Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

FPCs needing feedback

Vitrification FP deleted

Just so everyone knows: because of this edit, I've decreased the FP count by 1. I didn't think it needed a formal delist nomination. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Coats of arms etc

What are people's opinions on the idea that we shouldn't support some images because they could open the floodgates for similar images to be nominated? Promoting worthy images, or an exercise in "busy work"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the criteria that keeps the floodgates closed is that to be FP, the image must be, "among Wikipedia's best work." This standard applies to any type of image. Pine^talk 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with you. What makes coats of arms different from birds, or people, or types of plane, or or or... Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it all comes down to how you interpret "Is among Wikipedia's Best Work"--does the image have to be truly unique and stand out against *all* of WP's images, or does it simply have to be better than most/all other pictures of the subject? I'll point out that nearly all of WP's Meteorology FAs are about hurricanes, despite them being relatively short & simple articles compared to most other FAs. We encounter a similar situation with SVGs of coats of arms, flags, etc. that are of the highest possible technical standard, but that standard is not all that hard to achieve--for instance, most would agree that File:Flag_of_Russia.svg shouldn't be featured, despite the fact that it meets all of the current FP Criteria, and it literally cannot be improved at all. I think most Coat of Arms SVGs could be discounted under "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way", although that is probably more subjective than we would like the process to be. Mildly Mad^T_C 16:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The example of File:Flag_of_Russia.svg is a good one. I think it fails under, "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way", while impressive illustrations of coats of arms would pass that criteria. Pine^talk 20:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Decrement count please

This new account of mine can't yet edit semiprotected pages. I closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ebony Bones (?) as delisted but cannot decrement the count at WP:FP. If someone could just reply here that they can and will do this in my stead (so that others know that someone is on the job and we don't get several decrements). For double-checking purposes, as of this writing, the corrected count would be 2850. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for closing that. I'd completely forgotten about it. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet problem

Apparently Xijky (talk · contribs) has been confirmed by checkuser as a sockpuppet of a banned user. This user has voted in several FPCs as well as closed some. I'm not sure it's worth worrying about the votes since none of those seem to be close calls, but please take a look at the following, which Xijky closed: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Audrey Hepburn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oval Office, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Aldrin saluting American Flag. Should these simply be reclosed? Chick Bowen 04:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I don't see the point in reclosing these, so I'd leave them as they are. Pine^talk 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was reached on all nominations mentioned. I don't see too much concern as to re-close them. Dusty777 (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No reason to promote at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Neophema chrysogaster female - Melaleuca.jpg

