Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FPC)
Jump to: navigation, search


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit
Sega-SG-1000-Console-Set.jpg SG-1000
Changdeokgung-Injeongjeon.jpg Injeongjeon
The Berlin Airlift
Italy Papal States 1689-I Quadrupla Scudo d'Oro.jpg Papal States, Pope Alexander VIII (1689)


Shortcut:

Contra content-less votes[edit]

On WP:ITNC, where this user also participates, instructions for Voicing an opinion on an item include the admonition –

Please do not...
  • ... add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes. Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful. Instead, explain the reasons why you think the item meets or does not meet the ITN inclusion criteria so a consensus can be reached (my emphasis).

This seems an eminently reasonable directive. If a user is in favor of including/promoting an item, it's incumbent on that user to share at least something of his or her reasoning with colleagues. (In some contexts, just a simple word or phrase will do.)

At present (13:00 UTC, April 9) on FPC, one user has lodged a total of 48 support votes containing no reason or rationale. That user appears to have simply voted in favor of every nomination in the current FPC queue, without once providing an explanation or argument. This does not support a collegial reasoning process, and IMO is not helpful to the project.

I suggest we adopt instructions similar to those at WP:ITNC regarding votes, and disregard or disqualify those that contain no rationale whatever.

@Crisco 1492, Hafspajen, Diliff, Armbrust, Godot13, Adam Cuerden, and KDS4444:@Sagaciousphil, SchroCat, CorinneSD, Janke, WPPilot, J Milburn, and The Herald: Comments? Sca (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • In FPC, at least, there are cases where little improvement can be made, and thus I think an unexpanded support vote has merit. I'm firmly against unexpanded oppose votes, as the instructions say at the top of the page: they need expansion. And I quote:
  1. "Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional.
  2. Write Oppose, followed by your reasoning, if you disapprove of the picture. All objections should be accompanied by a specific rationale that, if addressed, would make you support the image. If your concern is one that can only be addressed by the creator, and if they haven't nominated or commented on the image, and if they are a Wikipedian, you should notify them directly.
    You can weak support or weak oppose instead, so that your opinion will be weighed as half of a "full" opinion.
  3. To change your opinion, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it.
  4. If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well said Crisco. Fully agree. Also, I would like to have the burden of support on the nominator. A bit more explanation, context, would be rather valuable. As you said: so little effort appears to go into making the noms. It shouldn't. They should be more motivation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with Crisco's opinion. The danger is that if we insist on people providing a rationale for support, then they (i.e. I) will just use some boilerplate and banal text: "Support: meets FPC criteria in my opinion", or similar, which doesn't really help things. Yes, someone sweeping through to support 48 images (at a rate of two or three a minute) is not a beneficial circumstance, but them cutting and pasting the boilerplate text at the same rate would both get round the restriction, and be equally unhelpful. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, meets FPC criteria in my opinion is not an argument or rationale, and could not be accepted as one because it doesn't contribute to the process. It's like saying, "Because, that's why!" Such responses could & should be prohibited. Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's an argument and a rationale for a support. Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt. If you start telling people that they have to write mini-essays to justify their opinion to support, then the practical outcome is that people will walk away from !voting, which is not an ideal situation. Let me spin this round on you. If you see an image that you want to support, what level of detail would you consider appropriate in your support? - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I should also add that yes, where applicable, nominators should provide more background detail to provide context. this may not always be applicable, but in most cases I think it is. - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Jobas is a big savior, he helped saving more noms one would like to think of in the last month. Hafspajen (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
