or B. historical. Maps are difficult to get good enough to be FP, but historic maps do alright (probably because they're often a bit more detailed, or made by noteworthy people. Diagrams used to regularly pass, but the best diagram makers haven't been working on Wikipedia for some time, and the bar's been set very high for new people. As for coins: I think they should pass, but it's hard to argue a support reason when the copyright status is ambiguous. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] The only one I would agree with there is flags. I would be happy to promote coins as long as the copyright was unambiguous and the EV was definitely there. The problem with flags (and, I guess, to a lesser extent, coins) is that once you promote one, you have to promote them all (that said, we did recently promote File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg, which is nearly a flag). Some discussion concerning flags may be beneficial. Portraits, maps, sports photography and diagrams are most certainly not banned. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the current coin nomination is unfortunate due to copyright issues but coins in general have gotten a bad rap when it comes to nominations. Cat-five - talk 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was about to complain about the same thing, so yeah, 100% support for that statement. In fact, we could make it an opt-in list and have about the same number of items. Animals, panoramas, historical images, old artwork, are about the only things that reliably do well. And fungi. Plants not so much. Not sure what the difference is between sports photography and sports stills, but I would summarise that under event photography - none of that seems to do well here. I think the last successful one was when people were protesting against Israel invading Gaza, by Muhammad iirc. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] We have a lot of artwork noms compared to usual at the moment, but, in any case, a lot are still failing. We're fairly harsh on fine art, and rightly so. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I don't like the idea of blanket bans on any content, if it's freely licensed and no copyright concerns, it should be eligible. Just because the bar is so high that most never pass is no reason to just outright ban it from being considered, that's stupid and any such rule is just begging for WP:IAR nominations that I would whole heartedly support. — raekyT 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]No one is proposing that images of that sort should be banned- just that, in practice, some types of image just don't seem to have a chance. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm in the process of notifying some of the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion. I'm titling these posts roughly after the title of this thread - attention-grabbing so that we can rouse them from their non-participatory states. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I would tread carefully with defining automatic deal-breaking categories and limit it to some drop-dead obvious basics. Coins are one thing; but as Cat-five mentioned, he was tempted to suggest airplanes. There is nothing intrinsic about airplanes that makes them unsuitable for FPC. It’s just that they are invariably taken from the ground and are hard to shoot. Eventually, someone could come along with an aerial photo of a plane that might clearly strike us as head & shoulders above the rest. I subscribe to Aviation Week & Space Technology and they have an annual photo contest. Believe me, there can be some stunning aviation photography out there. Greg L (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]P.S. I agree with raeky’s post: “I don't like the idea of blanket bans on any content, if it's freely licensed and no copyright concerns, it should be eligible.” Greg L (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, no bans, and none suggested afaik. I feel obliged to point out that our main focus here is encyclopaedic value, so if something is high res, low noise, and sharp focus, then it shouldn't matter whether the clouds look stunning or not, or absent even. Commons is for aesthetics, WP is for EV. Our task then, is to come to some reasonably specific idea of what an FP in each category would look like, based on the images available, because I don't think "the best of Wikipedia" was ever intended to mean, "if the airplanes don't look as pretty as the butterflies, we'll just feature fungi instead". Imho "the best of Wikipedia" should mean best airplanes, best coins, best events pics, flags, etc. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Quoting you: Commons is for aesthetics, WP is for EV. I’m sorry, but that’s not the slightest bit true. First, no one said an airplane has to be as “pretty as butterflies”. According to FPC criteria (right up there at the top of the page): “Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article.” (bolding per FPC, underlining by me) So, whereas EV is certainly an important element, in order to ensure that pictures are “eye-catching”, aesthetics is part of the equation. Always has been. Always will be. That much is just too obvious. So if a picture of an airplane (for instance) looks bland for one reason or another, it is 100% germane and proper to judge it accordingly. That’s why a number of editors have voted “oppose” on the airplane picture; though it technically has no flaws, it is aesthetically coming up short of being eye-catching. These editors are using the proper criteria in their judging and are doing nothing wrong. It’s “photography”; of course aesthetics is part of it. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I assume this is what you meant, but it shouldn't be "the best airplanes", but "the best photos of airplanes". However, as I say, I think flags is something that needs some specific discussion; we need to work out how to deal with them before we are potentially flooded with (literally) hundreds of images. J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Historically, I think that flags have been the only images that have are categorically banned. howcheng {chat} 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] And let’s keep the list nice and short (flags). Like raeky said, “…if it's freely licensed and no copyright concerns, it should be eligible.” Just because none of us here can imagine that a photo of a coin could ever win FP status (and that likely could be the case), the same prejudiced opinion could apply to, say… a fire hydrant or cow. I think it is absurd to presume that a small handful of editors active on FPC in late July are going to be ruling on entire classes of subjects that can’t come to FPC. Greg L (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said, I'd be completely happy to support a high-quality photo of a coin with clear EV, provided the copyright was unambiguous. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Indeed, that coin picture isn’t “doing anything” for me. I’m only speaking to the issue of banning coin photos altogether. There are any number of picture classes that probably don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, like genitalia. Has anyone looked at Vulva or Human anus? No, I don’t seek these out for *gratification*. Speaking strictly on the issue of *pre-banning*, we don’t even need to legislate common sense like “No genitalia may be advanced for FPC consideration. When we see a picture that isn’t FP material, just give it a thumbs-down. Greg L (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] De-indenting, before talking about banned categories please see my new note on top, we aren't talking about banning everything. Please look up the definition of de-facto if you missed that. Cat-five - talk 01:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just to second Milburn above, I think photos of a coin are definitely worthy of FP. But if you have an image of ambiguous copyright status, noone's going to be comfortable supporting it until that's cleared up, but people will still oppose, indeed, people who would perhaps only be neutral or weak opposers will full-oppose because their minor doubts are reinforced by the major doubts about copyright. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]This discussion thread is titled “Categories of nominations that are defacto banned”. So, just pardon me all over the place for thinking this is a discussion of categories that we *special regulars* are to consider as defacto banned. Also, I—and I assume everyone else here—understands what “defacto” means, so please spare me the insult of resorting to American Sign Language as you articulate each syllable for me because I’m too dense to understand English.There is absolutely no point discussing what is to be *banned* (be it “defacto”, “pretty-please”, or “WP:IDONTLIKEIT”) if there is no desire to ultimately post it as a formal guideline. Otherwise, what’s the point of even discussing it? We all know that’s precisely why these sort of discussions crop up in the first place: some *regular* wants to develop a tacit understanding that eventually graduates one day by being memorialized policy—let’s not pretend that’s not what’s really going on; everyone here didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. No one wants to jawbone for the shear thrill. And I have no patience for a “club” mentality since unpublished “defacto understandings by the good ol’ boys’ club” abuse newcomers and are therefore an anathema to the very spirit of Wikipedia. Now… This discussion thread will eventually be archived. Thereafter, the only response to some poor nominator who has the misfortune of nominating something that offends we regulars’ sensibilities is for us to bite the newcomer and write as follows:(*sigh*) This was discussed at length (see Preposterously Old Archive, here) and *we* (the royal we) have declared that this category doesn’t have a prayer and is defacto banned.I see zero consensus that there are any *banned* categories (defacto or not) of any sort—even for flags. If someone alleges there is, then please point to an existing written policy stating as much. If there is no written policy, then we must first develop a clear and formal consensus to do so; otherwise, there are no forbidden categories. Simple as that.Finally, if someone has a *thing* for having a category banned (formally, I mean), I’ll nominate “genitalia”. I would think the effort to formalize such a ban isn’t necessary since even Wikipedia hasn’t outlawed common sense (yet). However, I offer it up to demonstrate that there truly are categories that will never be a featured picture, and that proposing categories like “maps” and “sports” sounds inane to me. Greg L (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] We have quite a lot of featured pictures of sex. here's the most recent. We even have full frontal nudity. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I wasn’t talking about flies copulating (National Geographic-style) nor fine art like Michelangelo’s David. I talking about Vulva and Human anus and Masturbation#Male. Oodles of EV for their respective articles. A wee shy on aesthetics (IMHO). And it will be a cold day in hell a picture like these—no matter how well controlled the depth of field is and other technical details—will ever be a Featured Picture. I mentioned some of these as examples in my 00:40, 24 July post, above, and figured you were up to speed on current affairs here.My point was that If we want to start pre-banning entire categories of photographs as being unsuitable from the get-go for even being considered as an FPC, then I suggest we start with this category. Anyway, I was citing the category to make a point: there are plenty of common-sense categories to pre-ban before we start rattling off bullet points ranging from coins to sports. I don’t think the rest of my above post got lost in translation: Having “defacto, tacit, implied, for-insiders-only (*wink* *wink*)” banned anything flies like a wet noodle on Wikipedia. If there is a rule of any sort, we ensure it is backed with a proper consensus and then publish it. Some newbie shouldn’t run afoul because the “regulars,” all equipped with their Ovaltine decoder rings, think they’ve got a tacit understanding and know better. Greg L (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone is free to nominate whatever image they want as long as they think it fits the criteria but regulars do have the benefit of experience and while a newbie can certainly nominate almost any image they want it's like RFA <shudders> in that if a nom doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell the nominator (or in the case of RFA the nominee) is only going to frustrate themselves. Incidentally we don't do winks we have secret decoder rings and handshakes. Cat-five - talk 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] <de-indent> In defense of discussing this I'll fall back on the old addage that just because you ignore it does not mean it doesn't exist. With very very few exceptions discussing a problem, which I consider this to be, brings it to light and helps foster a solution. People seem to think that I want there to be a tactic understanding among regulars not to nominate and/or vote for such images while in fact it is the opposite. I'd rather voters stop the all or nothing mentality with flag and coin noms and double standard applied to many other nomination categories. Cat-five - talk 06:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comment What about mushrooms? I can not tell one from the next.