Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive... not?

How'd this get missed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Cosmic Microwave Background, I don't see it in the archives? Is this a common occurrence? — raekyT 19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Delist noms have a separate archive: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2010#Cosmic_Microwave_Background. Jujutacular talk 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
My bad.. ;-) — raekyT 20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what the blazes this is?

I don't bother reading the stuff at the top of the FPC page any more, thus miss random changes. But saw this when looking at the Glossary link Juju had added.

Firstly, as far as I can tell, it was added unilaterally by SMH - at least I don't remember any discussion about it and it doesn't reference one.

OK, but more importantly, I don't understand what it's meant to mean. All I can guess is that it was a hidden slap at VPC, which SMH strongly disliked, especially since his VP/VPC MfD nomination had failed just one or two days previously. I propose we remove it. --jjron (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it was added in because of the perceived canvasing for VPC back during the old MfDs... It can be removed imho because there really hasn't ever been or currently isn't an issue with people promoting things in FPC nominations... — raekyT 15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that's a classic SMH. Yes, please remove. --Dschwen 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that last week for the first time. I think the best part is that his previous edit summary reads "This sentence was added with no discussion, Get consensus for its addition first." It can probably go. I'd actually like to see the whole header reworked to make things simpler for newcomers - maybe make the criteria and the PPR link more prominent, and a few other things I can't remember right now. But that's a discussion for another time. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that too and thought the same thing. --jjron (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This was a contentious issue in its day, and jjron had his own views that contrasted with SMH's. Interestingly, after having canvassed for VPC on 9 August (previous diff) and shown awareness that this was controversial, jjron denied having seen any such canvassing in his comment at the MfD on 6 October (both 2009). It might have been more constructive if jjron had declared his previous involvement at the outset of this discussion (and, dare I say, at the MfD). I don't think the evidence points to unilateralism on SMH's part, and the diff being dug up and paraded around is a tell-tale sign of axe shavings on the floor. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Shock, horror...another jjron cover-up! Gosh-dang you PLW and your superior sleuthing skills!! Who would have thought that the person who first proposed Valued Pictures, who created a working prototype User:Jjron/VP Trial, who sought wide input about the concept, who created a second fully functional prototype User:Jjron/VP Trial 2 based on feedback, who consulted with and advised the user who eventually launched VP, who was a significant contributor to seeing justice done in not just one but two misguided MfDs, who has made numerous contributions to the current discussion on the present state of the VP project, who has tentatively supported the proposal to retire/mark historical the VP project in that discussion, and who even has a section on his userpage linking to much of this stuff, would in any way, shape or form have an opinion on VP? Thank god you're here to set the record straight on my surreptitious underhanded actions!! For crying out loud, this isn't even a discussion about VP, it's a discussion about an irrelevant paragraph on the FPC page added without consultation by a single user. Now go away. You really are making yourself look silly. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The long queue to POTD on the Main Page

This thread is a shared transclusion.  CLICK HERE to edit. (Click here to view page)

According to Howcheng, we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the Main page, that is over one year long. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, this animation of mine took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Wikipedia-time. What to do?

Here are the options I see at the moment:

  1. Do nothing, pretend there is no problem, keep on promoting more than one FP picture per day until we have many years of a queue and no one even cares about hoping to see the picture as POTD on the Main Page. Even if we promote exactly one picture per day from hereon, the queue would forever stay one-year long. The advantage of option #1 is we don’t have to change course whatsoever. The disadvantage is—like burying our heads in the sand over the Social Security fund—there will be a day of reckoning where something will break.
  2. Promote only one picture on average every other day. At that rate, it would take over two years to clear out the queue. The advantage is that this wouldn’t mess with the current queue. The disadvantage is that there will be a period in the future where a picture won’t enjoy its day on POTD for over two years. In Wikipedia time, our grandchildren will reap the benefits of this option.
  3. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those at the front of the queue that are scheduled to appear in the next 60 days would advance to POTD. The virtue is this is simple. The disadvantage is the cut-off point is arbitrary and would result in many, truly outstanding FP pictures not appearing on POTD.
  4. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but shorten the queue so only those that have 100% “support” votes would advance to POTD. The advantage is that all the truly outstanding pictures (as measured by the only objective measure of a totally subjective thing) would eventually appear on POTD. The disadvantage is that sorting through 400-some candidates looking for “oppose” votes would be time-consuming unless we elicited the help of a bot author.
  5. Keep the FP status (little gold star) for all the current pictures in the queue but eliminate nearly all of them (except for a week-long buffer or whatever Howcheng things appropriate) from the queue waiting for POTD. The advantages are that this isn’t arbitrary (the minimum buffer is not arbitrary; it’s just the “minimum”) and it’s simple. The disadvantage is it is more draconian and everything—including lots of fine pictures that achieved 100% support votes wouldn’t be featured on POTD.
  6. Per Raeky, increase the rate at which Pictures Of The Day are displayed to four per day.
  7. Another spin on Raeky’s would be to have four POTD images displayed on the Main Page for the full 24 hours. The disadvantage of both these ideas is it requires messing with the look of the Main Page and I’m sure there are plenty of other editors who would view these two ideas as pissing in their corn flakes.
  8. A combination of #6 & #7, above, whereby there could be two FPs displayed that are changed twice per day. This hybrid has the virtue that visitors don’t have to feel like they are going to miss out on something by actually sleeping for eight hours, and we still get through the queue just as quickly, and less added space must be devoted to the Main page to accommodate the acceleration.
  9. If a new contributor gets one of their pictures featured, fast-track that picture to POTD (within a month or two of being promoted, at Howcheng's discretion)
  10. Feature two pictures per day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  11. [other]

I personally think #4 is the best option and think I know of a bot operator who could automate the sorting process.

I also suggest we have an automated script that displays, somewhere in the FPC header, the number of FP-promoted pictures waiting in the POTD queue. I think that number should always be in the back of our minds when we’re voting. There is simply no point promoting an average of more than one FP picture per day; we actually improve the quality of Wikipedia by being choosier so we ensure that supply meets demand.

Greg L (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict)Change POTD to be like DYK, so that the picture is only there for 6 hours, that way you have 28 slots a week, at our current promotion rate we'll eventually catch up. Or, do nothing and accept as we increase content on the encyclopedia we increase the featured content creation rate, and we can never feature all the featured content on the front page for a whole day. — raekyT 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Picture's of the day maybe? I'm not really sure. I dont feel that changing the amount of pictures nominated would be a good move. If one month we have 50 pictures all outstanding and FP worthy, they shouldn't miss out simply because there is a number we have to stick to. JFitch (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8. Greg L (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I was also thinking about this recently, and came to the same idea as raeky. I think it's the most obvious way to deal with this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a programmer, but to me, number 6 sounds like the best option. The way I would prefer to have it worked would be, instead of having an image displayed for 6 hours, or four images displayed at once, that a random one of the four loads when an IP opens the page. That way we preserve the format and offer all users the chance to see the image, regardless of where they live. Now someone will tell me this is impossible. Cowtowner (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • After thoughts: I believe FA has a queue, too, how do they deal with it? Are scrolling boxes possible on the WP home page? And it would seem unfair to quadruple Howcheng's workload, we would need a couple of other people to step up and start writing captions. Cowtowner (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Good point. I’m going to a block party here in a few minutes. Unless someone beats me to it, I’ll alert Howcheng to this discussion and invite his input (which is pretty important). Greg L (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a POTD problem, not an FP problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see #4 or #6 implemented. If we had four featured pictures; one large with 3 others underneath, displayed as "Todays featured pictures", with the 'best' one as the larger, and the 3 others as smaller underneath. Rather than 4 equal sized ones. The benefit of having 4 pictures is that there's more of a chance of visitors clicking one of the images, and in turn, helping the encyclopedia. (by getting involved with the project) Also agree with moving this to WT:POTD. -- bydandtalk 02:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I doubt the community as a whole would go along with putting more pictures on the Main Page. I also don't think it's fair to any current FPs that haven't made POTD yet to remove them from the queue. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There are no easy decisions here, Makeemlighter. Defaulting upon option #1 isn’t sustainable, I don’t think, and waiting for years to see one’s pictures on POTD is no fun at all for a lot of us. So if #1 is your preference, what other option is your distant-second choice? Greg L (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Not sure. I don't like the idea of promoting less pictures either. And putting pictures up for <24 hours means not everyone sees them. If we could get 2 POTDs up, I'd probably prefer that. I just don't think that would ever fly. But really, a super-long queue is fine with me. I'm curious how they deal with it at TFA... Makeemlighter (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • They use a point system at TFA based on age of promotion, relevance to the requested date, importance of the subject, etc. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Otherwise they just go by the queue I believe. Jujutacular talk 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Point system! Interesting. Wouldn’t that be fairly easy to implement for us by using something along the lines of option #4? Greg L (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't think there's a queue. Apart from the requests, I believe it's just Raul654's choice, and he tries to pick them so that there's a balance of topics, subjects, and locales. This Signpost article describes the point system, but it never talks about dates where nothing is requested. Y'know, it's funny... four years ago, we almost reached a crisis point where the queue shrank to almost nothing and I had to start repeating POTD images. If we were to implement a TFA-like points system, it's highly likely that some images will be delayed for far longer than they are now -- insects, birds, and plants are what come to mind immediately, all three subjects being overrepresented. howcheng {chat} 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
              • FWIW I think things are fine as they are - a rough queue, but trying to keep things balanced and meeting the occasional request for particular dates etc. For the record, I'm also happy for howcheng to skip any of my own images, though someone with a handful of FPs might feel differently. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see a problem with having each image up for only six hours. They would still all be viewable after clicking the "archive" link. No main page redesign necessary. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind 6 hours either, but I'd be surprised if they are being promoted that quickly in recent months - 12 hours might be better to allow variety. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, I solicited Howcheng’s input (∆ here). Greg L (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite initially sounding commonsensical, #4 would actually be a lousy choice. Many of the noms that go through with 100% support actually do so by drawing little attention to themselves and scraping through with a bare minimum five (previously four) supports, rather than because they are that damn good. Hardly "all the truly outstanding pictures". The old Photographic Masters' Guild used to have the criteria of 10 FPs (not relevant here), with at least one of those having "a minimum of 80% support with a minimum of 11 support votes or 100% support with a minimum of 9 votes". Something like that would probably make more sense. Maybe we could simplify and say if 5 supports gets you an FP, it has to have 2 x 5 = 10 supports to get into POTD. I will add that in as Option 9. That could easily be implemented by Howcheng once he has gone through the current batch he's already prepared POTDs for, as he'd just need to count the supports - if it doesn't have 10, then no POTD, applying his own discretion of course as he does now. Other than that, if it was easy enough to just display two POTDs, the queue would clear soon enough, but that would up the work for Howcheng and would have to be accepted elsewhere, such as the Mainpage itself. Personally I don't find it that big an issue, though it's true that it is becoming an awful long wait. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons I give below. A simple system that would hopefully put up most of the better images could be for only FPs with at least twice the minimum supports for FP to become POTD (i.e., currently that would be 2 x 5 = 10 supports for POTD). Sure you'd still get some pretty ordinary images, like the recently promoted cat one, but for the most part you'd be getting the best and most eye-catching. We could add a minor complexity to help further weed out weaker ones, like minimum 10 supports and 80% of votes being support, but I wouldn't want it to be too complex. --jjron (talk) 14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm not particularly keen on increasing my workload, thanks. :) howcheng {chat} 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted, but I am open to people doing whatever they feel necessary with the POTD queue, and potentially open to changes to the main page to allow multiple POTDs. The reason I am opposed to limiting uploads is that images should not be precluded from being FPs purely because of POTD reasons. As we all know, there are FPs which will never be POTD for various reasons, and POTD is essentially just a by-product of being FP. Yes, it's an incentive, but it is by no means the be-all and end-all. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Did you choose your words carefully, J Milburn, when you wrote I am strongly, strongly opposed to any kind of system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted? Or did I truly misunderstand what jjron was suggesting? Because we aren’t talking about temporary or permanent changes to what FP candidates that get promoted. We’re only talking about shortening the queue of FP-award winners waiting to be shown for a day on the Main Page as Picture Of The Day (POTD). Pictures will still be promoted the same as they always have.

      Currently Howcheng is drawing from Group 19. How many ol’ timers around here remember when the pictures shown in Group 19 were being promoted? How many new participants remember? Anyone(?) Anyone? When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the next hundred: Group 20, and then Group 22 (another batch of 100 pics), Group 23, and Group 24. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into Group 25. (*sigh*) Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around.

