:::The equivalent notifications, if done neutrally, aren't considered canvassing for the other featured processes. So editors may not be aware that we consider it unacceptable for FP. Therefore I think the nomination instructions should make it clear that FP is different from FA/FL, etc. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::The equivalent notifications, if done neutrally, aren't considered canvassing for the other featured processes. So editors may not be aware that we consider it unacceptable for FP. Therefore I think the nomination instructions should make it clear that FP is different from FA/FL, etc. [[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
::Though this wasn't the case until very recently, neutral notices have been left on a number of talk pages. It's telling that no one felt the need to leave these notices until the nom started to fail, but there you go, that's not the worst crime in the world. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there has been some off-enwp canvassing to bring in some of the editors; this is an Iranian image, the nominator is Iranian, and right at the start of the discussion, two Iranian editors ({{user|Alborzagros}} and {{user|P0lyzoarium}}) popped up at FPC for the very first time in order to support this image. It's possible a message was left on the Farsi Wikipeida, but I haven't a chance of finding it, personally. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
::Though this wasn't the case until very recently, neutral notices have been left on a number of talk pages. It's telling that no one felt the need to leave these notices until the nom started to fail, but there you go, that's not the worst crime in the world. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there has been some off-enwp canvassing to bring in some of the editors; this is an Iranian image, the nominator is Iranian, and right at the start of the discussion, two Iranian editors ({{user|Alborzagros}} and {{user|P0lyzoarium}}) popped up at FPC for the very first time in order to support this image. It's possible a message was left on the Farsi Wikipeida, but I haven't a chance of finding it, personally. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
:::''that's not the worst crime in the world'', say you who have been one of the most fervent perse... excuse me, prosecutors of it. [[User:Papa Lima Whiskey 2|Papa Lima Whiskey 2]] ([[User talk:Papa Lima Whiskey 2|talk]]) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
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.
380 noms without canonical closing statements from 2007-2011
A sub-sample that I took suggests that most of these noms have never been closed. The ones I looked at, I closed "Not promoted: expired" [1]. Given how highly active FPC talk has recently been, I have no doubt that the most active participants, such as John O'Neill and Mr. Milburn, will give a show of genuine concern for the project by contributing substantially to this task. As for me, I've spent half a day compiling this list. Comment, strike, or delete them when they've been dealt with, I don't care which. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two are missing because they had special characters whose formatting got mangled. I'll add them as soon as I find them again. I closed one which was withdrawn; the other turned out to be a miscategorised delist nom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ability to do proper statistics. For now, I've excluded the "doesn't seem to have been promoted but we don't know why" from the figures presented, so the figures aren't super accurate, with 10-20% being accounted for by these "strange" noms. These 10-20% include withdrawn noms, never-listed noms and miscategorised noms, but again, I can't quantify that for you. I agree that it's quite possible to continue to exist with an overgrown back yard, if that's how you want to live. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we should simply delete any nomination that wasn't listed and wasn't voted on. Nominations that were transcluded or voted on should be archived properly. Jujutacular (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should sweep under the carpet that sometimes people can't figure out how to transclude. It would serve the project better to (a) try and address the fundamental problem, and (b) see if we can reach out to people that have actually been trying to contribute but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I saw several could-be candidates that might actually be worth nominating now. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue. Anyone is free to re-nominate the images, but these old nominations need to be dealt with. How about an archive specifically for these? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone a bit stale, but I don't want it disappearing into the archives without some sensible action being taken. I've been running around doing a lot of other stuff, would be good to have two extra hands on deck that are willing to contribute. Three would also be cool. I think we need a Duke of Wikipedia scheme or sth like that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On User:126.109.231.71
Nothing is being achieved here. 126.109.231.71 has confirmed that they are neither avoiding a ban, nor do they have another account known here. No one has evidence to the contrary, and no one has evidence of any wrongdoing or disruptive activity- the closest is a vague claim that 126.109.231.71 is not assuming good faith. Considering the waves of bad faith thrown their way, then, if true, it's hardly surprising. In any case, Saffron Blaze's suggestion is the best- "Tempest in a teapot. Ignore the votes of users not logged in and carry on with business." J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion 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.