But Haffy, by that reasoning the fact that a pic/painting has been nominated would constitute prima facie evidence that it has merit or meets criteria. This would obviate the entire discussion/voting process. According to that rationale, we might as well just automatically promote any and all nominations. Why bother discussing them or arguing any particular aspect of a nom? Sca (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Confused. Not res ipsa loquitur. It is the nominator's opinion. When nominate anybody can - oppose or support. By supporting - you agree. By opposing you not, than please explain, and say - why? Hafspajen (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry mon frere, but I think I've provided an adequate exegesis of my rationale above.
I'd like to see some comments from others (or maybe I wouldn't!). Sca (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I have seen the rule and liked it first, but it is not good enough for FPC. Hence, I would say a clear cut NO per Crisco's comment. Each support vote does count and even sometimes those contra-content !votes decide the nom's future. You don't want to see 4 !votes supporting and closing it with a not ..not promoted, not enough votes. The best example. Few voters turn up with a comment seconding their support reason. -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have voted simply "Support", mainly for photographs. I'm not an expert in photos, so I don't see the imperfections that experts do. I just support the nomination if the photo is interesting, seems to have EV, has fairly good composition, and looks clear and sharp. I was recently jumped on for saying an image was a good quality image, so I don't say that any more. If you would prefer that I not vote on photos at all, let me know. CorinneSD (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Corinne, you don't have to be an expert to have an opinion – or an eye for aesthetics. But IMO you do have to be able to explain your opinion in some fashion.
PS: One definition of expert is, someone who lives more than 1,000 miles away. (It used to be more than 100 miles away, but times have changed – for better or for worse.) Sca (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
S-Cat, re your "superfluous divel" comment above, a) the divel is in the details, and b) to characterize a user's reasoned comments as "superfluous drivel" violates WP:AGF and is offensive to this user. Sca (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you take it as offensive, then I am afraid you have misread the comment and my intent – there is absolutely nothing there at which you should take offence. (And I have corrected my initial comment: "superfluous drivel" was what was meant, which is still in no way offensive to you). I am still waiting for you to answer the point, btw, which is what would you consider appropriate text to put in a support vote? - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I believe when SchroCat used the phrase "superfluous d[r]ivel", s/she was referring to any comments explaining a "Support" vote other than "Meets FPC requirements (or criteria)," not any of Sca's opinions. But SchroCat, here is what you wrote in your reply to Sca, above: "Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt." Do you see how, by focusing on Sca's opinion in the first part of your sentence, saying "Everything else is superfluous divel [sic]" could be misunderstood by Sca as referring to his opinions? It would avoid misunderstandings if you would try to be more precise, writing something like, "All other types of supporting comments are superfluous drivel." Regarding that opinion itself, I'm a little surprised that you would think, "Meets FPC requirements" is more helpful to reaching a consensus and coming to a decision than simply saying "Support". Don't you think there is a difference between writing a more specific phrase or short sentence (explaining one's "Support" vote) and writing a mini-essay? I think there have been quite a few interesting discussions at FP that show the details that can be noticed and pointed out, the differences in opinion regarding encylopedic value, and other problems. If everyone wrote, "Meets FPC requirements," no one would learn anything and there would be no interesting discussions. CorinneSD (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You are right to say that precision is beneficial, and perhaps I can be a little more precise with something you have written: you have said that I say "'Meets FPC requirements' is more helpful to reaching a consensus". That's not quite what I am saying. When I !vote to support, it is because I consider an image has met the FP requirements. I don't tend to read the opinions of other !voters (unless they have opposed), but read what the nominator has written. I try to give background and context in my nominations, as I believe it is that more than anything—apart from the image itself—that is going to get people's attention. - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Of course I knew S-Cat meant "drivel." And I knew S-Cat probably meant it generally – but also perhaps personally, at least to the extent of classifying my arguments above for such comments as pointless, stupid, "mindless," etc.