      It used to be fun for some of us who were around in 2007 to see our labors appear on the Main Page for a day within a month. Now, our chronic over-promotion created a situation where we are effectively depriving newcomers—like college students—of that privilege because they won’t see it on the Main page until they married and working on their masters’ degree. Greg L (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

        • "Promote only one picture on average every other day." That sounds suspiciously like a "system whereby we limit the number of images that can be promoted", so that would be an example of one I would be opposed to. Simple. Further, I am opposed to the idea that we have some kind of "over-promotion"- if they are all worthy of being featured pictures, then good, more is better, so far as I am concerned. You'll note that I personally nominate any image I feel is worthy- not just images with which I am involved, or images from subject areas I care for. I'm "in it" to get more FPs for Wikipedia. With regards to the shortening of queues and whatnot, I've got no great opinion. J Milburn (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • 10 Supports is too much with the current level of activity - A rough count gives three promotions for July. I wouldn't be surprised if some sort of higher bar for POTD would compound the over representation of some subject material either. I suggest that howcheng just skips overrepresented stuff with below say 7-8 supports, allowing a bit of leniency for contributors that haven't had POTD before. I think common sense will go further here than formal rules. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree. Where this seems to be heading is that there might be a way to set a voting hurdle of high total number of votes and low percentage of opposes to all those hundreds and hundreds of pictures currently in the queue waiting for Wikipedia:Picture of the day.

          Whatever that criteria might be, Howcheng clearly doesn’t want added duties (he’s a hard-working volunteer with daily duties, unlike some of us who just come here when we “wanna”). So I would propose that if we winnow the current queue to something like 45–90 days via a filter, that we could accomplish that with a little bit of help from a bot operator.

          With a bot, we could have a slightly complex rule-set for what passes the filter. We could, for instance, say “what advances to POTD must be 100% supports if 5 to 6 votes total” and “no more than one oppose vote for 7–9 support votes. Something like that. If someone likes this general concept, weigh in below and I’ll add it to the green-div, above. It would be awfully nice to take that queue and reduce it to less than one group of 100 pictures.

          And remember, everything that won FP-status keeps it. We’re only talking about shortening the wait for new FP award winners to appear on the Main Page. Greg L (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

          • I don't think the queue needs to be that short, and besides, a bot wouldn't know how to tell that certain categories of images are overrepresented. I also would be concerned that not-very-supported images with good tie-in dates (anniversaries, birthdays, etc) would be omitted as well. If we are all agreed, then I can start skipping some of the less-supported images on an ad-hoc basis, just applying some common sense. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • A queue of up to three months is too short? You make good points about the exceptions that would foul up a bot’s first pass. But all a bot would do would sweep up pictures that purely passed the defined criteria. For instance, it could ignore nominations with more than one picture (where voting gets complex). All it would do is assemble a new, single folder with all the juicy, clean nominations that had the type of voting balance we define. Then we can all go back and snare any of the rejects that got passed over (or special favs or those that are linked to special occasions). Greg L (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Who the fuck is editing my comments?? That's highly in violation of WP policy. --jjron (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ‘Tis I, Mr. Fuckhead, who did the fuck so (∆ here). The green-div is part of my original post. Now, granted, I wrote The ideas enumerated in the green-div section of my above post should be considered as a *live* document. Anyone who has a new idea should add it, beginning at #8. But I do reserve some editorial control over the green-div and I don’t think it could possibly be more obvious that the green-div is reserved for proposed remedies; not arguments, opinions, and debate, which all belongs down here. And a post that begins with The idea of 100% support indicating the "truly outstanding pictures" (#4) doesn't actually hold water, for reasons… clearly belongs down here. As you can see, I didn’t delete it or “edit” it in the sense that term is commonly understood; I moved your 14:41 post to where it properly belonged and placed it chronologically in the proper place and with the proper indenting. If you want to copy the entire green-div and paste a new, updated version below with a mix of proposals and debate-style narrative all stirred together, be my guest. If you want to add something to the above green-div, please try to keep it a genuine proposal, or rule, or boolean algorithm that is narrowly intended as a specific alternative for others to consider. Greg L (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure where to put this in, so I'm just adding to the bottom. I am strongly opposed to removing pictures from the queue. Those pictures earned their spots. They've waited this long; why should newer pictures get to jump ahead of or even replace them in line? More recent promotions are no more deserving of POTD than older ones. I do remember the pictures from Group 19. I voted on many of them. I look forward to seeing them on the Main Page. It would be unfair to those photographers/restorers to remove their images from the queue. In some cases, it would actually undermine work they've done. I'm referring to the work that Durova and others have done in securing releases of images from museums and archives. When they approached a museum (as I understand it), part of what they said was "Hey, this might end up being on the Main Page of Wikipedia. Think of the exposure you'll get." It sure makes them look bad when their images stop appearing as POTD. Which leads me to another point - some of the older groups have great variety, more so than the current group. (I didn't count or anything; that's just my impression after a quick glance.) Finally, I'd just like to say that I don't think the long queue is really a problem for the project. We should be proud that we have so many FPs and that we promote more every day. I, for one, wouldn't mind waiting a year or more to see something I nominated/created make POTD. The waiting would just make its eventual appearance on the Main Page that much sweeter. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to add a bit more...I'm not crazy about having POTDs change every 12 hours either. I'd prefer that they get their full 24 hours on the Main Page. That's what FA does, and it ensures that everyone, everywhere gets a chance to see them. But I would accept the 12-hour change if that's the way things go. In contrast, I would not support the idea of having some sort of minimum number/percentage of supports in order to qualify for POTD. As far as I'm concerned, an FP is an FP: they're all equally worthy of POTD. Also, the number/percentage of supports can be deceptive. Some nominations take a runaway support train where everyone starts supporting. This sometimes results in a groupthink or in potential opposers shying away from the nom. I know that I often don't vote oppose on something that has a ton of support (unless I feel very strongly about it not meeting the criteria) since consensus is already clear. On such a nomination, then, the actual number/percentage of support may not be completely accurate. Similarly, some nominations may not interest users who would be inclined to oppose them or those users may simply be absent. Another concern is that many of the insects/birds that fill up the current queue, for example, passed with unanimous or near-unanimous support. These images, in my opinion, would be far more likely to pass the proposed POTD test. They just don't get the opposes that other noms get (a testament to our photographers!). With some standard in place, the queue would probably be filled with insects/birds and not much else. Part of the problem now is that we have so many of them; this would exacerbate that problem even if it does shorten the queue. (I have no problem with insects/birds, btw; just pointing that out.) These are not huge issues, I suppose, but they make a POTD test seem like a bad idea to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change. Of the options we're given, we're not even allowed to decide this isn't a problem; we can only pretend that there isn't one. And if we do that, we'll be "burying our heads in the sand" while we wait for a "day of reckoning" - I guess I didn't realize POTD had such cosmic repercussions! Look, it's too bad that anything promoted today has to wait a year or more to reach the Main Page, but many of the proposed "solutions" benefit current contributors at the expense of past contributors. How does it benefit Wikipedia to do that? Here's the solution I propose: current contributors - wait your turn. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • One problem is that if the queue continues to grow, long-standing FPs may already be delisted before they get their chance for front page glory, and whichever way I look at this, it makes us look rather silly, not to mention nonlinear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, if an image isn't worthy of being an FP, better we delist it before we show the world how great it is. Obviously, the best opinion would be that it was never promoted in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • The concern is about increasing standards. An FP that was wonderful two years ago might seem less stellar today. You, as one of the main delist nominators, should appreciate this better than most. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I completely appreciate that, and I think that's the point I'm making. This means that the images we once thought were great but actually aren't don't get their chance on the main page- instead, we give the slot to something decent. The process isn't perfect- that's why we have the delist procedure. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've sort of been mulling this over since the discussion has gone up, but hadn't come to a conclusion before now. I would just like to say that I oppose any change to POTD currently, per Makeemlighter's superb argument above. Worrying about this "problem" so much is a problem of itself: this project is about improving the encyclopedia with great images, we are not a POTD factory. Putting so much time and effort into changing POTD is actually detracting from the project, as it takes time away from what we should be here to do: to provide the best images Wikipedia has to offer. So excuse me, while I go work on a restoration ;) Jujutacular talk 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Hmmm… Quoting Makeemlighter, here: Finally, as an aside, I'd like to add that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there absolutely is a problem with the long queue. I have yet to see a cogent argument as to why something must change.

    Maybe you don’t think my argument is “cogent”, but there is a problem with a long queue. As to whether or not “something must change”, nothing must change; note option #1, above. We can continue to do as we’ve always done and simply have FP winners that won’t appear as Picture Of The Day until 2016. The purpose of this thread is to see how many of us see interminable waits for POTD as being something we should and can do something about. To recap, the simple facts:

    Currently Howcheng is drawing from Group 19. Only the regulars here remember voting on Group 19. When he’s done with that group of one hundred pictures, he’ll start on the next hundred: Group 20, and then Group 22 (another batch of 100 pics), Group 23, and Group 24. Now some of us are self-promoting or nominating pictures here—today—and they are going into Group 25. Howcheng will get to those Group 25 pictures one day; the nominators can come back to see those on the Main page when 2012 is close to rolling around.

    Is this a “problem”. Yes it is. Clearly it is not one that some here give a hoot about. But it is a problem. Why? Because we’ve now got a queue of pictures we’ve promoted as being Featured Pictures and which are now waiting to be Picture Of The Day (POTD) on the Main page, that is over one year long. I think a lot of us labor to create cool content and self-nominate because—in large part—the reward is in seeing it featured as POTD on the Main Page for the entire English-speaking I.P. readership to see for a day. In 2007, this animation of mine took only a month or so to appear on the Main Page. (Over) one year is an eternity in Wikipedia-time. This long wait greatly detracts from the reward and fun derived when new contributors’ pictures are awarded FP status.

    If some here want to treat this problem like social security, where we just keep adding to the problem for another year or two and pretend nothing will ever have to be done about it, that’s a legitimate view (although I think it unwise).

    The problem has been caused—in part—because there are some regulars here who nominate enormous numbers of candidates for consideration and our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” has been too low. And now, new contributors who self-nominate with really, really good work have to wait over a year to have it appear on the Main Page.

    Maybe what we can do is have a bot go through the queue and weed out most of the pictures that were nominated by some regulars here who, statistically, are wildly and disproportionately represented in the queue; you know… reduce the ones from our über nominators down to just a dozen each. Yes. I seriously think that would be fair. And, I’ll add it as an option to the green-div, above, so others here get the “Ah, HAAA” of what this is, in part, due to. And, NO, I don’t think it has a prayer of passing because it’s the regulars who vote here and help define that the community here says “Tough titty says the kitty; you can wait a year or more.” Greg L (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Greg, you need to wait a year, like everybody else, and no, your work is not superior to that of other contributors. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Greg, I find your comment above pretty ridiculous. When I contribute to Wikipedia, I do it because I believe in a free encyclopedia. If you're really contributing to Wikipedia just so that you can have a picture featured on the front page, then you're here for the wrong reasons. You used the phrase "FP winners" which I feel is completely incorrect, and has made me rethink this whole situation. You don't "win" the recognition. You've released your content under the license Wikipedia uses, and you're making it sound as if you own it. Boohoo that your picture won't be on the main page for a year, it's not that big a deal. If your e-penis really grows because a picture of yours has appeared on the main page, then well done. But that's not why you should contribute to Wikipedia. It's not a 'reward' contributing a featured picture, you're doing it for the good of the encylopedia in my opinion. Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year. Get over yourself. -- bydandtalk 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Good. You find my comment ridiculous. I find your response to be ridiculous. So we’re even now. You think this was about me, yet everything I wrote above (and below) couldn’t possibly have made it clearer that my concern is over allowing newcomers to quickly share in one of the important rewards when their pictures achieve FP status: seeing it on the Main Page for a day and not waiting over a year for this to occur. This has nothing whatsoever to do with me (Big deal that "your" picture won't appear on the main page for a year.) It would be *extra* nice if you had actually read and comprehended what I wrote here before demonstrating your shortcomings at parsing written English. Since I find your posts to be utter and total nonsense (in addition to going out of your way to be insulting and combative with your bullshit Get over yourself), I won’t respond to you at all on this subject again because you aren’t here to help but to just be a WP:DICK. So, Goodbye to you, sir. Greg L (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Speaking here in terms of photographers. You say that: "our litmus test for what passes as “amongst our best work” is too low". The trouble is, increase the difficulty of getting a featured picture, and "new contributors who self-nominate" would find it too difficult to take a featured picture and give up. It is pretty rare to attract an already experienced photographer to FPC. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I absolutely agree. Just like the United States’ Social Security problem, you either raise the retirement age, decrease benefits, or greatly increase taxes. This would have been avoided if we had been keeping track of the fact that we nominate something like 11 pictures per week. If you keep up with that sort of thing for a few years, you got a problem—and an ever-developing one. One of the things I’d like to see is the FPC venue putting all pictures that achieve FP status into a weekly folder and only the top five (not seven) get advanced. That is our last step at noticing we have three bird photos, one of the chemical-element photos, four pictures of Chicago buildings, and couple bug photos, and two photos of some flowers from some retired guy’s garden. Then we can choose the best of the best and slowly reduce the queue. Greg L (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with bydand. Why must a prompt appearance on the main page be a reward for contributors? This is a free encyclopaedia; people generally improve content because they want to improve content, and ownership tends to be discouraged. I would welcome reassessment of how POTD is run, but this should be on the basis of showcasing wikipedia's best content, rather than rewarding one wikipedian over another. I would also disagree with any criteria that sought to ration the number of POTDs to one per day or whatever, since that would be - by definition - unrelated to the quality of the content. If there's a need for a structured system of rewards for individual contributors, hand out barnstars or something like that.
    Count yourself lucky; there are many other valuable contributions which will never be on the main page. Some folk fix ten thousand typos, resolve a dozen thorny disputes, or translate obscure foreign articles which will never make it to FA - these folk miss out on mainpage glory altogether. If "fairness" in rewarding contributors is your main concern, shouldn't we first find some way to give headlines & glory to non-POTD editors? bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Note: Editors can click this sub-section’s [edit] tag
    • I would not support that, but I would support fast-tracking FPs of new contributors. Jujutacular talk 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Hey, there’s a new idea! I’ll add it to the green-div a little later. (Must make killer espresso for wife right now…) Come to think of it, why don’t you, Jujutacular, add your idea as #9, above. Please try to keep it a little general as to the exact details while still providing some specific ideas for how this could accomplished without unduly burdening Howcheng. If your noodling on the mechanism to accomplish this results in two flavors of your idea, then add both. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. Jujutacular talk 18:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks. What defines a *new* contributor? Are you thinking that the closer of the nomination would just keep in mind to note, when closing, whether the nomination is from a non-regular and/or is self-nominated? And would the closer then advance these to a special folder for Howcheng? Please advise, since you know the mechanics and procedures well. Greg L (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Define "new" has hasn't had POTD before and this seems like a reasonable idea - might cause some encouragement for new users. We shouldn't make life harder for howcheng though. I'm pretty much per mostly for the rest of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Considering I don't follow FPC regularly, there'd have to be some page that tracks "new" contributors. howcheng {chat} 22:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Jujutacular, do you have any specific proposals on a practical way to implement this? Off the top of my head, I should think that any of our regular shepherding admin closers would be able to easily recognize when there is a picture from a non-regular that should go to the shorter, segregated pile. If there is a better way, let’s hear it from the experts here. Greg L (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking. Basically anyone that notices a new user getting a promoted picture could simply leave a note on Howcheng's talk page. I guess for example TonyTheTiger has not had a POTD and could use a fast-track. Idloveone is a newcomer with no promotions yet, but I have a feeling will get one soon. Jujutacular talk 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a decent enough idea, I suppose. But newcomers make up a very small percentage of FP contributors, so this would apply in very few cases. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That would be an argument pro making exceptions? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Not really an argument for anything. Just an observation. If there is a problem (which I've disputed above), I don't think this does much to solve it. Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more, but then you'd still wait a year for anything else you had promoted. So it mostly sidesteps the concerns about the long queue, but it does give a little extra incentive to newcomers. The merit there, however, is debatable. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Quoting you: Seeing your first FP make POTD fairly quickly might encourage you to contribute more. Oh no! Not that! ;-) That is entirely what this is about. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, there is quite an amount of good for Wikipedia if we address this. Wikipedia requires free content (and fair-use in rare circumstances), so we really need high-quality pictures.