So I note the anon IP account 126.109.231.71 continues to contribute and indeed !vote despite repeated reminders that they need an account for their !votes to be counted. I see also apart from the multiple reminders on FPC that Clegs has also left them a separate message on their talkpage explaining the reasoning, which was met with a reply stating "I will never surrender!". While I haven't found this user to be disruptive in their manner of contributing, and in fact find them to be quite well informed in some areas, I'm starting to wonder what to do. Do we simply keep reminding them and requesting they create an account, whilst ignoring the !votes? At what point do we regard the failure to respond to the community input and consensus regarding needing an account as becoming Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and proceed from there? --jjron (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (Note: I have informed the user of this discussion and invited them to take part). --jjron (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping after my invitation that he/she would get the idea, but the user seems to be antagonistic to getting an account. I just posted on their talk page to let them know that they don't have to get an account, but until they do, their input here will be disregarded. Personally, I'm very surprised at the wiki-fluency of this new user (see their first edit here: [2]. Is there any way to check ban logs to see if the user's not trying to get around that? On the other hand, they have made helpful edits at other places. I would suggest a grace period of something like another week; if they still refuse to get an account after that but insist on cluttering up the pages with disqualified votes, then maybe take disruptive editing steps.Clegs (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clegs, the only thing to do would be to perform a checkuser, but please be aware that "fishing" is not permitted. I was going to say that I cannot think of any other processes as vehemently opposed to anonymous users as this one, but, in fact, the regulars at other processes that rely on vote-counting (RfA for instance) would probably react negatively to the same behaviour. That said, I'm not necessarily keen on excluding a user purely because they do not want to get an account. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In abstract I would tend to agree with J Milburn that no one should be excluded. But in this particular case it is pretty obvious that this is an experienced user, both in Wikipedia, in general, and in FPC, in particular. Considering the fact that there are so few edits associated with this IP, it probably means that he/she already has an account and doesn't want to use it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm feeling a lot of unwarranted assumptions here. As far as I know, anybody, IP or logged-in, is allowed to comment on anything in wikiland. Our rules for vote-counting determine that they have no numerical influence on nomination outcome. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let’s stop being politically correct and look at the facts rationally. Once upon a time there was an anonymous user who came here from somewhere (probably from Commons, where he/she might be a regular) and start voting on FPC. He was politely informed that voting was restricted to registered users. So far so good. But the anonymous user not only ignored the warning and continued to vote (six times in a row, if I’m not wrong) but also challenged the editor who carried the message with a “I never surrender”. When he was warned for the second time by another user, he decided to show a banner in his talk page with his own warning: “This user is like Snufkin. He may be gone tomorrow”. And when responding to this thread which, in the meantime, had been started by jjron, he used the words “Frog you man, frog you to hell”. Do we really need to assume any kind of faith (good or bad) in this case? Isn’t the aggressive and challenging behavior of 126.109.231.71 clear enough? Come on guys! It is perfectly all right to come here from Commons and start contributing as an anonymous user. It is not all right to show bad manners and threaten the community. Answering our question with a ‘Yes, I’m (or was) registered somewhere but prefer to stay anonymous’ would be perfectly all right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ya; this edit for example shows them to be familiar with QI guidelines on Commons. Likely therefore also familiar with Commons FPC. Could be a crossover from there wanting to remain anonymous for some reason, which could explain their fluency. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What damage is being done?
Knowledge could have been obtained by lurking and/or reading the glossary, the latter being something we encourage. Taking measures seems inappropriate and unwarranted. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely witch hunt going on here! I understood that my votes probably wouldn't be counted, but I thought that by contributing to the voting process with actual arguments, I might influence other voters. But calling it disruptive editing, JJRon? Frog you man, frog you to hell.126.109.231.71 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No witch hunt that I see. I agree that this kind of participation may raise some suspiction, as people are concerned with the possibility of 126.109.231.71 being an anonymous version of some well-known user. If that is indeed the case, I'm not sure whether the participation in a discussion as an anonymous should be considered legitimate or not. What about participating in a discussion both as a registered and as a non-registered user? You intempestive answers (instead of a simple and clear explanation) only help to increase the suspiction. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why the hell should I have to explain anything? Seriously, your attitude really stinks. I've done nothing but contributed to a few articles and a few votes and suddenly you guys want to put me up against the wall because I know too much for a newbie. If I had actually caused any problems, that'd be one thing, but I haven't! You guys should lay off with paranoia, it doesn't suit you, it's creepy as hell and more than enough to make anybody want to quit Wikipedia.126.109.231.71 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
126.109.231.71, I hope you feel that I have treated you fairly; I do think people are being overly suspicious, and I cannot see any problems that you have actually caused, as you say. Perhaps it would help lay it to rest if you just tell us something: Are you someone completely new here, or do we perhaps know you under a different identity? J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's bizarre I should need to put anything to rest, but since you're not being an asshole: I'm not avoiding a ban, I do not have a regular account, I am not and have never previously been a frequent FPC voter. I thought it'd be a fun thing to add to my repertoire, !vote or vote, but I had no idea the FPC community was this unfriendly and hostile.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC) And paranoid, forgot to add paranoid.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on 126.109.231.71's talk page about assuming good faith. I don't think disruptive editing will stick... I mean, what has the IP done to qualify as disruptive editing? Contributing to a FPC discussion (despite the fact that his/her vote will not be counted) does not seem to constitute disruptive editing. 126.109.231.71, you need to assume good faith and follow the Talk Page Guidlines so that this issue can be cleared up without further delay. Dusty777 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason I'm upset is that people are wrongfully assuming I'm a disruptive troll avoiding a ban in spite of my constructive edits, simply because I know how to use the wiki! And you put an assume good faith on MY wall? Bigger men than me would have resorted to name-calling right now. You know it's funny, when I saw jjron's message on my wall about a discussion abobut me, I was happy and in my naivety I thought you guys might be considering half-counting my votes or something along those lines. But instead I come here and find a discussion about how to make me stop.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let’s stop being politically correct and look at the facts rationally. Once upon a time there was an anonymous user who came here from somewhere (probably from Commons, where he/she might be a regular) and start voting on FPC. He was politely informed that voting was restricted to registered users. So far so good. But the anonymous user not only ignored the warning and continued to vote (six times in a row, if I’m not wrong) but also challenged the editor who carried the message with a “I never surrender”. When he was warned for the second time by another user, he decided to show a banner in his talk page with his own warning: “This user is like Snufkin. He may be gone tomorrow”. And when responding to this thread which, in the meantime, had been started by jjron, he used the words “Frog you man, frog you to hell”. Do we really need to assume any kind of faith (good or bad) in this case? Isn’t the aggressive and challenging behavior of 126.109.231.71 clear enough? Come on guys! It is perfectly all right to come here from Commons and start contributing as an anonymous user. It is not all right to show bad manners and threaten the community. Answering our question with a "Yes, I’m (or was) registered somewhere but prefer to stay anonymous" would have been perfectly all right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk)
Re: the frog you to hell line, I'm sorry Alves, I didn't know that being rude to other users was a privilege for those who have registered accounts. I kid of course, I'm not a fan of being an asshole to others and I think it's detrimental to any discussion, no matter if it's by using made-up swearwords or simply by acting like a dick. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (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.