As to S-Cat's query re "appropriate text to put in a support votes," I humbly offer as examples my votes today on several pending FPCs. Sca (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
If you could please not try and smear me through misleading statements: I scan the page and can see nowhere where I (or anyone else) have classed your comments as pointless, stupid or mindless, so perhaps you could strike the accusation? - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, these are not going to help me reach any decision on the images concerned:
On the other hand this excellent comment stopped me supporting, which I probably would have done before you commented. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think an oppose vote without comment is useful, but our standards of promotion have some hard-line positive aspects - must be used, must have EV as used, and must be freely-licenced, for example, but, presuming we already accept those as the minimum standards, I think that not having reason to oppose is enough, not because we have low standards, but because we have so many high standards that a major failure at any one (barring mitigating circumstances) is quite enough to sink a nomination. Being able to pass the checklists the reviewers put it through is quite sufficient to mark it as an image of exceptional quality; that it has many good qualities should be the presumption. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Good points, Adam. Thank you for your polite explanation, SchroCat. Perhaps if you re-read what you wrote, particularly the first part of your reply to Sca, above, you will see why I interpreted it the way I did. Sca wrote:
  • Obviously, meets FPC criteria in my opinion is not an argument or rationale, and could not be accepted as one because it doesn't contribute to the process. It's like saying, "Because, that's why!" Such responses could & should be prohibited. Sca (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
and you replied:
  • Of course it's an argument and a rationale for a support. Stating that in your opinion something meets the FPC requirements is the very basis of a support: everything else is superfluous divel, to be blunt. [italics added]
I don't know about the other thing that Sca said in his last comment. Your examples of Sca's comments are good, though, and, in fact, the one you gave as an example of a helpful explanation (for an "Oppose" vote) kind of supports Sca's statement that providing a short explanation for one's vote can be very helpful to other editors. Sca, going back to your original suggestion, at the top of this section, I think it is a good one but should not be phrased as a requirement. I think it should be phrased as a recommendation. Right now, as Crisco pointed out, it says, "Write Support, if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional." If we just change "A reason is optional" to "It is recommended, but not required, to give a reason or explanation for one's vote," it might motivate more editors to write something. I agree with SchroCat that if a reason or explanation is required it might either scare away voters or result in boilerplate comments. CorinneSD (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Often new users will come to vote and over time learn the process. It can be tough as, frankly speaking we are a diverse group and everyone has his/her standards of "like's" and "dislike's". In this instance we are talking about what looks to be a new user. It can be difficult getting accustomed to the procedural issues of contributing & voting for FP or elsewhere so I too have to agree with SchroCat & CorinneSD that if a reason or explanation is required it might either scare away voters or result in boilerplate comments. What's needed is something that teaches those users what to look for and what to vote on and what to look for that creates the quality aspects of a nomination. talk→ WPPilot  21:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well said, WPPilot. I think that's a great idea. There is a list of requirements, but is there a tutorial with examples, explanations of what is good or bad about an image, examples of various types of problems, examples of images that were not promoted and why, and examples of images that were promoted and why? If not, maybe someone could create it. CorinneSD (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
OMG THIS IS TOTALLY WHAT WE NEED!!! And we need TWO: one for PHOTOS and another for DIAGRAMS! --KDS4444Talk 06:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(And if no one objects, I myself will even offer to compose a preliminary document on evaluating diagrams, though I could certainly use input from anyone else interested in the subject— let me know if I can get some kind of go-ahead with this; I have looked extensively in the past, and the only document I ever found about creating diagrams was the abandoned WP:DIAGRAM page, which doesn't address featured picture issues anyway.) KDS4444Talk 06:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