              We have some *regulars* to FPC here who nominate hundreds of pictures a month; many nominations (or most) are pictures someone else created. But we also have some contributing photographer wikipedians who really bust their butts to create exceedingly well done, professional-looking pictures. And they make Wikipedia the beneficiary of that effort. Much of the (small) reward they can derive from their hard work and their donation is in seeing those pictures featured as Picture Of The Day on the Main Page.

              But because of the chronic over-promotion of FP status to pictures by the regular denizens that inhabit this venue, and the fact that we have no screening process to further segregate those FP winners that can quickly go to the POTD queue, the resultant one-year-plus wait means these “non-regulars” don’t get to see their work featured as POTD for over a year. And this queue is growing and will be multiple years if we keep doing as we’ve been doing the last few years.

              It didn’t always used to be that way. An animation of mine got POTD in one month back in 2007. That was a blast and was quite a reward for the effort. Those days are long gone for newcomers (awe… shucks: *newcomers*) unless we *regulars* do something about it. I don’t think our attitude should be “Tough. Stop your whining, donate your damned picture, and wait a year or two.”

              We can always develop procedures for our closers to decide when a contributing photographer graduates to *one of the regulars around here*-status because we have grown tired of the prolific quantity of high-quality pictures he or she generates. Greg L (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I clear up one thing? The image that Greg is talking about, File:Translational motion.gif, actually took four months (not one) to go from promotion to POTD. howcheng {chat} 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oops. I stand corrected. I had a nagging feeling I should have looked into that before writing “one month.” It didn’t seem like four months; I must have been extra busy at that time. Waiting over a year: now that would seem too long. Greg L (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting, because when I thought about what time would be ideal between promotion and POTD, I was thinking of four months. The only benefit about leaving them for, say, nine months is that you would get roughly seasonal POTDs, but then some people might crave sunny beaches in winter, and not everybody is on the same seasonal schedule, so it may be a non-argument. Four months sounds fine. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That's an interesting thought- it'd mean, for instance, that this image was featured as winter closed in on the UK. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I might use that one for winter solstice. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That'd be summer solstice :P. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was understood by now that the problem that Greg is highlighting is that if we continue to promote the way we're doing, "just over a year" will turn into 15 months, then 18 months, etc. If we can't vary the rate at which we feature, we can't control the length of the queue. (Or alternatively, use one of the other proposals that affect the length of the queue.) My gut feeling is that FPC is going to turn into a less friendly place if commenters feel they have to keep down the pass rate to control the queue. My feeling is that we currently promote about 1/5 of the eligible pictures, and that we should aim to increase that rate. If we do, the queue will get longer under the current rigid system, and it will not be some convenient length, but whatever length is dictated by the pass rate. Deciding whether or not to promote a picture on the basis of the current length of the queue is what strikes me as ridiculous. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The POTD queue length should have no bearing on an image's FPC nomination. howcheng {chat} 18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well… not necessarily. Good people can disagree on the extent to which we *Love* a picture. If we are making monster-size queues waiting for POTD, we aren’t saying to photographers “Tell you what; everything sucks nowadays around here.” It is legitimate to say “Bring on the really good stuff that stands head & shoulders above the rest and *really* makes our readers ‘stop, stare & click,’ because with year-long queue, we’re not handing out FP awards to pictures like candy at a parade anymore just because *there are no major problems* with them.” And don’t make me go look for the actual post behind that last asterisked quote because I clearly recall a recent “support” vote with reasoning similar to that. Greg L (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of where we are

Based on my reading of the above, it seems like the most agreeable option is a bit of a hybrid: We keep the queue intact (barring of course anniversaries and other special days), with the possibility of skipping photos from overrepresented topics if the nominator/creator has a good number of FPs to their name. We also will allow jumping the queue for people who have very few FP contributions (less than 5?) so that they have a shorter wait time for Main Page glory. Are there any additions/changes to this? howcheng {chat} 21:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • That sounds reasonable to me. Greg L (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Most of it seems fine to me. I'm pretty sure the consensus isn't there yet to skip images from people with many FPs. I don't think I've seen anyone but Greg L hold that position, (though I've stated that I'm happy for you to skip some of my own). I'm moderately confident that Durova would oppose skipping strongly (promises to Museums and such) and am not sure how other voluminous contributors would feel. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think this gets at the root of the problem at all, as stated in my previous comment. I'll also state that this whole debate about being skipped looks absolutely ridiculous when FP contributors are the only ones to ever get any credit that normal users would see. Everybody else is a second-class citizen by default, so exactly how you feel you have any license to whine remains unclear. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The two issues are independent, so exactly how you feel they are related remains unclear. I've only stated the consensus as I see it and reiterated that I'm personally happy with all of the items on the list. Agreement cannot constitute whining, the two are practically mutually exclusive. This isn't about getting to the root of the problem (if there is one), it is about acting on the current consensus. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't even looked at the way POTDs are determined, but I have a horrid suspicion that newly promoted FPs are just added to a huge queue. If that happened with FAs, the system would be similarly clogged—it would grind almost to a halt. And the topics of TFAs would not be balanced over time or reflect anniversaries, or whether authors had already had a FA on the Main Page. Could I suggest that a similar system to Raul's for TFA be established for POTDs? And could I also suggest that six-hourly rotations are a bad idea. One per day, please, and getting the gold star doesn't for one minute mean Main Page exposure. No way, sorry. It should be a separate process. Tony (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Then how about one whose outcome is based solely on direct input from the community? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Tony1. The issue, I feel, also includes the system of picking POTDs, which should be changed to something like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. The guidelines there, I feel, would match up with some of the things mentioned here. fetch·comms 02:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree 100 percent. Greg L (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I will at least support #9. As someone who actually creates the pictures (as opposed to one who finds them on Commons, created by someone else), this will be a very nice acknowledgment of their work. There's nothing like seeing your work get bashed, picked at, criticized, etc. at FP, and come out on top and achieving it! My thinking is that it's not so much as a reward, but I think it will encourage more contributions from originators and that can only be a good thing. Also, this discussion seems to have ended somewhat with no real consensus. Perhaps there are too many options. Maybe its time to weed out the obvious "no takes" and put the rest to a simple vote. My 2 cents. – SMasters (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

TFA instructions: draft translation to POTD?

Someone would need to run it, like a "delegate". Seems very bureacratic the way they do it for TFA, but it's probably necessary for them because competition is fierce, and there have been dreadful fights. It appears to work well, but possibly the rules and procedures could be trimmed for POTD. Raul is trialling a sixth TFA system at the moment, which he can slot in anywhere (no specific date request). Tony (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Pictures suggested here must already be featured pictures. Pictures do not have to be suggested to appear on the main page. Requests must be for dates within the next 30 days that have not yet been scheduled.

There may be no more than five total requests on this page at any time for a specific date, and one request for a nonspecific date. If there are already five articles requested and if the article you would like to request has a point value higher than the request with the lowest point value, you may replace it according to the instructions below.

Requests are not the only factor in scheduling Picture of the day; the final decision rests with the POTD director, X. Please confine requests to this page, and remember that community endorsement on this page does not mean the picture will appear on the requested date.

It is helpful to put the request, with the estimated point score (see below), up for discussion on the talk page pending template up to 60 days before the requested date; applicants should return to move the request to this page during the 30-day timeframe if the picture has enough points to replace another.

Purge the cache to refresh this pageTable of ContentsDead linksAlt text

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Calculating points:

Points are the sum of choices for each of the following six criteria:


  1. ^ One point is awarded if there is an obvious and significant connection between the picture and the date, for example File:X on [date]. Multiple points are awarded only for the anniversary of an event receiving significant coverage in an article in which the picture appears. Just because a picture might be appropriate for a date, for example File:X on [date], does not mean a point should be awarded.
  2. ^ Topics considered to be basic subject matter for a 12-year-old using Wikipedia for a school project. That is, the picture is on an academic subject that could reasonably be expected to be part of a school curriculum for that age-group:
  3. ^ Similar is defined more narrowly than the categories at WP:FP: two dissimilar pictures may be grouped under the same category. For example, [provide example].

Adding requests:

The picture must not have been previously featured as a POTD. History shows that pictures with five or more points are almost never replaced. Accordingly, you must wait until there are 20 days or fewer before nominating such a picture, to avoid tying up a slot for a long period of time, and to allow other pictures their chance.

Please nominate only one picture at a time. Nominations are ordered by requested date below the summary chart. The archive of previously featured pictures is here. If there are already five requests, and the picture you propose to add has more points than one of the pictures already requested, you may remove a request and add yours (explaining in your post the claimed point total) according to the following:

  1. If a requested picture has at least five declarations and more than 50% oppose votes (counting the nominator's declaration as a support) at least 48 hours after the request is initiated, it may be removed regardless of its point value.
  2. If item 1 does not apply, then if there are two requests for the same date, the request within that date with the lowest number of points may be removed, regardless of how many points pictures outside that date may have.
  3. Otherwise, replace the request that has the least points. If there is a tie, choose the one with the highest percentage of opposes. In case of a tie in oppose percentage, replace the one with the fewest support votes. If support is equal, remove the picture with the latest date. If the tied pictures are for the same date, remove any one of them, at your option.