FP not currently listed in any category
This photo passed FP but isn't listed in any of the FP galleries from what I can tell.
Thanks. I didn't catch that note at the bottom of the file page, "More than 100 pages link to this file. The following list shows the first 100 page links to this file only. A full list is available." Pinetalk07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two recent FPC (Flying Fish poster and The Hooping Life) are film posters for current/recent films and are the original images received from the publishers (rather than scans of old classic movie posters). They are high resolution and technically perfect because they are not reproductions. As film posters go, they win no awards for originality and aren't notable. The concern I have is that Wikipedia does not carry advertising. But a film poster is advertising. All the add agency / film producers need to do is donate their advert to WP and ta da! free advertising. If we start to promote these as Featured Pictures, then they get even more publicity, possibly even Main Page.
If the film producers truly want to donate high-EV images to WP, then they should donate a still from the film itself. I propose the FP criteria be amended. For example:
9. Is not a contemporary advertisement. Wikipedia does not carry advertising promote products with advertisements. Film posters are advertisements.
Exceptions to this rule may be made for advertisements that no longer have any promotional value for any current product, or have inherent EV due to their period charm or notability.
Personally, I think posters have higher EV than film stills. Only people who have seen a movie will recognize a screen shot; posters have wider recognition. On a technical note, we have had a contemporary film still nominated here and that failed miserably. For the related article, The Human Centipede (First Sequence), I would much rather have a high quality scan or original version of the poster. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that a film still would necessarily make a good FP, just that it has higher EV for the film itself than a poster. The publicity for a movie is an aspect of the overall movie article, but is just a minor aspect unless it achieves notability. And when the poster is laden with POV review snippets, then there's a built-in NPOV problem. Regardless of the EV, the problem remains that these are contemporary advertisements. We don't do adverts.... Colin°Talk15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would your proposed criteria include a cutoff date? Like say, for 10 years after the release of the film? As a side note, I think we have entirely different ideas on the EV of film posters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the "no longer have any promotional value for any current product" exception. The actual duration might vary depending on the life of the film, sequels, director's cuts, 3D remakes, ... Yes, we disagree about the EV and FP for posters. I think an FP poster has to have inherent artistic qualities as an image, which these particular posters don't have. Colin°Talk15:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, "no longer have any promotional value for any current product" is unclear (which is why I was asking). For a current example, the original poster for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (released 1999) could be construed as an advertisement for the 3D version currently in theatres. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it unclear? Seems to me that using one's judgement is better than some arbitrary cut-off. If that appeared on the Main Page today, would folk criticise WP for advertising? Seems fairly clear to me the answer is yes. Colin°Talk16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like when we had the Transformers article on the main page the day of the sequel's release? I think a tie in is fine; we're not saying "see this film", we're riding the hype. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your "Wikipedia does not carry advertising" axiom is factually correct. Both are rightly in the respective infoboxes. Even when they're in copyright, we go to great lengths to use them. They're carried. Whether we want to feature them or not is another question, but I think you need to word it differently. --99of9 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the Water Polo nom? If so I've removed the auto-timer as it's about five days out, so the closer will have to watch the date manually. Dunno why it's wrong; maybe someone inadvertently changed a number somewhere in the template while making one of the comments. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huge problem with a featured picture - it is not what it claims to be
I was dismayed to see a photograph of what is claimed to be Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus promoted to Featured Picture. The technical qualities of the photo may be great, but it is not a photograph of Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus.
I have raised this problem here [3], and here [4]:
Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, supposedly
I am not at all convinced that the photographed exampled is Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. Make that 100% convinced. I grow it and have been to see the Hemerocallis species and cultivars held in one of the National Collections here in the UK. All examples of the plant I have ever seen are a much more pale lemony-yellow than the version pictured. Given that the photographed example was not growing in its natural range, it is highly likely that it is a cultivar or a hybrid, not the true species. Hemerocallis species hybridise with each other very readily; they are not variable within the species ie they are always the same form, colour etc. This example is not the colour of Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, and it is hard to tell from the photo but the form seems less gracile also.
This brings me to one of the biggest problems in Wikipedia. We have all these rules for verifiability and sourcing in our written material, but in photographs we just take the photographer's word that the photograph shows what it purports to show. I am not suggesting the photographer here was trying to mislead; just that he or she might have been misinformed and by reproducing this photograph as a Featured Picture, that error is being promulgated and given the veneer of authority and correctness.
The fact that the photographer has misnamed their photograph using an upper case for the specific name (Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus, rather than the correct Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus) might suggest they are not very botanically clued-in.
Poeple voting on its promotion here [5] clearly are not botanical experts either. For heaven's sake, one comment was "Support Pretty cool. Its more impressive then other pictures in the article" - which may be true, but it is also 100% less accurate than other photos in the article as it does not show Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. (I have earlier removed another photo in the gallery that also does not show Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus.)
Are we trying to build an encyclopedia of accurate scientifically-correct images, or a 'cool' gallery of pretty images that are incorrectly named and totally misleading to the public?