(Oooooo.... And one more thing: though I've been an on-again-off-again voter on FP candidates for years, I still do not feel confident formally "explaining" my individual support votes on photographs because I am not a professional photographer and am afraid of looking like an ass by saying something like, "This is neat!" and then have someone else come along behind me and say, "If you like needless motion blurs and off-center images with no depth of field." So I try to speak from my gut, but I have no confidence because I fear the unknown criteria and am not anything like an expert. How do we get people like me to participate more? And would such people be helpful or just annoying? Just a thought!) KDS4444Talk 06:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
@KDS4444: I would be more then happy to help with the photographic aspect of it. I think that we need a few experts that have obtained FP status to do it right, Crisco is a excellent elaborator IMHO on photos, and has brought to my attention things that have, using the editorial comments helped me take better photos DLiff is yet another exceptionally qualified photographer with a deep understanding of the art, as is JJ Harrison. I suggest that we gather a core group of well known quality photographers together to assist in the process for photos. We do have another issue in the fact that photos of paintings also should be defined for the photographic aspect of the picture. As a photographer it is hard for me to vote on a photo of a Rembrandt, when you really have no idea about the "photographic aspects" of the nomination. Often these are professional scans done at the host for the artwork, but this is/was the Featured Photo section and all too often you will see votes that support the image, not the photographic quality of the image. Considering these are almost always going tohave a copyright that is expired perhaps we should consider a section for "Featured Art" that way the voter can chime in on the perceived value of the artwork in conjunction with the users perspective on the photo/scan of it.talk→ WPPilot  14:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That is alright, but, as I mentioned above it has nothing regarding painting scans/photos that are predominate in the Featured Photo section now. Many years ago the FP section was dominated by photos, without researching it seems to me that the nomination of digital scans of famous paintings is something that has become more dominating over the last 2 years. talk→ WPPilot  15:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're up to 2,500 words. Any consensus? Should I pack up my troubles in my old kit bag and keep smilin'? Face-smile.svg Sca (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I’m a little late to this discussion (traveling) but wanted to weigh in. The above-quoted #1-4 by Crisco seem reasonable. While it is sometimes nice, beneficial, and/or educational when comments accompany a support vote, I’m not sure it should be required. I do strongly feel that an oppose vote should be accompanied by a rationale (which always appears to be the case). IMO, an oppose (or weak oppose) without any rational (following a note to the voter’s talk page) should not be counted, but I don’t recall this happening. I also agree with Hafspajen that the burden of providing at least some contextual/encyclopedic information in the nomination falls on the nominator. As an aside, Jobas has helped me as well on occasion, but their pattern of supporting does not suggest that the images were closely viewed or EV in the relevant article checked, and I do think that is a problem. I like CorinneSD’s suggestion about adjusting the wording (“recommended not required”), because, as several editors have pointed out, we do not want to drive anyone away with required support comments. Adam’s comments are also very much on target.--Godot13 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The one thing I worry about with FPC is that it can be very hard to delist images. We really, really, need to stop accepting "Not until we get a better one!" as a valid "Keep" argument except in cases where it's very nearly good enough. This is... problematic, given there can be some very major problems with a promoted image sometimes.
For example: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/File:Passchendaele_aerial_view.jpg Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree. KDS4444Talk 06:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Also agree, I have yet to be able to actually delist a nomination. I think only Armbrust has this figured out really. talk→ WPPilot  14:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Happy almost-the-weekend. In light of the foregoing discussion, I could support a non-mandatory advisory requesting (or encouraging) users to explain support votes, and perhaps explaining that comments about specific aspects of an FP nom may be helpful to others – plus retaining the rule requiring them to explain oppose votes in terms of FP criteria.