I can't arrive at the conclusion that this would be a promotion. Minimum support was not met, and it was not a clear-cut situation in other ways either (opposes almost cancelling supports). But the main point is the minimum support just wasn't there. I think this may need to be reclosed with a correct pronouncement. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Since majority does not rule on Wikipedia, i would say that a re-close is necessary. The minimum of 4 support votes (not including the nominator) was not met, therefore, the file should not have been promoted. Dusty777 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with PLW. The oppose reasoning is questionable, though hardly unambiguously nonsensical, and, while I personally thought the image was worth supporting, it seems that a lot of people were happy to ignore it. That said, I'd say it was definitely worth a renomination in the future. Perhaps a close as "no consensus" would be a fair one, but a promote seems to be stretching it a little. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• I have notified Makeemlighter. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My only question is the person that said he'd support it in a set, which I don't quite understand. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, I thought I left a rationale. "I would support both being combined into a set" and "Support" mean the same thing. JJ pretty much hits the nail on the head. There isn't a substantial difference between individual FPs and FP sets. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I strongly disagree with the assertion that there isn't a substantial difference between individuals and sets. I voted support on the other one and oppose on this one. If there is a question about them being promoted as a set, I think that should go into discussion, not be promoted like this. I disagree with the decision to promote this. Pine^talk 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If you disagree (i.e believe there is a substantial difference between individuals and sets), could you explain the difference? These groups of images are obviously intended to go together, but I don't nominate them as sets because some people oppose the idea of sets outright. JJ Harrison (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The only difference I know about is the use of Template:Featured_picture_set instead of Template:Featured_picture on the image page, and that they are intended to appear together on POTD, as these two probably will. JJ Harrison (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The two photos were nominated separately. If they are to be evaluated as a set, the other template would have been the one to use. I would have evaluated them as a set differently than I evaluated them individually, and Clegs said in his vote comment that he had different views of the two photos and would evaluate them differently as a set than he did as separate nominations. If you ideally wanted them promoted as a set but felt concerned about whether it would have been better to nominate as a set or as individuals, it would have been good to nominate them as a set first, and if they failed as a set then you could consider nominating just one of the two as an individual. Pine^talk 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
          • So the difference is that you would have voted differently, or in other words that images in sets have a different standard required of them? JJ Harrison (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
            • For Clegs and I, the answer appears to be yes to your first question. For your second question about a different standard, no, I would apply the same FP criteria but I would apply it to the pictures together instead of separately. If the images are nominated as a pair, then I would comment and vote on them as a pair. In this case I might vote in support or neutral on the pair, and the effect of that would be different than my votes for these two separate images, one support and one oppose. I can think of more examples where it would be even more important to know if images have a group nomination or separate nominations, for example a pair of images showing the front and back of an animal, where each image separately might not be significant enough to meet EV requirements but together they have high EV. As the images are presented here, as separate nominations, I vote in favor in one and oppose the other. The reason that I say this belongs as a discussion instead of an outright fail is because of Clegs' comment that he would support them as a pair, but they weren't nominated as a pair, so I think Clegs needs to clarify if he'll support this one as a companion to the other image since the other one passed. I think it was inappropriate for Makeemlighter to promote this based on record as it's written, but it would have been fine to suspend it until Clegs clarified his vote. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 and Dusty777 seem to go even further than I am in saying that this image should not have been promoted, period. Pine^talk 07:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft rule discussion: closers cannot have voted in a nom that they close

This came up for discussion in a nomination. So far as I can tell, there is no rule against someone closing a nomination if they have voted in a nomination. Some people seem to think that this rule exists already. I am not opposed to such a rule but I would want to have it in writing in the procedures for closing. I am opposed to enforcing prohibitions that are not in writing. Pine^talk 20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can't find it written down, so maybe it needs to be, but it has been the case for a long time to avoid conflicts of interest. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly obviously the case, but I could conceive of cases where it would be appropriate- Unambiguous close that's been waiting for a week, withdrawn nomination, deleted image, stuff like that. I would have no objection to it being in writing, as I believe it is elsewhere, but, of course, IAR would still apply. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• It's not a rule; it's more of a guideline. There isn't really a good reason to close a nomination that you voted on: there's always someone who can close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Would we want to write this as, "Users who nominate or vote on an image are generally discouraged, although not outright prohibited, from closing the nomination. Nominators may withdraw and speedy close their own nominations. One week after the end of voting, if no other user has closed the nomination, the nominator or a user who voted may do so, although the close is subject to the review of other editors as would be the case for any other close." Pine^talk 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem with a voter closing a nomination and don't see the need to refer explicitly to the subject in the guidelines. Notice how simple they are despite the long and detailed discussion we had some time ago. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• I concur with Alvesgaspar. I don't think there's a need for a specific rule against it, but can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I expect that most of the time it will be non-controversial for someone to close a nomination that they've voted on. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If you guys decide not to go against such closures, I do advise that it is written somewhere so that it can be used as "disclaimer" to potential closure challenges. Have not visited this project for a long time but popped up and saw this, might as well just make the suggestion based on what I've learned at Commons ;) --ZooFari 07:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Juichimen Kannon

This nomination has been sitting in the recently closed for almost a couple of months now.... What is taking so long? Dusty777 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I just closed it :) Makeemlighter (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)