Huge problem? If the image is mis-identified correct it! Then we are done and can avert another pretentious debate. As to process... would you care to offer a suggestion other than only allowing some subset of certified botanists to take photos of flowers? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of photo subject-identification is a significant problem for WP and well known to be weak when compared with text. All we can do is hope that more knowlegable people, such as yourself, lend a hand wrt fixing any errors. I suggest you leave a message on the uploader's talk page. Is it possible that the flower is correct but the yellow is too saturated due to processing issues or a filter? It could then be adjusted to be more typical. Alternatively, can you identify the correct name? Colin°Talk14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened before. If we can correctly identify it then we just rename the file and change the associated info. If we can't adequately ID it, but are convinced it's wrong, then it's basically a default delist. Re the OP's other issues, yes, there are potential misidentifications of photos (if you can figure a way to get all professional scientists to donate their high quality hi-res images only related to their area of expertise so that we don't have to rely on the general populace let us know), and if picked up during a nom it will not be supported/promoted. We also have a rule-of-thumb requirement that images should be in an article for a period of time before being nominated - in an ideal world the 'experts' writing the article will have picked up a misidentification in that time between going into the article and the image getting to FPC. In this case the image was in the article for some six weeks before the FP promotion occurred. --jjron (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a valid source (E.G. Other picture of the flower) to back up your claims that the picture is misidentified, rather then just your personal observation? (No offense intended, I would rather have a source to refer to.) I made the comment you referred to in the nomination (not to get off topic too much), and I judged the picture by the FP Criteria and I made my vote by those set guidelines, and I do not appreciate your implication that the mis-identification in the picture is my fault. I will be completely honest with you. I know nothing about the flower in the picture. I read through the article, examined the other pictures, and made my judgment that the picture was:
1. A higher value then the other pictures in the article.
2. Met the criteria.
My opinion on the picture was completely valid. I'm sorry that I voted for a picture that was mis-identified, I was not aware of that. I don't want a gallery of cool pictures either. I like stuff to be accurate and correct. Your comment gives a negative view towards my judgement of pictures... Kinda like I only voted for it, because I liked the picture, and not for the value to the article. Its not that big of a deal, but I would appreciate if you would strike through the part of your comment referring to my vote in the nomination. Sorry that I am kinda going off topic, but I don't appreciate feeling like I am on the defensive. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The CSIRO has an collection of plant images. I spoke with someone from the Australian National Herbarium a few years ago, he said that plant images are more useful if the plant photographed is stored in a herbarium. The same is true of fungi. This is to allow further examination if an id is thought to be in error, among other things. My university was uninterested in storing samples from me, presumably because I wasn't trained in preparing them, it would be work for them to catalog things, and because I couldn't legally collect material without a permit in many cases. I personally consult many researchers and experts when I have any doubt about the identity of a subject, and encourage others to do the same. We have a rule requiring that images must be in an article for a while before nomination. In my experience, this catches most identification errors, though particularly inactive articles can slip through. Otherwise we currently assume good faith and assume that the author has been diligent. We might think about requiring documentation of how an image was identified on the image page. If anyone is unsure, then asking at appropriate wikiprojects, eg WP:PLANTS can bring about additional scrutiny from people that are educated/knowledgeable in the area, and have access to university libraries etc. At any rate, this is wikipedia, any error can be corrected immediately. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of JJ Harrison's points, but I must disagree that "any error can be corrected immediately." An FP delisting requires a procedure that isn't immediate. Pine(talk)07:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It can be almost immediate because once an accurate ID is known, the image can be transferred to the appropriate article, or an appropriate article created. That way, the criteria are still satisfied. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JJ suggest requiring documentation for how an identification has been made in the file page. I think that would be a very good idea. If the identification method is indicated in the file page, reviewers have a chance to validate the quality and be alert or not. Say, if "Self identified used "Den Nye Nordiske Flora"" was stated you had an impression, that something conscious has been done to identify it, that that it might have to be double-checked by an expert, unless the user has demonstrated previously to master that. If the file page gave quoted correspondence with professionals confirming the ID, you would feel more certain. The rarer the species, the more important would it be to get second opions from experts. For instance, I am a (happy) amateur, but have nevertheless claimed to be able to identify 42 different plant species I have encountered in Greenland back in 2007. And in the 4-5 years that have passed since upload, I have been notified on file talk pages that two (as I recall) of the species were misidentified, although I felt pretty sure myself that the id was correct, when I made it. Others may be misidentified as well. That is at least 1/20 was misidentified. That is actually pretty bad and not something I am proud of. So I think it is a real problem with the verifyability. The misidentifications were not easy to catch by comparison, as for a significant fraction of the species, there are no other images on Commons but mine. --Slaunger (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about it. Two species is not a significant sample size, and taxonomy is in flux all the time anyway. Maybe you encountered species that were about to be split, or merged, or your reference was out of date. Taxonomists also often find it hard, as nature can be quite variable. Just shrug it off. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some more esoteric FPs that could be the case, but not really in a case like this provided it was prominently used and the article didn't already have a very similar FP where a D&L may be appropriate. In general it would not really be any different to any other FP that gets removed from its article. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. Thanks you very much jjron for warning me about this discussion. To the contributor who removed my picture: it is nice of you to show concern for the trustworthiness of our Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think you should ask and do extensive research, before removing a picture with no warning to the author, telling people you are 100% sure it is not H. lilioasphodelus, without giving certain proof. You may be right of course, but show some proof please... Am I wrong? It is just fair that you found a proof and then raised the problem, but anyways, let's get to the point.
I do not know about botanics and the capital L on liliosaphodelus was a mistake (I normally name correctly the species I identify, you can check that out on my user page where the same picture appears with a correct subtitle, but those are just details we shouldn't argue about). You are free to correct whenever an error like that appears.