To the latter, I wish we could add some sort of criterion regarding intrinsic aesthetic value, which – because FPs appear on the Main Page (which I think of as the Front Page) – to me always has seemed a missing value. But I suppose we never could agree on what such a criterion would require or emphasize.
I Know there's an Is among Wikipedia's best work criterion, but it states, rather too pointedly IMO, that FPs are "not always required to be aesthetically pleasing...." I'd like to see that rephrased to say being aesthetically pleasing isn't an absolute requirement – "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative."

So anyway:

  • Suggestions on how an advisory request should be written?
  • Armbrust, would you care to moderate a vote on it after we draft it?

Sca (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "I Know there's an Is among Wikipedia's best work criterion, but it states, rather too pointedly IMO, that FPs are "not always required to be aesthetically pleasing...." I'd like to see that rephrased to say being aesthetically pleasing isn't an absolute requirement – "it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative." - That's a completely different ball of wax, and very different than what we've been discussing recently. If it has to be discussed, it should be in its own section. (Personally, I think we'd just need to drop the "always"). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I could live with that – but how about "aren't absolutely required to be" – ?
I mean, the Main Page is top exposure! But agreed, this doesn't have to be handled now. Sca (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am late by far to this conversation and let my grammar be hanged. I used to expound in supports with a comment. In this diff: I decided otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/vG%27s_Bedroom . I was chided on user talk pages by two editors for my use of an absolute adjective and also within this nomination. Even to some extent by Sca (who probably was oblivious to my mocking). In this nomination I stated that I would no longer state a comment. Just 'support'. I have relented in this one nomination by Hafs with "this is beautful": .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:P.S._Krøyer_-_Summer_evening_on_Skagen%27s_Beach._Anna_Ancher_and_Marie_Krøyer_walking_together._-_Google_Art_Project.jpg. I will have to be banned from the process before I will take back my resolution. To me FPC is non-article space and the comments may be allowed to be in common relaxed written language and not needed to be 'article perfectly grammatically'. Thanks or whatever. Fylbecatulous talk 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • After some eigth years participating in FPC as a creator and as a reviewer, both here and in Commons, my opinion on the subject has slighty changed. During the first times I was mainly concerned, as most of the reviewers, with the justification of oppose votes. Now I'm mostly worried with the unjustified support votes, as the Facebook "like-it" phenomenon has already arrived to both foruns. That is, a significant number of users post their support votes just because they like the images, without trying to assess their encyclopaedic value or even, in some cases, opening them in full size. This is much worse, in my opion, that not promoting a couple of high quality images because of unjustified oppose votes. It is much worse because it degrades FPC standards! Please note that the default state of a FPC candidate in "not-promoted". And should remain exactly that way unless the reviers agree that it is among the very best images Wikipedia has to offer. Looking at the issue from this side, it appears more necessary to justify a support vote than an oppose one... Just my 2 cents. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't think I have noticed it over here ( degrading the FPC standards). But it is a problem though on commons, that I noticed myself, when voting on picture of the year. Hafspajen (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can understand your point about why we'd want to have comments on why an image is good, but I can't get behind "it appears more necessary to justify a support vote than an oppose one". If we want to avoid fights, and to have nominators improve their contributions, we need to provide feedback about what went wrong, so that it can be fixed in the future. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't understand me wrongly, I still consider justifying all votes as necessary, both the opposing and the supporting ones. Two reasons: firstly, you justification is an important feedback for the creator (or nomimator) and noting can be more rewarding than a feedbak from our peers, especially when the review is negative; secondly, our comments can be a powerful way of influencing the opinion of the other reviewers or calling their attention to important aspects of the nomination. This is a very nice component of our open discussion/voting system, whose expected goal is to reach a concensus rather than finding a winner through the counting of votes. Having said this, I find the above proposal appropriate and fully support it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - in that case, because many people above gave a god explanation and rationale why not, that I think it was rather clear. Also, we don't want to scare off participants, when we just a couple of month ago had a discussion to lower the votes from 5 to only 4 because people didn't participated enough in the voting process. That was never a concern on commons or on the news. Hafspajen (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – While I appreciate Alvesgaspar's support, at this point (considering the discussion) I'm not comfortable with the notion of "justifying" votes, which to me seems rather legalistic. My interest is more toward sharing information, making a point about some aspect, etc. Compromising on a non-mandatory advisory re 'yes' votes dovetails with this theme, I hope. Sca (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As a recommendation or suggestion, alright, but not as a requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as noted above ystdy ("requesting or encouraging"). At this point still soliciting suggestions on how to phrase it. Sca (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You didn't like my earlier suggestion? I had suggested changing "A reason is optional" (for the "Support" votes) to
(a) It is recommended, but not required, to give a reason or explanation for one's vote, or
(b) It is recommended, but not required, to provide a reason or explanation for one's vote, or
(c) It is recommended, but not required, to provide a reason or brief explanation for one's vote. CorinneSD (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
and perhaps add:
(d) Your thoughts and insights will help others formulate a judgment about the image, or
(e) Your thoughts and insights will help others reach a decision.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • A combination of C & D would have helped me avoid a few minor run-ins (all amicable). HullIntegritytalk / 20:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How about this combination:
It is recommended, but not required, that you include a reason for or brief explanation of your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.
(Remember, the rule requiring users to explain "oppose" votes in terms of FP criteria would remain in force.)
Sca (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a thought: is there enough difference between "a reason for your "Support" vote" and "a brief explanation of your "Support" vote" to include both phrases? Wouldn't one suffice? CorinneSD (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a bit prolix. "A brief explanation of" would cover the waterfront (although either phrase would work). So:
  • It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.
Or:
  • It is recommended, but not required, that you include a reason for your "support" vote; your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion.
(I kinda like the "brief" idea.) Sca (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Good. Either one is fine. I kind of like "include a brief explanation of your "support" vote" better. Just another thought: what about reversing the sentence:
  • Because your thoughts and insights may help others form an opinion, it is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support vote.