  • OpposeLets concentrate on building the encyclopaedia, not building some sort of meta-FPC to waste everyone's time. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That pretty much translates to opting for Option #1 in the green-div while wrapping the slogan in the flag of Making Wikipedia and the World A Better and More Encyclopedic Place.®™© We can do both. We can improve Wikipedia and do something about the long and ever-growing queue to POTD. As Tony pointed out, there are procedures used to select Article of the Day; we need to do some catch-up now. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Proposal is not community-oriented. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't wasting time, it's making the system more efficient. I think it'll work like TFA. fetch·comms 19:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Would like’ta support but am confused. Who decides on the points to be assigned? The POTD director? Greg L (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course the decision would be made by a director, as for TFA. You'd have to choose someone, just as featured lists chose its first directors when they shifted to a director system. I'm not suggesting a director system for FL itself—you seem to have it pretty well worked out as it is. But the POTD system is horrible: how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example? The selection of FPs that are going to get SUCH big exposure needs to be properly managed, not the chaos we currently have. Oh, and then there's that year-long queue. Tony (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Howcheng has done a good job of keeping variety among the POTDs. And this wouldn't help with the year-long queue at all. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see how this helps. It's just one more page to watch and one more process to deal with. The current system seems to work fine, although I'll defer to Howcheng if he says otherwise. This proposal won't help whittle down the queue at all. The newer images (the ones with that year-long wait) will have at least as hard a time getting to the main page sooner because of the points system. I'm having a hard time seeing the merit of this proposal. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Errrrr ... merit-based? And balanced in topic over time? And avoiding repetition? Tony (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
POTD already is merit-based - the images have to be FPs (and Howcheng schedules based on relevant dates already). I think POTD has had balance in topics and has avoided repetition. Maybe you can point me to complaints to the contrary. I recall seeing a few comments about all the insects on POTD on Talk:Main Page, but complaints about TFA (which uses the system proposed here) are far more common. Anyway, if you try to spread out all the bugs (or whatever) more than they are now, you're just creating a problem further down the line. All those bugs are FPs, so they'll be POTD eventually unless we decide that all FPs don't get to be POTD any more (which consensus above looks to be against). I'll grant that there is some merit to the proposal, but I don't think it comes close to addressing the problem that started this whole discussion. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment (I'll abstain from supporting/opposing based on a conflict of interest): I agree with Makeemlighter in that this doesn't really help out in terms of the backlog. All it means is that certain pictures may get to appear earlier than they might otherwise (which is already true, when there is a relevant date involved), and that others will have to wait longer than they might normally (which is also true now, when we look at overrepresented subjects). Moreover, this system only works if you have enough active participants.
Additionally, I'd like to hear what Tony1 thinks is so chaotic about the current system (being just me with occasional help from others like Fetchcomms and Ktr01): The POTD gets selected from the list of FPs in rough FIFO order of promotion. I try to space out the overrepresented topics (such as bugs, which have at least a week between each bug photo), and I'll reserve days ahead of time for relevant dates. That's pretty much it. The only time we have any trouble is when I get busy with RL activities and I write the POTD blurb at the last minute, or even a bit too late. We haven't had the need to repeat any images in a few years now because the number of promotions has far exceeded an average of 7 per week. Tony1 did ask, how do you stop a slant towards one type of picture during, say, a week or a month, for example? Answer: I see what I've posted recently and try to space it out. That's it. Note that although in theory anyone can schedule any image for any day, in practice there are very few people who write POTD blurbs besides myself (I can count them one hand), and I exercise considerable editorial control over the scheduling. I admit I don't have the title of "POTD Director" but I've scheduled 99% of the images since May 2006.
All that being said, if the consensus is that we want to move to a points system, I will be glad to implement it. howcheng {chat} 04:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC
Howcheng should know more than most users about this. In response, the queue should, I believe, be based not just on some model of socialist welfare, but on a points system. Some FPs would never make it, some would have to wait even longer than a year. But the current backlog is most unsatisfactory.

An alternative system would be to allot, say, three days out of seven to FPs promoted in the past three months. There would effectively be two queues. That would be fine by me. Tony (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Which proposal are you referring to, PLW? And can you comment on my feeling that since recent FP nominators/creators are part of the community, their work should be highlighted before they grow old? Is the TFA process that the FA/TFA community evolved not "community-oriented"? I'm not going to push this any more, but I think FP nomination should carry a greater incentive. One engineers it to make the process as dynamic as possible, and here is incentive down the drain, to me. TFA seems well-managed now, even though it's a little bureacratic. Bureacracy/rules are the essential counterbalance to the freedom of a wiki, if you want to maximise quality. Look at the featured-content criteria and instructions, especially for articles, lists, and pictures. You've gotta have it. Tony (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal. And yes, if I had to think up of a process that allowed me to be a dictator while keeping up appearances that I'm serving the community, I'd probably come up with something like you have over at FA/TFA. There should be no "directors" on Wikipedia. It completely goes against how we portray ourselves to the outside world. Merits a DYK along the lones of "Did you know... that 'community-based' website Wikipedia is governed by a number of so-called 'directors', and that no term of office is specified and no elections held for these positions?" Well, I guess that "Free" is a kind of broad term, so well done, folks, for watering down our concept of freedom and community! Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
First, you haven't answered my question. I've made two proposals here: one for a points system, and more recently, as an alternative, a 3-day 4-day dual queue system. Second, I had nothing to do with the evolution of the TFA system; and nothing to do with the establishment of sovereignty at FA. So why are you referring to "like you have over at FA/TFA"? Tony (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The incentive structure above decreases weight for recent nominations, so surely just fast tracking people with under five FPs would better highlight recent contributors? Noodle snacks (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if some of those with a long-term record of helpful, role-up-the-sleeves leadership would step up to the plate, take bits & pieces of good ideas here, and float a proposal. Then anyone left here who still gives a dump at this late stage can weigh in.

    Tony has extensive knowledge of how the Featured Article process avoids year-long queue constipations. Howcheng (notwithstanding his desire to abstain because of conflict-of-interest) is our volunteer on Wikipedia who does the heavy lifting to ensure the right things happen every single day on the Main Page (unlike many of the rest of us who can just take a 5-day wiki-break whenever we please). Accordingly, Howcheng doesn’t have a “conflict”-of-interest here; he has a “deep and highly involved” interest here. A practical system must be something he supports. If anything is going to get done, it seems that the common ground Tony and Howcheng jointly see will be the only practical solution that has any likelihood of working out.

    Perhaps those two will collaborate and provide us with a proposal that gives us a simple up-or-down decision: ‘Yes’ (adopt a new system for deciding what goes to the Main Page in an expeditious fashion), or ‘No’ (opt for Option #1 in the green-div, above). Greg L (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If does seem that one problem with the current system is that if I get hit by a bus or something, there's no established procedure for someone to step in and take over. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess that would be a motivation for inviting more participation, wouldn't it? The more eyes, the easier to spot problems. (Documentation also helps...) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Documentation. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the reason I'm saying it is that I looked at that, and it still wasn't clear to me how to get started. There's a whole bunch of things not covered, basic questions like "can anybody do this?", "do I need any special tools?", "do I need to ask anyone to double-check my submission?", "how many can I schedule before people get upset, and how far in advance?" etc. As far as I can tell, there's also no marker for where in the queue pictures are currently being taken from. I'm not sure that each position in the queue is linkable, but it seems fairly obvious to me that it should be. What else needs to be done? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeesh— it has now been three years since the above discussion appears to have ground to a halt. I have read over much of the text, but must admit that my eyes started to glaze over eventually. I recently (this year) got my first image promoted to being a Featured Picture here on the English Wikipedia, and was wondering if it would ever become a POTD... But after reading the above, I am still left wondering. Was a decision ever made as to how to handle the overwhelming backlog? Will my image ever be a POTD? As a new image contributor, I have suggestions as to how the process might be run to eliminate the backlog, but don't want to waste breath on a dead body (oxygen being at a premium here in Los Angeles). Maybe no decision was ever reached (i.e., option #1 above: "Do nothing")? Someone please advise if you can. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 17:16, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No additional steps were taken. For people who have just gotten the first FP (congratulations!) I myself would "fast-track" it to appear. I would say let Crisco 1492 (who is doing the scheduling now) know and he'll probably do the same for you. howcheng {chat} 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No need for this. Just ping me and I'll usually work it in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Click here to return to Talk:Picture of the day | Click here to return to Talk:Featured picture candidates

You guys need better sections

Anyways, I like doing four a day (or two, three, six, etc). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A new idea

Here's a new idea. How about we require real consensus for promoting images instead of a 2/3 vote? It seems to work well for Featured articles and it is the wiki way. Kaldari (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hey guys. I'm just leaving a quick message to ask for your participation in Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. This is where images which aren't featured quality, but instead, very valuable to the encylopedia go. It has low participation at the moment, so it would be really nice to see some of you there. It would be a shame to see it close, as I feel it is important to have one level below this. -- bydandtalk 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the vast majority of the regulars here are regulars there. ;-) It's just FPC gets a lot more "drive by" votes and temporary people... — raekyT 02:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, every little helps :) If we get 1 or 10 more, it helps! -- bydandtalk 02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Since I'm keen to start successfully nominating FPs, how do you think File:Justus Sustermans - Portrait of Galileo Galilei, 1636.jpg would fare? -- bydandtalk 02:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats what WP:PPR is for, but I think the lighting emphasizes the cracks more than is necessary to the point it's almost distracting to the overall artwork. — raekyT 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


Just FYI, due to a coronal mass ejection, an aurora will be visible throughout much of the world on August 4-5. It is expected to be visible in latitudes greater than 45-50 degrees (according to our article), for any photographers that have a chance. Jujutacular talk 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this really featured?

Found it trolling through Wikipedia

I can't find a nomination page, but it has the assessment tag. --I'ḏOne 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Try asking Dysmorodrepanis [1]. It may have simply been copied over from one of the other Haeckel images in the belief that they were all promoted. That would be a very easy mistake to make. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left him a note on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
He replied and I removed the tag. I don't think we really need a delist nom for this... J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
If it was never promoted, then no. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Then that's that. Wasn't sure, thanks. --I'ḏOne 08:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Motorbike rider mono.jpg

According to the caption on the FP page, this has EV for its usage in motion blur, but it is only used in a gallery, and is hardly representative. Other than that, it's only used in lists. Does anyone have any idea of how to use it? The quality's clearly there, it would be a shame to have to delist it. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was also promoted for inclusion in Motocross (where it stuck) and Yamaha Motor Company (where it didn't). On Motocross, it does compete with another FP. Since you were asking, I've added it to Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit. FWIW, the model of motorbike does not seem to have been identified, and the motorbike may not be in sufficiently sharp focus to illustrate the model at FP level. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Though it makes a pretty addition to the circuit article, there's still little EV there... J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I really think that if you're bent on delisting it, you should come right out and say so. It looks to me like you're pussyfooting around just so you can say, "oh and I tried and I tried, but in the end it was unavoidable". If you really want to keep this image, grow some creativity yourself and don't burden others with your inaction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I just thought it would be silly to nominate it for delisting, only to have to close it after ten minutes because someone spotted a use for it I had completely missed. There are images I strongly feel should be delisted (for instance, I strongly felt the map of Philipenes I nominated should have been delisted), but this is not one of them; I think there's nothing inherently wrong with it, there just isn't really a solid EV reason to show it off right now. I did look for an alternative usage myself, but I don't know the first thing about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the article Yamaha YZ250F because that is what it is. I (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun - August 1

What do you think about that picture?

On August 1, 2010, almost the entire Earth-facing side of the sun erupted in a tumult of activity. This image from the Solar Dynamics Observatory of the news-making solar event on August 1 shows the C3-class solar flare (white area on upper left), a solar tsunami (wave-like structure, upper right), multiple filaments of magnetism lifting off the stellar surface, large-scale shaking of the solar corona, radio bursts, a coronal mass ejection and more. This multi-wavelength extreme ultraviolet snapshot from the Solar Dynamics Observatory shows the sun's northern hemisphere in mid-eruption. Different colors in the image represent different gas temperatures. Earth's magnetic field is still reverberating from the solar flare impact on August 3, 2010, which sparked aurorae as far south as Wisconsin and Iowa in the United States. Analysts believe a second solar flare is following behind the first flare and could re-energize the fading geomagnetic storm and spark a new round of Northern Lights.

It is used in Sun and Solar flare. Hive001 contact 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at that as a possible nomination a couple of times. It's already looking like it will pass on Commons, but there are a few issues with the picture. Although large, the quality's not enormous, and I could see people getting annoyed with the little Earth. It's not as good as plenty of NASA pictures we do have, but I certainly think it would have a strong chance of passing, if you want to nominate it. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Like it. Greg L (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I really like the picture, but it's not flawless. I destroyed Earth :) on the far right and I will nominate it. Let's see how it goes Hive001 contact 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking "Encyclopedic value" seriously

It seems to have become a standard procedure at FPC to spam Wikipedia articles with the image you are nominating even if you have no idea what it is an image of, just so you can pass the encyclopedic value criteria. More specifically, it seems that every time we have a photo of a fly, beetle, spider, fossil, etc. the nominator makes a random guess as to the ID and then populates all the taxon articles with their image, even if those articles already have one or several photos that are professionally IDed. This may increase the EV of the image in question, but it is lowering the EV of Wikipedia in general. I've been complaining about this tendency for years now, and was hoping that it would die out with Fir0002's retirement, but unfortunately, it seems to be just as prominent as ever. User:Stemonitis has made a full time job out of cleaning-up after our bio image spamming. It's embarrassing that he has to be distracted from writing articles to explain to FPC nominators why their images don't belong in the articles they've been added to.