I do extensive research before naming a species on Wikipedia, if I am not sure about a name I just don't name it as you can see on my gallery. I understand the responsibility that comes with informing people.
Hemerocallis flava and fulva are the two species I found are most cultivated in Venezuela, both with huge differences and easy ways to identify each.
I can't find this huge difference in color and shape.
As you can see from the file on the right at top H. flava and fulva, my picture shows good coincidence with H. flava (remember lilioasphodelus has many names, flava is one of them), at least under my point of view. As you, I was 100% sure I had the correct identification. So, who is right? Can you provide the proof it is not H. lilioasphodelus? How can we certify this is not H. flava? Well probably we both are right. It might be H. lilioasphodelus, with a slightly different color, nothing too prominent to name a different sub-species. I can only tell you this flower is so often used in gardens in Venezuela, I also have them at home in my backyard with the exact same form and color I might upload a photo to prove it. They are all the same throughout the country here in Venezuela. Guess it is an imported seed they sell here, why would they all be weird hybrids, looking all alike? Maybe due to different conditions (high humidity, and stable high temperatures compared to UK and rest of Eurasia) it grows with a slightly different color, I don't know. Can't be 100% sure, but to me, it looks like it is well identified.
These pictures found through the Wikipedia show the bird Icterus icterus, or Venezuelan troupial, our national bird. Perhaps bird specialist J Harrison can confirm the correct identification of the following files on the right:
Bigger belly, more orangeThin specimenLarger clear area around the eyes. This one is 100% surely Icterus icterus, since it was identified in the zoo I took the photo at.
This last one is a more lemon-yellowy color... less orange, just as it happens with the Hemerocallis. Not always a slight difference means a different species, am I wrong? As you can see, slightly different shapes and forms and colors throughout the world, no need to call them all differently. They just adapted differently on different regions I think.
It is very difficult to get Featured picture status for a non full-time photographer. I lost time taking many shots to get the right photo, lost time uploading it, editing it, identifying the species looking on books (I didn't find it on a Gran Sabana's fauna and flora book - obviously since it is not originary from Venezuela), and then on the internet, annotating it on commons, adding it to the page, describing it and nominating it for FPC. I'm not saying it gives me the right to mis-identify species, but why go remove a Featured picture from its article without even consulting first, finding a proof, or have a consensus? Isn't this a little rude to a contributor?
My father is a lifetime dedicated enthomologist. He knows thousands and thousands of butterfly species. He has shown me how sometimes scientists find even the slightest most subtle difference on same species around the world to name a "new" sub-species, mainly to get some recognition. Things like "this one has a 1mm band with four stripes, but this one butterfly has a three and a half stripe band". And then this information is only to be found in some ultra-specialized book or some paper with no picture on the internet. Look, I'm not getting to that point of spending three months to identify a species, sub-species or hybrid. I'll be a normal hard-working contributor, trying to work responsibly, but I have a life. I'm not getting paid for this, it is voluntary work. It does not mean I'll be mediocre, but let's have some common sense. No one will spend months making sure a species is 100% accurate... still, I found enough evidence to sustain and keep thinking this one is a well identified species.
If you can prove it is a hybrid, then why such a big fuss, it still is a H. lilioasphodelus flower, can be placed on the gallery of the page, with a subtitle reading (H. l. hybrid), and no need to remove it. Just change the name of the file, why such a big fuss and why name it a "HUGE problem"?
Conclusion: I really did not understand why such a big problem was made out from this file. I already lost a lot of additional time writing this and defending my featured picture. This is all I can do, if someone can contact a botanist and clear this doubts that would be really cool. If the accuser can find a proof that's great too! Let's rename it and replace it on the gallery of the page. But please don't go removing pictures like that with no warning. For now it would be fair if picture was returned to the page by the remover, until proof is found, because for now I think the proof I found and demonstrated is more solid than seeing a "much more pale lemony-yellow version in the UK".
Last but not least: I'm not getting into a 2 weeks discussion nor a fight with the accuser. This is all I have to say, from here on, I'll go with democracy, if majority thinks it is to be removed, delisted, and I should be expelled from Wikipedia (lol) for posting such an insulting mis-identification, so be it. Of course I'm joking.
Oh by the way... don't miss Michael Gablër's comment when he supported my picture on Commons FPC. Support I cultivate Hemerocallis and also Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus for decades. Therefore I can say: this image is very good. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that some tools have been going down because user accounts got auto-expired if the person didn't log in for some time. The notice displayed suggests this is to avoid old content being viewable, but it seems to be applied indiscriminately even where content is completely dynamic. FWIW, an example can be seen here. I obviously wouldn't know if this is affecting your account, but might be worth checking. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image now works in the Big Image Viewer. In teh future, I you can remember it, please just drop me a quick message when you nominate a large image to make sure it works. Unfortunately due to memory limitations on the toolserver sometimes the generation of a zoomable image version fails, and I have to intervene manually and prepare the zoomable image on one of my own machines. --Dschwen16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, will it? Let me check, I thought I added cache refresh code to that tool. If not I'll do that today. I already wrote this functionality for a different tool. It'll be just copy paste. --Dschwen12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you verify that it works? The basic question was, what if the lack of memory availability happens to an image that's uploaded over the top? Is the previous version retained on the big image viewer and shown instead of the new version (bad), or does the previous version get deleted first (good because it allows the error to be readily noticed and fixed)? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really confused about captions
Looking at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amplexus (common toad) with the comment "Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet CP #7." This criterion just confuses me. From the comment, it appears to concern the caption in the FP nomination. However, the criteria link to our WP:CAPTION guideline which is about article captions. There are also POTD captions and the image description page too. It seems to me the caption in the FP nomination is the least important and just a courtesy for the reviewers. Why would its length be worthy of a review comment? The captions in articles might have been written by the nominator/uploader but they might be in an infobox that has a very terse caption, they could be in multiple articles with differing qualities of captions, and really it is the editors of the article that ultimately decide the caption text. The only vital aspect of an image on WP that I can see is that the image description page is full of useful information. The archive discussions mention the POTD caption but I've looked at a few and they are verbose and don't seem based on the FP nomination.