CorinneSD (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We might even leave out one of the two nouns. "Insights" would flatter the editor a bit (but it's correct):
  • Because your insights may help others form an opinion, it is recommended but not required that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote.
(I think we can leave out the parenthetical commas. Now it reads smoothly.) CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
On reversing the order of the clauses, I wouldn't; the most important thought is soliciting a voter's rationale, and that should come first, IMO. And I'd argue for retaining "thoughts and insights" as a friendly gesture to encourage comments. Sca (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights may help others form an opinion".? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about "as" – I like it! And we don't really need "thoughts and" – who knows what their thoughts are? Sca (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

So, here's where we are:

It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights may help others form an opinion.

Sca (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Just a thought: we have some non-native speakers of English who like to participate; do you think "your insights" will be understood? For those editors, could we add some synonyms in parentheses after "insights":
  • ...as your insights (your thoughts and ideas about the image) may help others form an opinion. CorinneSD (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know that insights is all that obscure a term, but I could go with substituting thoughts for insights if you think it's more everyday-speech. Either way, they'd get the msg. Re synonyms, I think we need to keep this advisory brief.
Crisco? Sca (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think "insights" is really the best word, and I suppose anyone who isn't familiar with the word can either look it up in a dictionary or use Google Translate. I agree that the advisory should be brief. CorinneSD (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Herding cats?
I agree that "insights" may be the best word, but not necessarily for non-native speakers of English. I like the combination of the two suggestions above to form: It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your insights (i.e., thoughts and ideas of the image) may help others form an opinion. --Godot13 (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
So now where are we? Sca (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, to answer my own question, I think we're here:
It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion.
Time to vote? Sca (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A side note, related but off topic: I am new to WP:FPC. After reading this discussion I added this to my userspace. It is just an idea. Whether it is helpful or hurtful, I don't know. I yield to you, more experienced contributors. Bammesk (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

  • Okay, so long story short: there is a suggestion that we modify the FPC header, replacing "Write Support if you approve of the picture. A reason is optional." with "Write Support if you approve of the picture. It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your "support" vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion." This is hoped to put more emphasis on positive feedback, while still allowing simple "support"s to stand. I don't think a formal RFC is required, so it's best we have an open vote. After a week, if there is a clear consensus, the vote will be closed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Since the statement, "It is recommended..." follows, "Write Support if you approve of the picture," why do we have to repeat "support"? Couldn't it be written like this?
  • Write Support if you approve of the picture. It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation of your vote as your thoughts may help others form an opinion."
Since, I believe, a different statement requiring an explanation follows, "Write Oppose if...", I think it will be clear that the statement "It is recommended" applies only to "Support" votes. CorinneSD (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Votes[edit]

NO ACTION:

There's no consensus for any changes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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.


PointingHand.svg
It is recommended, but not required, that you include a brief explanation
of your "support" vote, as your thoughts may help others form an opinion.