If you're not sure about an image's ID, you should not be adding it to articles without getting feedback from those article's authors (or an outside expert). And even if you are sure about an image's ID, you don't have to make it the first image of every single article it potentially belongs to. In other words, don't spam Wikipedia with your nomination. If you have to continually defend the placement of your images in various articles, it probably doesn't belong in them. Encyclopedic value should be a stable, long-lasting quality, not something that you artificially inflate immediately before the nomination. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Since you are probably referring to the Tachinidae article and Tachinidae.jpg, let me first say that the image was in no way spammed into the article. It was a part of the article for more than a year and half and I doubt something spammed in would last as long. For the sake of neutrality, I advice those interested to see Talk:Tachinidae. --Muhammad(talk) 22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, Muhammad, I believe the user is talking about me adding image in lobster article today. What a silly accusation of spamming, what an assuming of bad faith it is! I am not a specialist in lobsters. I thought it will be nice to have a high quality image of fossil lobster in the article. I've done absolutely nothing wrong. It was a good faith edit. IMO the user, who reverted it, should have explained what family the lobster from my image belongs to versus simply removing it. It is what I would have done in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Making edits in good faith is nice, but what Kaldari says is perfectly valid- "If you're not sure about an image's ID, you should not be adding it to articles without getting feedback from those article's authors (or an outside expert)". J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree, except it is not easy to know who is an article's author, and not easy to find outside experts. I added the image because I thought it was good for the article after comment by IP, and not because I wanted the image to get promoted. It is an image of a fossil of a lobster, that died 95 millions years ago. The image was removed. Nothing bad happened, and now I am outtahere.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Mbz1, I think it might be wise to keep AGF for those occasions where it's really needed. As for asking on an article's talk page, the problem I see is that there's no guarantee of getting a reply within a reasonable time - some pages just aren't being watched at all, sadly, so while I agree that we should make sure that we know what we're doing, I don't see it as an obligation to always wait for talk page responses. We have WP:BB as a central tenet for a reason. That said, I've never judged a single FPC nom on the basis of how many articles an image was included in. As long as it meets the EV bar in a single article, it's good for me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have no idea if this means a current or recent nomination, but that is not the oint anyways. Kaldari made a fairly general observation and I am very inclined to believe him. Picking one single image and try making the discussion about it is not helpful. --Dschwen 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It is about this nomination. The image has been used in fossils for a long time, then a few days ago I wrote the article Lebanese fossils, and used it there. The article was moved to Paleontological sites of Lebanon. Then during the FP nomination I added the image to Cretaceous because IMO it is the best image to show different fossils of that period, and to Nematonotus because there was no image in the article at all, and I could not find anything at Commons. Then today after a comment by IP I added it to Lobster. It was removed, and I was accused in spamming. After that Kaldari started the thread. End of the story.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I hadn't seen either your or Mohammad's FPC nominations when I got the idea to write this post. The idea was spawned by seeing User:Stemonitis's talk page. So yes, you and Mohammad triggered the idea, but I'm not trying to pick on either of you specifically. I think Fir0002 was actually the worst offender in this regard, but I still see the issue crop up on occasion. Anyway, maybe I should have postponed writing about the issue so that it wouldn't have seem so targeted. Sorry if I caused any offense. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Limited opportunity to import hard-to-access PD images from Flickr

This Mucha print can't be accessed remotely from LoC, but a nicely cleaned up version is in trialsanderrors' photo stream. There are a lot more great images in a similar situation.

Trialsanderrors, a user who used to be very active at FPC but hasn't been highly active here or on Commons for a while, has been using Flickr for the last few years to post high resolution public domain files from the Library of Congress:

Many of these images are only accessible from the Library of Congress premises, not online. The pro account is going to expire on August 14, meaning that after that these images will no longer be accessible in full resolution. For some images, there are lower quality versions on Commons already. For some, they aren't on Commons yet at all. Basically every one is a great images that should be on Commons, and a number of them might make good FPC candidates if they get imported before the full resolution files are inaccessible. Some have already been cleaned up, others not.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got a bot that could be configured to mass download and upload these images? here before the expire date? I know of programs that will mass download, but the one I've used before doesn't preserve the description and other info so it's not easy to match back up to get source... — raekyT 01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually, every TIF that appears grayed out on LoC is accessible, you just have to figure out the filing system. For example, the full res tif of the image linked at the right is located at: (77.5 MB). The trick is look at the filing system used for other similar pictures. Just make certain that the image is public domain before you use this trick, because when they don't link the TIF it's an indication that either it is not PD, or they haven't evaluated its rights status. Jujutacular talk 01:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting... useful bit if knowledge to file away. ;-) — raekyT 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting indeed! The ones on Flickr have already had varying amounts of cleanup done (cropping at least, and often detail work too), so I guess the ones with a lot of value added from the tiff are what we should focus on before the Flickr account goes dark.--ragesoss (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If anyone does mass import them, be sure to correct the licensing info (since Flickr doesn't allow normal users to tag images as PD). Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully this won't be too late, but is pretty decent. It's one-at-a-time upload but it's pretty quick. howcheng {chat} 08:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
See Commons:Village_pump#Limited opportunity to import hard-to-access PD images from Flickr. The files got uploaded, but they need cleanup and renaming.--ragesoss (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Hobgood

I think it would be possible to promote quite a few of Nick's pictures in a block without too much "air" in between. It's not like we don't have other things to be getting on with, and I haven't heard anybody say that his pictures are anything short of stellar. My only other suggestion would be to make two groups, starting with the material that's just above the bar - perhaps at the level of this and this, and then move onto the eyepoppers (thinking this, this, and this). Mind you, those are just examples, there are plenty of other nudibranchs, corals, starfishes, tunicates, etc. I could have equally well used as examples. Comments? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed, I had every intention of trawling through his work in the coming days. While the quality is supreme on many, the EV is less so on some- species not identified, lack of usage, etc. Are you wanting to do a kind of "nomination spree" or something? J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I don't see the point of artificially reducing it to a trickle, and it's true that all of this material is hugely under-represented. It just requires a bit of cooperation on the part of reviewers so they review the nominations relative to the criteria and not comparatively. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian blenny.

  • I've got a short list of images I think are good nominations already, but I'm gonna need to find/write articles for some of them. Do you want to start immediately? I strongly agree with this idea, but I worry some people won't like the nomination page being flooded. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, Mr. J Milburn, that's the whole point of having this discussion beforehand. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured image contributor

On the previous suggestion, do/should we have anything like a "featured image contributor"?--RDBury (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  • There are some of Nhobgood's that don't meet the criteria, if that answers the question, mostly for image size reasons. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Australian blenny

Thumbnail changes

A few days ago, ImageMagick was finally upgraded on the thumbnailing servers (after becoming quite out of date). The immediate effect of this is that images will now have their color profiles preserved within newly generated thumbnails. (Existing thumbnails will remain cached for quite a while.) In other words, thumbnails will no longer have slightly different colors than the original images. It also seems to me that thumbnails are now softer than they were before. I'm wondering if the sharpening option has been turned off as part of the upgrade. Can any of you confirm whether or not this seems to be the case? Do new thumbnails seem to be softer than ones generated a week ago? Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They DO seem very soft. Also, if you have your preferences set to show the largest images (1280x1024, I think?) on File description pages, they've put a hard limit of about 1 megapixel in place that breaks that completely. I've bugrepped the latter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you give a link for that? Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
[2]. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


Do you think these are worth grabbing? If you keep hitting the "+" button, you can get very large copies, but they're mostly based on classic art - the first is the most famous part of the Sistine Chapel, for instance. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be of accomplished craftsmanship. You're no doubt a better judge of whether the artist is notable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Notability is irrelevant for media on Commons. So yes I think it's worth grabbing. As for the artist, I don't know enough Portuguese to be able to figure out his name? — raekyt 15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Look at the images themselves: On the left you get something like Michaelangelo pinxit - that (roughly) means "painted it".[1] On the right you see something like Franc. Loving sculpit - that means "engraved it". Now, you'll see delin instead of pinxit sometimes; that means "drew it" (lit. delineated). All of these are late 18th, early 19th century, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows engravings - the style of that period is very distinct. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Actually, it means something like "painted by", with Latin's word order and ignoring that you haven't declined the name, but my explanation is near enough.

FP rearrangement proposal

Right, this has to do with Culture, Entertainment, and Lifestyle.

The current categories are: Culture · Entertainment · Lifestyle · Sport · Theatre

Culture is 90% religion, and the rest has no real reason it couldn't be worked into Lifestyle. What I propose is that we combine Culture and Lifestyle into "Culture and Lifestyle" and add "Religion and Mythology". Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. J Milburn (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Mostly agree. You may find that some of culture will actually fit in existing artwork categories (e.g. taming a shrew, File:Stocking factory2.jpg, File:Let alone2.jpg, File:Get fat3.jpg (still hoping we'll get a version without the damaged eye)). So yes, do go ahead. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, there's always going to be some ambiguity by the nature of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing proposal thinking: food photography

I also noticed we don't have a food category, we only have "fruits" under "plants". So animal products and processed foods (bread, cake, sweets, drinks, ...) have nowhere to go. I don't think we cover those topics very well at FPC, maybe we could have a few inaugural nominations to start up the category? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably say that goes under Culture or Lifestyle. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Food could very reasonably be its own category- I'd love to see some more food FPs. J Milburn (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Started work on this. Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Culture,_entertainment,_and_lifestyle/Religion_and_mythology is done; haven't even started trying to combine Culture and lifestyle, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This might help you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Meteor shower video (FYI)

Too bad Liveleak is copyrighted. Check out this: Perseids Meteors on Mount Rainier. Greg L (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks. --I'ḏOne 14:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Automatic count

So that we wouldn't need to always add one or however many images get promoted. I don't know entirely how it works, but this template can count everything. Is there a way we could tweak the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag to automatically count each image it's used on as one and then transclude the sum on the FP page? Or maybe make it so the FP page could transclude the number of files in the featured pictures category? --I'ḏOne 07:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The last option seems to be feasible: using the code {{PAGESINCAT:Featured pictures}} currently produces: 2,484. Notice however that this is a bit higher than the count we currently have, most likely due to FP sets, specific categorization, etc. If we cleaned up the category this may be a very good idea. Jujutacular talk 08:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is also counting the subcategories as pages in their own right? J Milburn (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed I believe that's the case. So, for instance, every file in Category:Australian featured pictures is counted twice. Jujutacular talk 08:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. We know the subcats, though, so could easily subtract them off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Sport

We currently have a large number of sportspeople in Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Entertainment, and I'm not convinced they fit. While musicians, actors, dancers (jugglers, fire-eaters...) would fall under "entertainment", I feel the sportspeople should be moved out to a category of their own. Thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sports is entertainment - it would be very difficult to argue otherwise given the examples that are in that category - most of them pros and televised. What's more pressing imo is to finally get a "vehicles" category - they're all over the place, and often in fairly nondescriptive categories, e.g. "machinery" does not make me think of cars and trains, or if it does include those things, then most of aviation belongs in there, too. There's also the unresolved issue of putting all the "outer space" themed stuff in one place. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I would have thought the majority of sportspeople do not consider themselves "entertainers"; the first aim when playing sport is not to entertain your audience (WWE style wrestling is perhaps an exception, but that's perhaps evidence that it's not actually a sport...) but to compete directly against your opponent/opposing team. The vehicles category seems sound; I've also been thinking about a "physics" category and a "meteorology" category, as that is where much of the rather spare "atmospheric optics" category would actually belong. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
The main issue with vehicles is that we have a military category. If we don't want to make things confusing, I'd suggest that we add disambiguation to some of the categories, e.g. "For military vehicles, see X". Beyond that, Land, Sea, and Air seems the obvious divisions.
Another good choice might be religion, which currently is put under Culture. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My main hope is for the categorisation to become more intuitive, and to try and classify some of the items in the categories labelled as "other" whenever there is enough material to create a new category. The issue I see with Culture is that I think the line in the sand between Culture and Lifestyles is extremely difficult to draw, and I've held an unconfirmed suspicion that the category was originally called "Culture and lifestyle", and someone came along and made an arbitrary split where none should be/have been made. I think "aircraft", "ships and boats", "railroad" and "road vehicles" would work quite well, with each category having civilian vs military subcats. And space craft should go in the space category. And you're right that cross-linking will be unavoidable. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Correction: Adam is right - land, sea, air is a good scheme to start with, because otherwise we end up with a category that has a negative definition: land-based vehicles that don't require rails. Negative definitions should be avoided. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this, it wouldn't hurt to have action-y shots separated from theatre prints. --I'ḏOne 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with that sentiment. It would be much better if we focused on classifying content by topic rather than type of media. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Newest one top or bottom?