I've looked through the archives and it seems nobody else understands the caption criterion either.
The criteria need to made more explicit wrt which caption they refer to.
The requirements for geogtagging and meta data are fine (and I agree with them) but concern the image description page and no other (though it is possible an article might want to geolocate an image, it isn't essential and that's an editorial decision for the article writers).
The requirement to be succinct is weird. That applies of course to article captions. But I don't think that should be our concern.
We shouldn't link to the WP:CAPTION guideline because that's not our concern and has different goals from the captions or descriptions elsewhere.
Well raised. I was about to mention that (again). We had a discussion about it some while ago, but it seems nothing got updated. To my mind, only the image description and the captions in articles have to adhere to a certain standard. The latter is nice to have, the former is really essential. The caption in the nomination doesn't need to be particularly good, although we did say in the past that we encourage amending image descriptions and article captions with information that transpires during the nomination. In practice, I believe this doesn't happen often enough. So for now, I would suggest replacing "caption" with "image description". Is that sufficiently unambiguous? And I got the impression that the caption guideline itself is rather poorly written. I'm not sure we should seek our example there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too do not understand why caption is part of the FP criteria, but as long as it is, it should be enforced. Regarding image descripton, my concern would be that that would implicate Commons, which hosts many images. —Eustresstalk21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have that conflict. We also have a conflict between people contributing to FP(C) and those writing articles. Most of the time, neither of these is/are a problem. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are things we would like for a caption or image description page but those don't necessarily have to be FP criteria. For example, I think it is great when people geotag location images on the description page but it not always possible for an FP nomination as the image might not have been taken by the nominator and the location not precisely known. In fact, I wonder if "Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable." is the only essential requirement of the image description page. We could list some "nice to haves" that folk could suggest during the review, but couldn't demand. As for the Commons aspect of the image description page, is that a problem? It is a sister project and has similar goals. I don't see anyone on Commons objecting to WP folk improving the description. The only problem I see might be if the nominator doesn't have a Commons account. But they could ask someone to edit the page. Colin°Talk21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Might not be possible" is not a criterion in the way you suggest. The argument advanced by you only applies to historical images, where the opportunity to take another photograph of the subject does not exist. Similarly, not having a Commons account is not really a valid obstacle if you think about it. It takes less than a minute to fix that, right? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about pictures donated to WP from some image library or from Flickr. Would you reject such a picture just because it lacked a geotag and conceivably someone could go there and take the picture again? Colin°Talk08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to change "caption" to "image description" - assuming that this terminology is felt to be unambiguous - I would remove the succinctness criterion, as we really want the description to supply as much information as possible, and it often includes descriptive text from other sources such as the LoC that we would always retain for the sake of having it recorded, but which may in fact be overly circumstantial, weaselly, inaccurate, or ambiguous. I would, however, uphold the possibility of opposing based on unavailability of essential information. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you enumerate what you think is essential? Should we have different rules for images where the photographer=uploader=wikipedian and so could be easily contacted to request more info? Should we have an essential list and an encouraged list. Reviewers, could if they wish, oppose if an encouraged detail was missing for no good reason. Colin°Talk08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reply to both of Colin's previous comments: No, I don't think we should treat pictures from external archives differently for the purpose of English Wikipedia Featured Pictures. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well the geocoding aspect is just a "encouraged" aspect currently anyway. I really don't see how we could enforce that for external images and wouldn't want folk to just take a guess at where to stick the pin in the map. Ok. So I'd be happy with #7 changing to "image description", for the succinct requirement to be dropped, and for the link to the WP:CAPTION to be removed. Any objections? Colin°Talk11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've applied the proposed changes and updated the prose in various places. Material from the footnotes has been moved into the main body of the text. Feel free to raise any further points you may become aware of. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think some care should be taken that the captions are taken from material that is sourced in the article. I've found some captions in the past to be inaccurate. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can change, so if you think that referencing is necessary, I would argue that the referencing must be in the file description, not just the article. However, this will cause significant upheaval of current processes, where arthropod pictures are often fashioned with an "expert ID" rather than a reference. Sometimes, such a reference would have to be to "grey" literature, i.e. works informally circulated among experts and not easily obtainable for the general public. This could cause a situation where some pictures would be excluded because they cannot ever be verified (taxonomy is a discipline currently in decline, so if the necessary work does not exist currently, it may never come into being), or the effort involved for the expert discouraging. We only recently met with a problem in plant ID, where we noted that sampling is often not possible without a permit, and collections (natural history museums, etc.) may be unwilling to ID and archive materials provided by lay persons, at least not free of charge. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding sources to the file description on Commons. That way people using the image on the various Wikipedias or elsewhere have access to sourced descriptions. The caption in the article(s) should be accurate per any WP text and I think those who take and insert the pictures should help there, but ultimately that text is the responsibility of the collective editors of the article and shouldn't get in the way of a successful FP nomination. It may be impossible/difficult for some highly technical identification issues, but we should try our best. Signpost wants background text on the photograph as well as encyclopaedic text on the subject, but ensuring that it accurate and interesting is also their responsibility. Colin°Talk08:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent nom that highlights a strong example of systemic bias, Crisco posed the question of whether he had promoted systemic bias with his recent nominations of repeated materials from da Vinci and Goya. I replied that he has been over-nominating Goya and Whistler. This is not simply problematic in terms of overall due weight, but also makes the task of balancing the PotD queue more complex, as we try not to have run-on weeks of one kind of material. I'm opening this thread in case there is any further discussion to be had on this point, to avoid crowding the nom concerned with general and hence off-topic discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@PLW2: I've noticed that HowCheng balances it rather well, and generally spaces them out. I've tried to add some variety (note that there are posters and photographs up there too), but to be honest I have a backlog of things I'd like to nominate.