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I can't tell one sky-scraper from the next; I don't quite get what you have against fungi. I'm not even sure what that has to do with the discussion. Back to the point, I think what does need to be discussed is flags- if they're not banned, I think we have an awful lot of images that need to be nominated... J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] He's just mad because Sasata is beating him... — raekyT 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think we should ban images at FP if the article gets less than 10 page view per day and delist all FPs where this is the case. This would knock out half if not all of the Mushroom images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...and I thought EV was about telling people something new. O_o Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I completely agree with PLW. We do not judge value based on page views- part of the beauty of featured pictures is that they allow you to see fantastic pictures on topics you normally would not. Not to mention the fact that page views are an imprecise science anyway. J Milburn (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] If a mushroom falls off a tree in the forest, will any wikipedia readers hear it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Regarding maps, as a cartographer I'm fine with how maps are being treated here - true that we don't have many maps as FP, but I don't think that is because of anything inherent about maps. We just don't have very many people making maps and most of those aren't to the FP standard. I know I don't design mine to the FP standard because it would take me 5x as long to make a map, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that - I know I'm going for mass production more than excellence. Kmusser (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Section break 1(This is in response to this edit.) There is, by no stretch of the imagination, a de facto ban on portraits. Open right now, there are four portrait noms- only one of them looks like it will fail at this point, and one of them looks to be one of the most heavily supported noms and uncontroversial noms we've had. I love portraits- three/four portraits I originally uploaded, as well as others I nominated, are currently FPs. There is perhaps a de facto ban on stuffy formal portraits, but there are coherent arguments that this is simply because it's extremely difficult for them to meet the criteria anyway. J Milburn (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I took the liberty of adding a space above your pozt since they're separate threads of thought but both unindented. I'll try to respond in a bit to your post above I just saw it so I'm still thinking it over. Cat-five - talk 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Portraits mostly succeed if they are historical or if they've come through OTRS. We don't seem to be able to give proper consideration to contemporary portraits by normal Wikipedia or Flickr contributors. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm willing to bet that there are more FP portraits directly from Wikipedians than there are from OTRS, and OTRS naturally lends itself to portraits- that's why the image submission queue was established. As someone who has nominated a lot of portraits, I used to feel that we were overly harsh on them, but I can't say I do any more. I don't see why you believe that. J Milburn (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, we have one modern one by a Wikipedian with heavy support, and one by the U.S. Navy also heavily supported in the current list. We do have high standards for portraits, but that's not the same as saying that there's any sort of "ban" on them, as they regularly pass. Now, there are some types of portraits with little chance of passing, but these are A. Ones with technical problems, e.g. the recent Temple Grandin picture which, while everyone agreed she deserved an FP, had a very blurry face. B. Compositional issues, where the person may easily be found in other photographs, e.g. stock-pose-and-setting governmental portraits, or snapshots of somewhat awkward moments. Otherwise, portraits tend to pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]FP replacement requestHere's a slightly unusual request ... would anyone here be willing to try and create a replacement for File:Wolf spider focus bracket series02.jpg and its constituent parts (File:Wolf spider single frame.jpg, File:Wolf spider focus bracket02.jpg and File:Wolf spider single frame02.jpg)? The reasoning behind the request is to accommodate arachnophobic readers. We've had a couple of incidents of readers removing the spiders from Focus bracket Focus stacking. There is of course the slippery slope argument to be made against it, that if we accede to these types of requests, what's to stop anyone from getting rid of images that are truly offensive to people (e.g., Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), but the fact of the matter is that it's not exactly necessary to have spider photos to illustrate focus bracketing. I'm sure these people actively avoid our many articles about spiders and when they're browsing something completely unrelated to spiders, suddenly BAM they see one and freak out. I realize there are probably spider photos in other non-arachnid articles, but this is one that I'm aware of, so it would be nice if we could accommodate this request. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 00:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'd be okay with someone accommodating this request as long as the replacement is of equal or better technical value. The only slippery slope I could see is if we start sacrificing quality for requests like this. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Right, that's why I came here to seek a replacement. My point on Talk:Focus bracket Talk:Focus stacking was that we'd need a good quality photo before we consider taking out the spider. howcheng {chat} 02:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I agree; we should accommodate the request. I have no problem helping those with arachnophobia. The argument about “slippery slopes” never held much sway with me because it is invariably used by opponents who concede that there is nothing wrong with the request being made, but will advance an argument along the lines of “Sure, if you say ‘all men are created equal’ now, that might one day lead to <utter absurdity>women wanting to vote!