From my experience, most FP subject pages linked from WP:FP follow the "newest at top" format. However, some may not follow this format; notably, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Space/Astronomy does not (it requests new ones be added at the bottom). Can we make them all consistent? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It should apply to all of them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm surprised it doesn't. Noodle snacks flipped everything around a while back. Maybe he forgot that page? Makeemlighter (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't so I don't know what happened there. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Adam did it unintentionally here: [4]. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, good call. I suppose I could have check the page history before blaming you. Sorry!! Makeemlighter (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
How the hell did I manage that?! Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


This category is pretty bad. First of all, the subcategory names are confusing. They should be defined explicitly. The names are cute but aren't useful. Looking back, for example, is nowhere near as clear as "View of Earth from Space" used to be. Second, some images are in places where they don't make sense. Consider the image of Buzz Aldrin's bootprint on the moon, for example. It's in the category Getting there, but Aldrin was obviously already there. A similar problem exists with the other images of people on the moon or stations in orbit: they're not getting there if they're already there. Changing the name to something more explicit, Missions or something, could fix this problem. Next, Looking out is just plain inconvenient and unconventional. It's nice to separate "Plants and moons" from "Nebulae, etc.", but it messes up the page. Every other FP category has "by Wikipedians" on top with "by others" underneath. This page has those two and then another section of Wikipedians and others underneath. Both sub-subcategories are large enough to warrant their own subcategory. This would ensure consistency and prevent that page from being a mess. Finally, Astronomy/Understanding is another bad name with a mish-mosh of things that don't belong anywhere else. Except some of them kind of do. Earthrise could be in Looking back, for example. The dual page name (Astronomy is the page name, but links point to Understanding) is confusing too. I've already forgotten what the old arrangement was, but I find it hard to believe it could have been worse than this one. Let's figure out how to fix this, please. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"Views of Earth from space and satellites" was a dangling category with an excessively long name. I think space-related images deserve to be in one top category (now) rather than three (previously). I find it very easy to assess whether a space-related image is about getting into space, looking back from space, looking out into space, or other experimental and theoretical approaches ("understanding"). I cannot think of a more intuitive classification, but feel free to make suggestions. If you want to call it "space travel" instead of "getting there", that's fine, but "Missions" is not really general enough to be future-proof - not everything we're going to want to feature will be an Apollo mission. Finally, pointing out that one image might need to be reclassified is hardly a criticism of the categorisation scheme, and it's questionable whether it merits complaining about in the first instance rather than... simply fixing it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think having one subcategory with subsubcategories is a good idea- better to keep it consistent with the style elsewhere. I do feel the "by Wikipedians/not by Wikipedians" distinction is a little archaic, but that's a different discussion. For now, we should keep it consistent in that regard. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There was no consistency previously (compare with the header structure across most other categories). Dropping the Wikipedian/Non-Wikipedian schism would actually be incredibly useful, and why not throw the images/animations division in with the deal? It's not like we're particularly good at sticking to it (one of the mis-classifications has been there since the page was created). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Like I say, I agree that the distinction is not needed- it's artificial, a little childish and doesn't really offer anything of value. If we do away with it one place, we should in all. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


Can we get some feedback here that doesn't involve pretending that all FPs must look good at 220px wide, even if they aren't used at that size, because they're large landscape images? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal request

Can I request that Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/M-15 centerline 1917 be closed as withdrawn? Thank you. Imzadi 1979  17:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular talk 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also this withdrawn nom. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

More eyes at delists?

I know it's not the most exciting of things, but could we get some more eyes at the candidates for delisting? There are a lot of noms there at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of leaving a village pump message once we've combed through all the orphans and nominated where applicable. Alternatively, notify regulars if there is a quick way of doing that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Could move them up to the top for a day or two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Seriously, why not list them with the rest anyway? That should ensure a few more eyes. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's how it is done on de:FPC. They add a little icon to the delist-headings to make them more obvious. That way they get the same amount of attention as regular nominations. I find that much more convenient. --Dschwen 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This seems pretty intuitive to me. Does anyone have an objection? J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What happens with the 9-day vs 14-day periods? Will the delist noms be stacking up between the promotional noms and the "past 9 days" holding pen? Would that make the "past 9 days" holding area less useful/easy to use/obsolete? Would it be smarter to change delist noms to 9 days? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
We could keep them in the pen, as it were, but if we're listing them with the rest, we probably wouldn't need the longer commenting/voting period. J Milburn (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you want to put alien objects in the pen, and changing to nine days makes more sense to me than opening another holding area *after* (below) the 9 day one. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg will close in a few hours and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Buster Keaton in a few days- the consensus is fairly clear on both, but it's looking like both could be closed as the original kept simply because not enough people have chimed in. More opinions, please? J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Crepuscular ray sunset from telstra tower edit.jpg

Could someone please close this? The consensus is fairly clear (five in favour of delisting, two in favour of retention), but Papa Lima Whiskey (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to invent new rules (diff one) and edit war (diff two and diff three) to keep the nomination open, despite the fact it has been open for its allotted two weeks. No, I admit I didn't immediately notify the (retired) creator, but neither did anyone else, and that doesn't give people the right to change rules. I really don't want to fight about this, but it's not fair that PLW's bringing it upon himself to do this. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of the nomination page and Milburn's talk will give more info and rationale for anybody that would like to form an objective view of events. (Milburn's posts and replies are on my talk page.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is everyone? It's very difficult to deal with people like PLW when he "wins" by being the one who has no respect for our rules... J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious that fir isn't around to see the message imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's irrelevant; it's not up to us to decide. As an example, J Milburn also failed to notify Michel Vuijlsteke, the restorer of the image in this delist nomination, even after he was reminded. Looking at Michel's sparse editing, you'd think that was justified. I made the notification myself, and Michel was there two days later to comment. There's no rule that says one has to have high activity levels in order to be "around"; it was his work, he's earned the right to be notified, regardless of what his contributions on a single project might suggest. Maedin\talk 09:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, like I said, others were welcome to notify Fir of the discussion, but did not, and, though I don't personally see it as so important, I appreciate that others do, and so I now do it immediately. None of this has anything to do with PLW making up his own rules or unilaterally enforcing them (with edit warring, in this case), especially on a nomination where the outcome is not what he wanted, which he should not be doing, and not something that we as a community should be tolerating... J Milburn (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't commenting on that, I was replying to Noodle. Maedin\talk 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


This is half a vote short of the five-support quorum, with no opposes. That's an annoying situation to be in 24 hours before it closes. Anyone want to have a look? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

War: What is it ^the categorization we have now good for?

Frankly, Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History is a bit of a mess. WWI and WWII are alright, but everything else just gets lumped into some form of other.

We can work on history in general later, but let's start with the easy one: War. War is divided into WWI, WWII, and Other.

Wars tend to be fairly well-defined, making this category ideal for being split up. I propose: A. All wars with 6 or more images gain their own category (dates included, for convenience). B. The Other pages gains headers by war, e.g. American Revolution, War of Jenkins' Ear, etc, with the images placed below each. An Other section can be used to catch any isolated skirmishes.

This should make our pages much easier to use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, to this end, I'm going to try and push forwards with more FPCs for the three best-covered uncategorised wars: the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, and the American Civil War. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not push for some on wars we don't cover at all? J Milburn (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Because I think, sometimes, we concentrate a little too much on variety, at the cost of never gaining adequate coverage for any particular subject. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got to say - the fact that we have over a year's POTD backlog doesn't particularly encourage balancing our material. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, my latest upload was from the Siberian War, so you can consider my statement in light of that. It's more that intend to do some more coverage of wars that interest me, mixing it in with other things. Might try and get the Boer War and Zulu War as their own categories too. Anyway, back on topic, can I presume consent for my FP-categories rearrangement proposal? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the proposal is sound. We should talk again about dropping the Wikipedian/Non-Wikipedian split, I think there is potential for a bot to do the heavy lifting of putting things in chronological order. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, most categories are almost completely dominated by one or the other - For example, History is pretty much entirely non-Wikipedian (obviously), Animals mostly Wikipedians. There's only a few categories, like People, where the distinction is meaningful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, be done with it. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Note of upcoming absence

Not going to be around much for three weeks starting Monday. Have relatives visiting. So, yeah, don't expect this massive outpouring of FPCs to last much longer =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:François Lafon - Bazeilles (1870).jpg

Two days left, and it's at 4 supports, no opposes. Make your decisions, lads, because I'm far too scatterbrained to remember to renominate in a month or two =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


May have gone a little overboard with restoration and nominations this week. Was too ill to leave the house much, so I just did restorations, and when one was done, started another. The worst part? I have about 4 more I did, but were either too small or the original was too damaged to make a worthy FPC. (And one that was pretty good, but which I decided to hold off on a bit, due to similar content to the Russell images. Only time I showed restraint all week, I think.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a new template for retouchers

We have {{subst:UploadedFP}} for creators and {{subst:PromotedFPC}} for nominators, but nothing for others who contribute to or tweak media that gets promoted. Maybe we should have something like:

Media edited by you has been promoted to featured picture status
The file with alterations you provided, [[:{{{1}}}]], gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! ~~

BTW I put "media" instead of "image" because we do sometimes have other types of media, like video clips, that come through FPC. --I'ḏOne 01:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The word "media" really doesn't make sense at all here. I've thought for a while that it might be nice to have a template for restorations, crops, etc., but I figured the creator one was good enough since the editor technically does create a new file. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Charles Marion Russell - The Custer Fight (1903).jpg, Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cattle_Round-up, and Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/File:Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade2.jpg

Do me a favour and put these into FPC urgents (if needed) in a day or two: I'm going to be busy with relatives, and have very little wiki-time, even ignoring the many overnight trips. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Earl Roberts delist nomination

After two weeks with only 2 delist votes, I closed this delist nomination as Kept. Howcheng raised the point at my talk that it should probably be an automatic delist because the image isn't used in any articles. I tend to agree with him, but I'm not comfortable ignoring the shortage of votes. Ideally, 3 or 4 people will chime in here and say "yeah, can that one" and we can change the result to Delisted. I suppose it could also be re-nominated for delisting, but if it only got 2 votes after the two weeks, I'm not sure how likely it is to get more votes during another run. Any thoughts? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Should be delisted, as Howcheng said. It wasn't in an article at the start of the nomination, wasn't in one at the end. Everyone who Common sense, really. Everyone who voted supported its delisting, and Cowturner, who didn't vote, agreed that "it's looking like we're moving towards a consensus to delist". J Milburn (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I put my official delist vote in now? :) howcheng {chat} 21:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but we'd still be short of 5. I don't really have a problem with delisting it; I just don't like the precedent it sets. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
It's still not used in an article- retaining it would be stupid. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Add me to the delist camp. --Avenue (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Result changed to delisted. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Resuming suspended nomination

I am not sure why this diff happened, but I am trying to resume a suspended nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Moved back up to current nominations. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Commons QI

If anyone is familiar with Quality images at commons, I would like some advice on seaching by promotion date. I.E., How could I find new images promoted in July or August.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC) or , etc. Jujutacular talk 13:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Milestone coming up: 2,500!

We're at 2481.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change of wording for delist notifications


"Please leave a note on the talk pages of the original creator/uploader and/or FPC nominator to let them know the delisting is being debated."


"Please notify the original creator/uploader and FPC nominator about the delist discussion, in the place most likely to get their attention."

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A note on the English Wikipedia user talk page is enough, that's all any other process requires. It's not the responsibility of people nominating something for delisting to start emailing or posting on websites they may not use (perhaps even other projects on which they are blocked...), which seems to be what "in the place most likely to get their attention" implies. Other projects and sites could very reasonably get annoyed that their contact pages are being abused, and people could very reasonably get annoyed that they are being contacted about an English Wikipedia issue, which they may not even care about. We have user talk pages for a reason- let's use them, and keep it at that... J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Feedback please :)

thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be glad to vote on the image if you change the license :) Kaldari (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The unscaled, high resolution version is enough of a give away ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I personally do not see the point of GFDL-Licensing. Even with CC-BY-SA I have enough people contacting me about paid non-attribution licensing. --Dschwen 18:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, that's been my experience too. I'm sympathetic to protecting images from commercial exploitation but I'm not convinced that GFDL-only really helps that much. As I've said before, I think those who are going to rip our images off have no respect for the license terms to begin with, and most companies interested in commercial use are unlikely to be satisfied with CC-BY-SA either, so they will usually negotiate a price. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Won't be doing much...


I've done three restorations,a nd have absolutely no desire to upload them due to how I was treated. Maybe Wikipedia will see them one day, but for now, I'm bowing out. Take care! Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see you later. --Dschwen 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Two comments

Two comments:

  • The whole-month pages get very very large. I have a good connection, so I pity anyone without. The scrollling is awkward. Any chance of week-long pages?
  • I'm no expert at images, but I wonder about some of the promotions this week. There are 19 promotions from Saturday to Friday. It's quite a lot.