@Mathew: It's also rather interesting (or suspicious, depending on your mindset) since I am one of that section's writers... yourself being the other, of course. Most other processes impose a limit on the number of nominations one is allowed to have open at the same time. On EN Wikipedia, I think only GA and FPC don't. Such a limitation would be possible, but I don't think it's necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that because you are an editor of "Featured content" that you are "loading" it in your favor, if that is what you mean.(?) But I do think it's a problem that over half of the nominations are yours. I have consulted with Skomorokh, as I do see it as a problem. One way to solve this problem is to interest a wider array of nominators which would also remedy the problem of "recent systemic bias at FPC" and include more of the community. Another solution perhaps would be to limit the number of "Featured pictures" displayed on the "Featured content" page to one or two. As it is, they get disproportionate display because the images in articles are usually not very good and so it's tempting to fall back on the Featured pictures. I don't think you would deny that getting an image to "Featured picture" status is no way near to effort required to achieve FA or Fl. Do you agree? MathewTownsend (talk)
Depends on how you do it. If it's like Goya's The Dog, no it just requires finding a good scan, downloading it, and uploading it (on a slow connection like mine, annoying but doable). On a poster which requires retouching, like the crucifixion poster which started this discussion, it takes a couple hours to do it right; roughly equivalent to a GA in terms of effort. For works where you have to find the subject and shoot it yourself, it can be just as challenging as FA. Remember, for many of these you only get one shot (you may not see the species again... ever); you also need good (usually expensive) equipment, which is not a requirement for FA or FL. Trust me, my single featured picture that I took myself was nowhere near easy, and I'm sure some of our photographers would sharpen their Crocodile Dundee knives if they thought their work was being downplayed.
Photographs are different, but the average FP will take me over 6 hours, including travel and post processing time, and cost at least $65 in travel and equipment. Time wise, I'd guess that the partial order on the average times is probably DYK ≤ FP ≤ GA ≤ FA without a massive gap between FP and GA. But GAs are highly variable - there are plenty of subjects where it isn't much more work than a DYK. No one notices when I go out for the day and produce nothing :). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we had a shortage of reviewers, then the only sensible reason to limit the number of nominations would problems with under reviewed images. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that doesn't include the effort that goes into writing an article for a picture (it happens, and unless there is a decent article attached then an image will not go to the front page). I've written articles for several, including The Princess from the Land of Porcelain and Extermination of Evil, to give good-quality images a place where they'd have high enough EV to pass FPC. There's more work here than it seems. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually care how many works Crisco puts forward for FP so long as they are quality works that meet the guidelines. WRT the Signpost I don't know enough about it to make a comment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it might not make sense to start separating nominations – and possibly the featured pictures themselves – into Featured Reproductions and Featured Original Images. (I know, I know—easier said than done.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. :D From a process standpoint, it would move all the scans of artwork into a separate, possibly streamlined process. It's a different evaluation process for these images compared to editor-created photographs and diagrams. We don't have EV questions for notable works of art, nor can we suggest that the image creator adjust the composition; if a painting has its own article (or is worthy of its own article) then it will get FP status as long as the technical quality of the scan is sufficient. Someone critiquing File:Goya Dog.jpg is never going to say, Oppose, too much space around subject, dog obscured by indistinct foreground object; description of dog breed missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, I'd be against the creation of a process like that. The current process seems less active than it used to be, and having two processes would end up dividing the active editors, resulting in fewer images even reaching 5S. As for the main page, that would require an RFC if featured picture and featured restoration/grab were to be kept completely separate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there'd be a problem with so Crisco nominating so often if he generally or often nominated pictures that weren't of featured quality. A more signficant problem for Crisco is that he risks reviewer fatigue -- folk may just get tired of judging scanned film posters. So finding some variation would be useful. I don't think comparing FP with GA or FA is helpful. They have different qualities. I disagree with Matthew about limiting the FPs on Signpost. The section is on featured content and none of the FAs got there because of their pictures. If the FA has a great picture that makes someone more likely to read it then that's a bonus. I find it very odd that the FP's are listed without even small thumbnails of the pictures. The FP section is a really weird read: reading about a picture you can't see. Colin°Talk09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point on the Signpost. The old style was to have a gallery with all of them, but I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather have several larger resolution images, perhaps historically significant. For the nominations, I've been mixing it up. Two One animal photographs, a piece of hardware, several artistic works, a sports picture, a film poster, and a propaganda poster are up there right now. I think that's decent variety. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need only be concerned with systemic bias at POTD. Howcheng does a good job of balancing the POTD, spreading similar images out. So we don't need to worry about short periods of systemic bias. Crisco's recent nominations won't really matter in the long run. Trying to limit the content in any particular area to preserve balance is like imprisoning the rich to create income equality. I'm personally happy to see the additional activity that Crisco has brought to FPC recently - we were sitting around in the doldrums for a bit, with less than one image passing per day, and more images to judge means people tend to stick around. The solution to systemic bias is more nominators, not less nominations. As far as the Signpost goes, I believe that they will choose an interesting FA image if it is there, or otherwise ask someone to pick a FP for the week. That is an issue to talk to the editors about though. That said, a few more FPs over FA images isn't a bad thing in my view - it might encourage editors to improve the relevant article. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address one of the recent cases, namely of complete absence of Central Power propaganda. You talk of "spreading out", but he's got nothing to spread. There are no Central Power FPs available for him to work with. Secondly, just because he does a good job doesn't mean we can arbitrarily increase the complexity of his work. The less spacing we do, the more he has to. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that. As one of the writers at the Signpost, I can happily assure you that we are doing our best to balance the images as well. What do we have so far? Here's a hint: none of my nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why this is still in limbo? One week. I count 3 supports which don't state a preference (one of which also explicitly supports the edit) and 2 for the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insanely high pass rate?