  • Oppose I don't really see the point of this change. Before comments were optional, now there are not compulsory, so what? Yann (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a bid to encourage sharing thoughts about why a nom should be promoted. Sca (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know what "Support" statement I'm voting for – I see three versions under Vote and Votes. Can we please head this section with what we're voting for. —Bruce1eetalk 07:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. (Confusing material deleted.) Sca (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. —Bruce1eetalk 13:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - When somebody says Support He/She mentions the picture is a high quality picture and bears encyclopedic value and He/She doesn't need to describe by words like Greet, fantastic awesome and like them.-Alborzagros (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)-
  • Comment - I'm going to repeat what I said just above, at the end of the preceding section:
  • Since the statement, "It is recommended..." follows, "Write Support if you approve of the picture," why do we have to repeat "support"?
Alborzagros Are you saying you would prefer that editors write either just Support or Support - High quality image with good EV. for every image whose nomination a voter supports? No discussion? No interesting observations? No questions? I think that would make for a boring process.
I mean there are just few reasons in order to vote Support. when somebody writes this word he or she refers to high quality, good framing, good scan, EV and something like them so if a user types the word of support without comment he or she means the pic has got HQ, EV and good framing and everything that a pic might have to be FP.Alborzagros (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – with the word "Support" in the middle of the sentence left out. CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose -- Rules have a tendency to low-ball. In this case, "requiring" comments seems an attempt to avoid sock-puppetry, or (more likely) to discourage those editors who are not experts in photography from wandering around in here. Even a "recommendation" is a de facto "condemnation" of those who do not follow the "rule". HullIntegritytalk / 12:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody write some sentences. I don't understand. For example we have a nom here. If you are going to vote support, please type what you mean blow (fill the gap):Alborzagros (talk) 12:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • - @Alborzagros: I must assume you were attempting to respond to me, but I do not understand your comment. Can you leave a message on my talk page, please. HullIntegritytalk / 13:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment -- ROFLSNORT. Ok, THAT was a brilliantly ironic vote. You win. HullIntegritytalk / 13:40, 19 April UTC 2015
  • Query I assumed we were voting on the use of the little hand "Vote & Comment" banner (and policy). If that is that not the case, I need more coffee. HullIntegritytalk / 13:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The pointing hand is not part of the proposal – just a typographical device to help answer Bruce1ee's question above. Sca (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE — All that's necessary here is a positive or negative vote. Sca (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – either with or without the word "support" in the middle of the sentence. Sca (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a comma that I think is grammatically necessary. My punctuation tends to be a little formal, mind. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Adam, I gave that comma deep thought(s) but concluded others viewed it as too fussy. Either way. Sca (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as is. In my opinion, all votes should be explained. I would write: It is required that you include an explanation of your vote (either "support" or "oppose"), as your thoughts may help others form an opinion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's going to be support for that anytime soon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, the original proposal started out that way but was roundly rejected (see discussion above). Sca (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment - If an explanation for a vote is required that seems to me to imply that the explanation (or lack thereof) may be valued (by someone?) and the vote thrown out (by someone?) based on bad grammar, lack of knowledge about photography, perceived insanity? Ergo, criteria for analyzing votes, with or without comments, would need to be established. Or am I missing something? I am admittedly sometimes a bear of very little brain. HullIntegritytalk / 16:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment - What is required to say a consensus has been reached? We now have six Support votes and three Oppose votes. CorinneSD (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Then that is that, right? HullIntegritytalk / 16:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Crisco is monitoring this vote. Sca (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Right. RFCs generally run for a month; I'd like this to at least reach a week before we close it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Crisco 1492|Crisco, I'd forgotten that you were monitoring this. In fact, I'd forgotten that anyone was monitoring this. CorinneSD (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems that this is mostly a symbolic change, as it merely suggests rather than requires any change in voting behaviour. I think it's a positive step, as I think that in general, all votes should be justified (or justifiable). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Based on the discussion here, there doesn't seem to have been enough discussion to affirm a consensus yet. Anyone mind leaving the discussion open a bit longer? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What you mean, Chris? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 10:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Might as well wait & see if a few more users vote. Sca (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What Sca said. There are those who support, but they generally (and ironically) haven't given explicit reasons here, whereas the opposers have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with what Crisco says above. I do not think this discussion is anywhere near consensus, so perhaps leave it open. I will still follow, but have said my piece. And, not being a professional photographer will defer since my interest is on content. HullIntegritytalk / 15:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • By "content" I mean I am not trained to have an opinion on the technical aspects (as in pixels per inch and so on) but I am interested in the subject matter and composition of photos and will vote from that position and explain from that position, and fully support any editor's right to vote without doing so--as annoying as it may be. HullIntegritytalk / 23:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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.


Possible candidate[edit]

Can this be an FP?--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Give a try...Personaly, I would say that a better shot from the right side, making the church at the center of the frame..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 08:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Skr15081997, I'd advise against that. The lighting is dull, the building is off center, the crop is a bit too tight, and there appears to be significant lens distortion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom[edit]

Hi, We have File:March on Washington - Reflecting Pool.jpg, which is bigger and much better. Should we do a "Delist and replace"? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

FPC Coordinators?[edit]

Hi all,
Do anyone feels that we should, here at FPC, should have some coordinators as FAC and FLC have it? Someone like Armbrust (who 24X7 closes our noms), who could make out some clear cut consensus and the like sometimes. How do you all feel? -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 05:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A title, by any other name, would work as well. i.e. no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand what the point of it would be. What would change other than giving Ambrust a name for what he already does (and Crisco and yourself on occasion)? I certainly believe that he deserves a lot of credit for the work he's put in over a long period of time as it's a thankless job, but I'm not sure that a title is the way to show it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000[edit]

Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SG-1000. It will expired in less than 12 hours, and it's currently failing on quorum. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)