There, that was brave of me to say so. Tony (talk) 06:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently on a mediocre connection and the archive pages only take a couple seconds to load for me. As for the number of promotions, what would you propose changing? Jujutacular talk 01:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
As for the number of promotions, I think it's a combination of two factors. We've had a lot more participation in recent months, and standards have been dropping lately. Lots of promotions isn't necessarily a bad thing. I encourage you (and everyone) to comment or vote on images that you think don't measure up. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
In what way do you feel standards have been dropping? They're still a lot higher than they have been. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Since you haven't specified a time period, I'm not sure whether to disagree with you. Standards might be higher than five years ago, but they certainly haven't been particularly high recently. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Slow loading

Is anyone else having their computer slow down when they load the page? Whenever I go to FPC, my computer seems to do a "not responding" thing, but if I wait 10 seconds or so, then it loads. SpencerT♦C 20:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Try purging the page cache, FPC has a lot of data in it: --I'ḏOne 23:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
That actually helps! Thanks, SpencerT♦C 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidate/vasco da gama bridge

This page has been left open since 2006 and hasn't been closed in four years. I suspect that it was because there was no transclusion onto the main page. Is there somebody here who is good at closing FPCs that could help? I don't know how to do it myself, I'm afraid. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking for. It's in an archive, and as far as I can see, there's nothing left to do because the image was deleted. link to archive. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Nevermind then, I didn't see the closing notes. Thanks for the link. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor suggestion for FPC close

That we give the closer of non-promoted images the option of adding the {{FPCold}} tag. There's only ~100 former featured pic noms in that category and there's obviously more than that. My suggestion looks like this, I changed the procedure and reverted it just to demonstrate - see point 6. --I'ḏOne 08:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

We should also get a template that indicates that a file's been nominated for FP delisting. Slightly more work because it's two steps each time - adding at start of nom and removing after it's been closed, but it would be useful for watchers of the file, and afaik every other similar project uses these. Also makes watchlists a bit more useful. Perhaps it's one of these things that we had once and then forgot about... Looking into the future, we should end up with an equivalent of the "article milestones" template, {{ArticleHistory}}; for example usage, see Talk:Archaeology. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thinking about your idea again, does that really need a template, or is a category enough? Because you can always find the nomination from the "what links here" part of the page. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, never seen that template, but it seems to be about the same idea. I don't really know why, but just categorizing an image on Wikipedia seems to be deprecated. For instance I created this category and at its peak it had like 50 images and counting, but users with deletion privileges removed most of the images in it and one said it was a better option just to categorize them on Commons - so it seems Wikipedia's not in favor of creating image pages just to categorize them, but doesn't seem to mind if an image is tagged. I think it's a good idea to have an image tagged so that if a person considers nominating an image they know to check the old nomination first to see if it's worth it or not. BTW the FPCold template automatically categorizes the image, forgot to mention that.--I'ḏOne 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference between project-specific maintenance categories (which this would be), and content related categories that have relevance across projects (your example). --Dschwen 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Instead of a template in the file, which I'm not arguing against, wouldn't it be easier to just modify {{FPCresult}} to put the FPC page in a category based on if it was Promoted or Not Promoted... I presume that that template has been consistently used for a very long time, so just modifying that one template it would categorize all those pages automatically. Then someone could go back and tag the individual images with these templates if we want too. — raekyT 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
We used to have something like this that was deleted. Not sure why we'd want to bring it back. It looks like you added it to the closing instructions. I'm going to undo that pending further discussion. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Two more delist noms short of 5

Maybe we need a new system for delisting. Here are Exhibit A and Exhibit B in favor of that. Neither image is used in article space, the number one criterion for becoming a FP. But neither one got 5 votes to delist. I'm inclined to delist both, but I wanted to bring the issue up here to prevent controversy. So is it okay to delist them? Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is, because a version of each is used in the respective article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
As replacement candidates, in the absence of sufficient interest, the default can fall to replacing with the versions used in articles, not delisting (assuming the files are essentially the same, with adjustments). If that outcome is unsatisfactory, then the replacements can be nominated for straightforward delisting. Maedin\talk 11:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Both should definitely be delisted; as for replaced, I don't know. We've got a strong precedent of not promoting with just four supports; I don't think we should let "replacing" an image be easier. Why not delist (as the images clearly need to be delisted, regardless of whether they are replaced), and then nominate the proposed replacements the regular way? In any case, I think the best way forward here is to start listing delist noms with the rest, so they get that little bit more attention. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you're considering these "promotions"; they're not, it's a transfer, procedural and administrative, which is why they don't go through the usual promotion process. The FP status is essentially valid, as it always was, with a minor tweak that simply means the original has been bumped out of article space. If editors were aware at the time of swapping the images, these issues would be taken care of without a fuss at the time. It's not an opportunity to push through a non-consensual delist. I realise you think the power station should be delisted, which is fine, but it's not an appropriate conclusion in this scenario, without sufficient like-minded votes. Like I said, default to replace: if we don't like that outcome, we can nominate it for delisting. Maedin\talk 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why on Earth is the default to replace? Is the default to promote at a normal nom? To delist at a delist nom? An image is being promoted to FP status. That's an issue. An image that was previously a FP no longer meets the criteria. That's an issue. There are two issues, and need to be dealt with appropriately. Clearly, the images need to be delisted, but there is no clear consensus to promote, which, in the past, has been a big deal. Again, why not just run the that were proposed as replacements through the normal procedure? J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I think the power station should be delisted, as it is not actually used in the article space. As do you, according to your vote. I have no opinion on its replacement being promoted (I didn't even directly oppose promotion...), which was the difference between the two of us. J Milburn (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm. I think the root of our difference of opinion here is this, your comment: "An image that was previously a FP no longer meets the criteria." That's not what's happening. An image that IS a featured picture has been edited and, out of respect for the way we do things, uploaded as a separate file. We could say that moving the star to the new version is the same as someone having uploaded over the top. To make this a little more contemporary, if I found a dust spot on a recently promoted mushroom pic, fixed it, uploaded it, swapped the images in the articles, and then did a delist and replace and only four people voted D&R, you think it should default to delist? You're saying that the same pic, minus a dust spot, should be run through FPC again, two weeks after promotion. I think the fact that the power station is a good delisting candidate is a distraction; forget about that bit, :) Looking at the bigger picture, it seems obvious to me that the "not used in article space" is a red herring whenever a version of the image is being used instead. I am not opposed to defaulting to delist if the file, and no edits of it, aren't used in any articles and can't be found a home, but that's not the issue here. Maedin\talk 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a question of what counts as "a new version of an image", I guess. That argument certainly holds strenth in these delist noms, but, for instance, wouldn't in the recent kiwi nom, where it was very much two different photographs that merely shared subject matter. Personally, I would agree with what you're saying, apart from the fact that delist and replace noms are used for the other type, where that argument holds no water. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It does get a bit murky, granted, and I didn't mean to suggest that it's always straightforward. I agree that some delist and replace noms don't fit into this, as you've said, the argument is null in some cases. But I also think that we can fairly easily determine whether or not the replacement is the "same image with adjustment" or actually just a different picture of the same subject. For example, I don't think that the circle strafing nomination, had it not received enough votes, would qualify for a default replace. Presumably, closers would be able to work within this okay, and any borderline cases can be discussed here. And hopefully, there shouldn't be that many times where a "default option" needs to be enacted, particularly if we can get delists off the bottom and start them socialising with all of the other candidates—that would be good, as would some other options for page reorganisation. Maedin\talk 13:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I guess this is all moot since both were closed as kept. I'll probably be bold later tonight and delist them both, though. As far as replacements go, I'm not sure, but it just doesn't make sense to keep images that aren't used in articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. With all due respect, keeping those images was nonsensical, bordering on the idiotic. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that's absolutely the wrong option, particularly for Glaucus atlanticus. All four votes were to replace. If it were a proper delist nom and the image was being used in an article, it would be kept. There is no reason not to transfer the star to the version used in the articles. Maedin\talk 06:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially when it's a delist and replace involving an alleged improvement of the same existing, common sense should prevail since we're really just discussing which image is better, not so much whether it meets the criteria. Maybe J Milburn meant it was nonsensical to not delist and replace though? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 09:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant nonsensical to keep the original- replacing or just delisting would be a far better options. In these cases, I do agree with you. I've let IdLoveOne know about this thread. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thought so. It might even make sense to make the process more informal for a delist and replace involving an obviously improved version of the same image. Just a couple of 'yep, agreed' should be enough to pass it, rather than running it through the gauntlet and having it fail due to lack of interest. Obviously it doesn't apply to D&R involving completely different images. But I guess that we're in danger of complicating FPC by introducing too many exceptions to the rule. If only everyone had the same concept of common sense, we'd all get along so much better. :-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think something we do all agree on is that delist noms should now be put through with the rest of them- does anyone disagree with that? I'm seeing a generally positive vibe towards the idea. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The question I started pondering is whether the page really needs a more comprehensive overhaul - for instance, where each nomination is hyperlinked through its primary thumbnail, rather than being transcluded outright. It would look more like the FP thumbnail archives with bigger thumbnails, and linking to nominations rather than image descriptions. It would be easy (in fact, probably easier) to make the changes you're suggesting at the same time. We might be able to obsolete the FPC urgents template at the same time, too, for instance by adapting the javascript-based nominations viewer. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok- well, do you want to make a formal proposal or something? In the mean time, would you have an objection to delists being listed with the rest of them? J Milburn (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Iirc, the matter of the holding pens hasn't really been worked out yet, has it? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, coming to this late. Putting the delist noms with the rest of them might be problematic. Delist noms run for 2 weeks so would pile up on the bottom where they wouldn't get attention anyway. It might make closing confusing too since you couldn't just close up from the bottom. Not huge problems but ones to consider. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but I think if we were moving them to be with the rest, we would, at the same time, cut down the nomination time to be inline with normal noms. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


There are a lot of delist nominations currently outstanding- more eyes would be good if possible. J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Agreed. They're not as glamorous as promotions, but equally important. Just a thought regarding consensus on them: when we are promoting images and they do not reach the 5 votes needed for status we assume that lack of interest means they are not worthy to be FPs. It then stands to reason that if a delist nomination does not reach 5 keeps, it is not worthy of the star either. Maybe we should reverse the quorum so that if nominated for delisting the default decision would be a delist, and not a keep. While there are possibilities for abuses in this system I think we can all agree to act responsibly. Cowtowner (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's faulty deletionist reasoning. Oppose. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • What's faulty in this situation is ignoring important criteria such as EV and quality in the name of bureaucracy. Cowtowner (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem lies in the lack of participation. If a nomination defaults to delist, then nobody paying attention would mean delist. And 4 keep votes would also mean delist. It's unfortunate that the delist process doesn't efficiently deal with unused or outdated images, but defaulting to delist is not an effective solution to this problem. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony

Since the issue was raised at my talk page and the nomination page, I figured I should bring it here. The nomination received 6 support votes, 3 oppose votes, and 0.5 weak oppose votes. That adds up to -1 (63%), short of our 2/3 requirement. I can't recall seeing anything with less than 2/3 support being promoted, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Typically, exactly 2/3 is even borderline. Anyway, with some minor restoration work, this can probably pass (all opposers mentioned dust). Any comments? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward: it has less than 2/3 support, therefore no promotion. On a side note I may have time for a restoration soon and may be able clean this one up. Jujutacular talk 02:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I personnaly dont like the 2/3 requirement beacuse I think if it has more supports then opposes it means that people agree with the picture and it should be promoted. Also if you could restore the photo juju it would be appreciated beacuse i dont know how. Spongie555 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it's always required a 2/3 majority - we're already counting the nominator into that, too, which I personally think is ridiculous. Imo, we're already slightly over-promoting at the moment, which somebody else recently complained about. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone wants to they can re-nominate it at a future date. I really do think that image strongly deserved to be featured (I always wonder, is a "strong support" supposed to be more than 1 vote since a weak support is half? I always just count them as 1) - such high quality for the time it was taken, preserved so well, large in resolution, and a very interesting process, too, those type of images required silver.
I also have to say I think the 2/3 rule is important. Greg L keeps beating over our heads the number of FPs we have, so I sort of agree that we should make sure a pic is strongly enough liked so we don't get overrun. It's a bit of a pain when a good one slips through on a technicality, but fair's fair, they all have to play by the same rules. --I'ḏOne 08:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no strong feelings either way, but I think it lacks the two thirds, and I don't see a reason to ignore that at this time. Seems the consensus here is fairly clear- could we have it delisted? J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If you're still talking about Susan B. Anthony, then she's not listed yet, unless I missed something. As for strong supports, afaik they've always been taken as a 1, and I don't see a good reason to change that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's a complete idiot moment on my part. I read it as promoted... Nope, no objection from me. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Two promoted

J Milburn disagrees with me on the categories I placed these images (this one here instead of here and this one here instead of here) and I explained to him why I put them there on my talk page, but here's the meat of the discussion:

Can I ask why you put that in US history? The picture is being used to illustrate him, and, as was suggested uncontroversially in the nom, it should really be in People/Entertainment... J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And I've just seen Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ambondro mahabo, which does not belong in biology. It is used to illustrate the mammal genus/species, not some abstract biological concept. Again, mammals was uncontroversially suggested in the nom. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not an animal, it's only an especially small fragment of what was once an animal and arguably not even a very major part of its body; A jawbone can't illustrate a whole animal, unless maybe you're a forensic scientist, even though that's the image used in the infobox. I put it in biology because that section contains far more images of examples of anatomy than Animals (presumably mammals) does, which has more images of full creatures which is how it should be. The Charlton Heston photo doesn't show him doing anything for an entertainment purpose, he's attending and presumably supporting a historic movement. It's true people remember him mainly for his acting, but the picture shows a different aspect of his life. --I'ḏOne 16:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, the point is that these images are being used to show those things. The jaw fragment is being used to show the animal (it's all we have of the animal) and the Heston photograph is being used to show him. Further, as I said, both were listed as the category in the nom, and were completely unchallenged. The first (although it happened years ago) is not illustrating anything historical, it's illustrating the person, and the second, though it shows a piece of an animla and not a whole animal, is not illustrating anything related to biology, it's illustrating the animal. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