Historic pass rates (blue)
Of 33 current nominees, only six right now look likely to fail, with another three or so possibly failing through not reaching minimum support. It's not clear how one should interpret these numbers, but this is clearly far outside the historic range (see figure). At the end of March, we were promoting 9/20 iirc - high, but not outside the range. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the sense that pictures are getting through now which in the past would not? I haven't been active here that long so I am not certain if this is a snapshot in time issue or a new trend. For my part I just see quite a few good works at the moment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Periodic spikes are normal. Many nominators have been putting forth high quality images, be they photographs, paintings, or whatnot. Between us, myself, Tomer T, and Saffron have about 20 or 25 nominations on the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that the high volume of nominations could be reducing the level of scrutiny. A lot of things that were often discussed in great detail aren't being discussed right now. Someone referred to reviewers' fatigue, and we saw a few images fail on 4 supports and 0 opposes. One might wonder if what we're now seeing is the response, where people prefer to support because it's less emotionally taxing, needs less explanation, and can be done with a shallower review of the actual material. It's good that people haven't been punishing full size images lately (it used to be the case that if you uploaded a 1600 wide image, sharp and noise-free, you could get a promotion, whereas if you uploaded the same image at 4000 wide, not quite sharp and with visible noise, you'd get laughed out of the house - very damaging to the project imo, and encouraging everyone to downsample, which is a battle that for this reason, we've never quite won), but the rest of the reviewing may need some observation and analysis, at the least. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my recent observations of FPC, I have observed a few possibility's as to the cause of the recent increase of FP promotions:
1. "Reviewers Fatigue" (as Crisco put it). People not feeling up to a long discussion, or feeling like reviewing the EV of the nomination in articles, how the picture measures up to the criteria, ETC..., can lead to people making judgements off the picture alone, and off of first impressions, rather then looking carefully at the picture, and judging its encyclopedic value carefully.
2. The recent absence of users such as Pine and jjron from participating in discussions of nominations. These two in particular, were the (In my personal observations of FPC) main instigators of discussions concerning the relevance of nominations to the FPC criteria, thus leading others to also look at how the nominations measured up to the criteria per the discussion, and possibly leading to a change their opinions concerning how the nomination(s) appear to measures up to the criteria.
3. In the past few months, it appears that there is a growing trend towards judging nominations by opinions, rather then the criteria. (Votes made off of first impressions appear to be increasing every month, one example of such a case, is the first Support vote in this nomination).
I am not stating that these are the causes of the recent increase in FPC nominations being promoted, nor am I stating that the above are entirely factually accurate. Dusty77718:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Project and talk page notifications
Are Wikiproject and article talk page notifications helpful or harmful? It is done for other featured areas, but there the hope is that subject-experts can contribute to the review and possibly spot/fix errors and omissions. This seems less likely to be the case for pictures. Possibly an expert can add helpful comments on the historical value of a picture/subject. Or a highly specialised type of picture might have aspects only someone familiar with that field would appreciate. But generally, it seems like project or article-talk-page notifications of an FPC are highly likely to attract support that doesn't evaluate fully the FP criteria. The recent Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg is an example of a FPC with four project and two article talk page advertisements. I'm sure I could get my own FPC past the threshold by rounding up some train enthusiasts at the appropriate project, but I don't think that is fair play. Should we make this explicitly disallowed. Colin°Talk07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally thought of as canvassing, which is not allowed. However, its discovery does depend on people checking - there is no bot or anything like that, currently. Recent practice has been to close heavily canvassed noms as "not promoted, without prejudice, due to canvassing". However, this should always be based on clear evidence rather than WP:IDONTLIKE. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The equivalent notifications, if done neutrally, aren't considered canvassing for the other featured processes. So editors may not be aware that we consider it unacceptable for FP. Therefore I think the nomination instructions should make it clear that FP is different from FA/FL, etc. Colin°Talk09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though this wasn't the case until very recently, neutral notices have been left on a number of talk pages. It's telling that no one felt the need to leave these notices until the nom started to fail, but there you go, that's not the worst crime in the world. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there has been some off-enwp canvassing to bring in some of the editors; this is an Iranian image, the nominator is Iranian, and right at the start of the discussion, two Iranian editors (Alborzagros (talk·contribs) and P0lyzoarium (talk·contribs)) popped up at FPC for the very first time in order to support this image. It's possible a message was left on the Farsi Wikipeida, but I haven't a chance of finding it, personally. J Milburn (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_-_Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, supposedly
_Nanga_Parbat.jpg){kind=link}
/Image:Golf_Bunker_shot_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hemerocallis_Lilioasphodelus.jpg){kind=link}