</utter absurdity> Indeed, those with arachnophobia should be expected to stay away from spider-related articles (just like Muslims don’t have to click on a gallery of Muhammed pictures to see how offended they might feel). However, that spider sequence here at “Bracketing” is unexpected and is understandably startling; those are big spiders. Greg L (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] All minerals, most fungi, many plant and some insect images that I've taken are stacks, so there are plenty. The trouble is that they are quite typically between 10 and 50 frames each - more than practical for a diagram like this. These two images aren't too deep, and I'm not so likely to get really specific IDs on them in the mid-term, so might be a reasonable possibility:6 frames 5 framesAny preference or other suggestions?Noodle snacks (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I did the Ramaria sp. one:A series of images demonstrating a focus bracketThere is a single frame at File:Ramaria sp. bracket frame.jpg. If people are happy should we delist and replace or what? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm not sure that's as good of an illustration, to be honest: The Wolf Spider, even in thumbnail, is very obvious as to whether it's in or out of focus. Here at thumbnail size, all you see is the background getting more blurry. That's not to say it's not an excellent shot of the fungus; but I think we need something with, well, a bit more of a light/dark pattern that will clearly indicate focus even at thumbnail, like the wolf spider's hairiness does. I don't object to fulfilling the request, but out of respect for the original creator, I think it must be as good or better of an illustration of the process. This will probably mean, as with Fir's original, that it'll need to be selected and prepared in such a way to make a clear narrative. Note also that Fir shows the first and last focus bracket with the final product, so that one can quickly see - Ah! The head's sharp in the first... the abdomen in the second... and then looking at the third, both are in focus! There's other images in the focus stack used in the final, but the two selections tell the story very well. We want that sort of narrative. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]I think I may have some fly ones. If there isn't much of a hurry, I can look through my collection. --Muhammad(talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think AC is looking for something on paper (which I don't really bother with personally). Are insects much better than spiders for some people? Noodle snacks (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't know anyone who's scared of flies in the way some are scared of spiders. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think many people suffer the fear of flies as much as spiders, but there are some, crane flies or tipulophobia has a few hits, and quite a few people fear all insects, Entomophobia. Heres some links: [6], [7], [8]. I'd say flies are safer then spiders, but why not one of you good photographers just throw some non-insect on a peice of white paper and shoot a picture for this? Would be safer going with a non-insect? — raekyT 15:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] People are scared of everything. Balloons (friend), clowns (girlfriend), whales (me), eggs (Alfred Hitchcock, apparently)... Anything and everything. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Whales? — raekyT 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] They're just so big, and they live in water but breath air... And whalers in the little boats... And the ice... And those horrible hairs in their mouth... And the eyes under the mouth... Look at that shit and tell me they aren't horrific! It's not a mad fear, but it fits the definition of "phobia" pretty well. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]User:Papa Lima Whiskey/FPC glossaryAs I think this has been commented on a couple of times, I've created a glossary of commonly used terms and acronyms that are more or less specific to FPC. It's currently in my userspace, so I reserve moderate level of editorial control over it, but if you want to make suggestions or "be bold in making changes", that's okay. Also mentioned it in the FPC commenting instructions [9]. Please note that this is not to encourage jargon, but instead, to help newbies. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Not at all comfortable with you reserving a "moderate level of editorial control" and linking it on the page. Either it's your own personal plaything, or it's semi-official- not both. I've removed it from the header. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] And I'm not going to move it to project space just to have people like you piss all over it, thank you very much. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 886: / Line 886: @@
 As I think this has been commented on a couple of times, I've created a glossary of commonly used terms and acronyms that are more or less specific to FPC. It's currently in my userspace, so I reserve moderate level of editorial control over it, but if you want to make suggestions or "be bold in making changes", that's okay. Also mentioned it in the FPC commenting instructions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Header&diff=prev&oldid=375773438]. Please note that this is not to encourage jargon, but instead, to help newbies. Thank you. [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#ba0000">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 :Not at all comfortable with you reserving a "moderate level of editorial control" ''and'' linking it on the page. Either it's your own personal plaything, or it's semi-official- not both. I've removed it from the header. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 19:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
+::And I'm not going to move it to project space just to have people like you piss all over it, thank you very much. [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey|<font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey</font>]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey|talk]]) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)