So what do others think? If someone else wants to move those images to different sections they can go right ahead, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. --I'ḏOne 08:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Milburn. The biology example would be more arguable if it were included in evolution of mammals or some such, but the entertainment example is clear. Maybe you should sometimes follow advice that people give you, and take on board feedback that you receive. You're currently involved in several disputes. Might be time for some reflection. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well the question "why even bother with FPC when everyone wafts in with their own definition of 'encyclopedic value' and stubbornly disputes and nitpicks every little thing?" has certainly been drifting through my head if that's what you mean. --I'ḏOne 09:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It would have been a simple thing to just change the category. Six edits in total by my count. In fact, Milburn could have uncontroversially done that himself imo. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Thanks Makeemlighter. IdLoveOne, I'm being completely serious here, you suggest that "everyone wafts in with their own definition" of EV, but it is you who has completely gone against the flow here- we cannot judge pictures on their own merits, they have to be judged in the context of the articles in which they have been used. The categories I suggested were suggested by respective nominators (yes, one of them was me...) and not mentioned in the nomination- a classic case of silence meaning consensus. Then two other people agreed with my reasoning here. You really aren't in a position to claim that I have strange or unusual views about how this should work. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/USA History is an appropriate location for File:Charlton_Heston_Civil_Rights_March_1963.jpg. While the photograph itself does not illustrate the civil rights march or the civil rights movement, it is a classic, iconic illustration of Charlton Heston's involvement in the civil rights movement. It is in fact a historic photograph and reasonably belongs in a historical category. Tim Pierce (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That said, is it written in stone that a FP cannot be placed in more than one Wikipedia:Featured pictures subpage? Tim Pierce (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Not exactly written in stone - people take different views on it. Committing to one category just removes one extra step when we do a census exercise like we did recently, where we compare contents of Category:Featured picture with the contents of subpages of WP:FP. I also suspect there is a sliding slope condition lurking - there's already a group of people who complain when images are used on too many articles. Lastly, when we add an FP to one of the available categories, we choose a "containing article", usually the article where the image has highest EV, and basically say that the picture was promoted for inclusion in that article, by writing "Article, by ..." or "[Detail] at/in Article, by ..." - this gives Howcheng/other POTD contributor a clue of how the image could be used there. I would expect that the article that is indicated will usually fall into one of the categories. In the case of Charlton Heston, the image isn't currently being used in a history-related article, so it doesn't really make sense to cram it into that FP category. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with PLW- Tim, we cannot judge the pictures on their own merits, they have to be judged in context. In the same way, painted portraits being used to show people go in people, while painted landscapes being used to show the painting go in painting, not in places. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I understand and I agree. What I'm saying is that I think the historic context of this photo is what gives it encyclopedic value -- that, despite the lack of visual context in the frame, this is as much a photo of the civil rights movement as it is of Charlton Heston. Unfortunately for me, I can't find any links or references to a critical analysis that supports that position, so I won't continue to push it. (In a Google Image search for "civil rights march photos", this image is one of the only ones that comes up several times in the first couple of pages, which I think is suggestive of the iconic role this photo plays, but that alone doesn't make my point.) Tim Pierce (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious User- User talk:Foldedwater

I don't usually want to razz newcomers to FPC, but the user only has 19 edits, 14 of which are to FPC. (First 6 edits were to FPCs). I usually note this straight on nominations in small print, but with multiple nominations, I didn't want to edit each one. I'm sorry if I seem accusatory to Foldedwater, it's just I've seen similar FPC-only sock spam accounts before and the editing stats ping a warning light. SpencerT♦C 01:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps bring up the matter with a checkuser? J Milburn (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Did, and it was Denied--Talktome(Intelati) 01:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the results of that. I was just giving a heads up to closers in case something fishy happens (not that anything fishy would happen). Sometimes single-FPC contributors make good points in a nomination, that cannot be discounted just because they only have one edit, and that at an FPC. SpencerT♦C 03:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

FP categories reorganisation

As it's been suggested a few times without opposition, I've started reorganising the featured picture pages to sort by chronological order only, removing the outdated "Wikipedian" and "Others" split. So far I've finished Wikipedia:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds and will carry on with the rest, assuming no one has overwhelming reasons why I shouldn't, :) I've been kindly written a script that makes the chronological sorting less time-consuming than doing it all manually, so hopefully the whole job won't take too long to do. Maedin\talk 10:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, nice work! J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Are you going to change the bit of the instructions where it says to sort them into the two categories? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, done now. Thanks both, :) Maedin\talk 22:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Maybe I missed this, but what's the reason for doing so? I'm not opposed to the change, just curious. Makeemlighter (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the general feeling was that it has outlived its usefulness. Probably great to motivate Wikipedians when we weren't contributing 90% of the images, but now it's just extra hassle, and anybody that's curious enough can still see where the image came from, by the text underneath it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've never really been sure what the point was of splitting it, but it gives the impression that importance is placed more on one source than the other, which isn't true—I think both are equally valued now. The segregation also distorts the amount of work and time that it takes Wikipedians to find, upload, OTRS, restore, nominate, and otherwise edit work that is "by others". For me a compelling reason is that it screws up what is good and useful chronological order. "Newest on top" loses a lot of its meaning when the promotion dates at the top of the two sections are sometimes so different from each other. Maedin\talk 18:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. As I said, I'm not opposed to the change, I'm just curious. I agree that we value both, but I can recall a time when we saw some oppose votes based on an image not being taken by a Wikipedian. That is, higher quality was expected from non-Wikipedian images. I wonder if the separation dates as far back as the time when we allowed fair use images. That might make sense, but I've done too much fishing lately to do any more. Anyway, thanks for doing this. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination procedure

I've made a draft for changes to the "nomination procedure" section of the FPC header. See User:Jujutacular/FPC header draft. Mainly just a vertical space-saver, and also cuts down on instruction creep. Thoughts? Jujutacular talk 05:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A diff would help. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Diff for nomination procedure. Jujutacular talk 11:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm okay with the vertical space saver, and I'm not going to weigh in against the omission of the link to PPR. I don't see any other changes. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
My initial motivation for change was to remove the 'edit' links from the sections in the header, so that they don't appear in the table of contents, which would also save space. Jujutacular talk 14:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I like the change, improved clarity and nicer aesthetically. I'm in favour of getting rid of the "too complicated?" paragraph, as you've done, but think a mention still needs to be made of PPR. I don't see the harm in making people aware of a less formal option, if they're hovering over the create button. It can be short and sweet, perhaps even wrapped in small tags, something like, "For specific advice on criteria and feedback on images, please post at WP:PPR first." Yes, no? Maedin\talk 12:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes! I've been saying for a while that we need more exposure for PPR. I'd also like to see a more prominent spot for FPC urgents. I feel like people just scroll right past it. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed these comments! Where would we like to see the PPR mention and FPC urgents? Jujutacular talk 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The PPR mention could go in Step 1. I'd like to see it small, personally, but not too bothered. I don't have any good ideas on what to do with FPC urgents, but I think the box should be bigger, landscape instead of portrait, placed left, hidden whenever it's not populated, and perhaps bolder in terms of bg/colour. I realise that it's transcluded on other pages, though, including user pages, so making big formatting changes like that might inconvenience others. I'm not au fait with templates, but perhaps the actual content could be removed from the templates, and two templates make use of the data: one changed for FPC page "notice me" format, and the other as now. Whaddya guys think? Maedin\talk 12:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I have made the changes: [5]. I'll see if I can get something going as an alternative 'FPC urgents' template. Jujutacular talk 14:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
A proposal for that was made here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Messier 51

We recently promoted this image of Messier 51: File:Messier51 sRGB.jpg (nom). What we didn't notice is that we already have it featured: File:Messier51.jpg (nom). The more recent promotion is sRGB, but the other has higher resolution. Would we like to informally agree to delist the non-sRGB version, the smaller version, or would we like to discuss it in a delist and replace nomination? Alternatively, we perhaps could combine the best of both files into one (while wondering why that hasn't already been done). I figured if I went straight for a delist and replace, things would get messy, so we could brainstorm our preferences here first. Maedin\talk 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

  • It's trivial to convert the non-sRGB version to sRGB. Sounds like that's the logical thing to do. It doesn't have to be one or the other... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Both versions are well-established as they are. Converting the older one to sRGB would make the other redundant, and I'd feel obligated to tidy the mess (not necessarily possible, even with a lot of effort). Then again, perhaps no one else considers it a big deal, :) Maedin\talk 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Eurgh. Tricky. We almost certainly shouldn't have both featured, I can say that much... J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


user:Foldedwater is a confirmed sock of a banned user. I provided the information in case you believe his votes on current nominations should be removed,and old nominations, in which his votes made a differences, should be revisited. I personally do not care one way or another, and not going neither to comment here again nor of course strike out his votes. I only would like to mention that in the last few months the user created quite a few socks some of which voted on FP nominations. So, if somebody notices a suspicious "new" user, who votes on FP, the info I provided should be taken into account.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Afaik (I will check), none of his/her other accounts were active on the same FPC nominations that Foldedwater commented on, so no adjustments would be needed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
As a rule, the edits of banned users are reverted straight off, basically meaning all votes are invalid. I'm not gonna take any action personally, but I can see how others would be justified in doing so. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Franklin.vp (the username by which we first knew this user at FPC) is not banned, nor is Abisharan, the primary (first?) sock he used to cause disruption. Abisharan is blocked only. However, we didn't strike Abisharan's votes and don't see why we would do so to Foldedwater's. The user primarily has a gripe against Mbz1, but as Foldedwater, he hasn't voted on any of her nominations and I don't think there is sufficient cause to strike his FPC comments. Maedin\talk 11:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
If Franklin.vp is not banned, why was Foldedwater blocked? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexz Johnson FP

Hi. This image of Alexz Johnson as Jude Harrison was recently promoted at FPC. It is an edited version of the originally nominated image. Despite some disagreement, the consensus clearly pointed toward this edit as the image deserving of the FP star. FPC closing procedure dictates that the promoted image replace any alternate version in article space. I did so here and here. Both of these changes were undone less than two hours later with the reasoning that that image is "not the accurate representation of the charachter [sic]" ([6], [7]). Due to the lengthy discussion during the nomination, I suspected this might happen, so I checked back a few days later. At this time, I undid the reversions, noting that "FPC consensus was for the white balance edit" ([8], [9]. I just checked back this evening and noticed that the replacement has again been reverted with the reasoning "Innaccurate image not appropriate" ([10], [11]). I'd like some input on which image should be in the article. FPC decisions do not take precedence over decisions by an article's editors, but the clear consensus was that the edit is the better image. I have no preference, and I will gladly leave the original if that's actually preferred. Housekeeping for FPC, however, compels me to deal with this issue, since an image that is not in article space cannot be a Featured Picture. I would appreciate any input you can offer. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jfitch, who did those reverts, was not involved with either article prior to the FPC. I think it's therefore safe to say that the issue he has arises from the outcome of the FPC, where consensus ruled against him, so the correct action is to implement the consensus, and reinstate the edit favoured at FPC. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This is a rather messy situation. Edits to an article can not be reverted on the grounds that a certain version of the image is featured- the use of an image must be determined on the article talk page as per normal. It would then be FPC's responsibility to feature the version used or none- not the other way around. J Milburn (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion at FPC is not what is used to determine what the lead image in an article should be, and it never has been. I clearly stated my views that I believe the photograph should recieve FP status, however as it has been decided otherwise then it's not my place to push it any further, other people decided that they wanted to create something else that they could give the star to, then I've said my piece and let it be. Now my issue was with these new images, and more importantly how they were used. They were just dumped in the articles without a thought, these are totally different images, and the fact that the caption wasn't even changed just shows it really wasn't thought through. These images are now innacurate in both representing character, and also to what the caption states, therefore although featured, they have no place in the article, unless your going to put them in under 'Wikipedians idea of what the actress behind this character should look like' as that is what they are. It was an edit made simply to satisfy views at FPC of what the image should look like in order to recieve the star, it was not an improvement to the original image, it's a new image. The fact that you don't want to feature the image is fine, but these new 'edits' have no place in the articles. JFitch (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
We had a long discussion where you had the opportunity to express your views, and consensus was that the version without the colour cast should be featured. My suggestion and firm belief is that the reason we bother to establish consensus at all is on an agreement that we'll abide by the consensus once formed, and in this case the consensus is so recent as to not merit rediscussion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion was about how the image should look in order to achieve the FP star. It was not at all about which image is most appropriate for the article. When the image was created it wasn't placed into the article, because it was made simply for the req's of FP, and it was not a suitable image for the articles. This is still the case. JFitch (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion was explicitly about what is an accurate representation of the subject, we discussed both articles and how the EV in each would be affected by applying a white balance correction. Strong points were made by Peter Karlsen at the nom, and by Makeemlighter just below at 21:42, 8 October 2010. You have neither a consensus nor a new, previously unconsidered argument in your favour. Everything you have said about the situation so far has already been considered during the discussion that took part at the FPC nom. Please desist from reverting to your personally preferred version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You know that I no longer have any strong feelings on the actual issue (other than that one version deserves a star) but I do not think this is the place for this discussion. A discussion should take place on the article talk page, and, if it reaches no consensus, a RfC should be started. Then the image can be delisted and replaced if necessary. You cannot make controversial edits to an article and point to a closed FPC as evidence of consensus. J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with you. Jfitch should have never started reinserting the picture without starting a discussion of it first, given that the consensus was so clearly against his unilateral action. And there's still no consensus in his favour, and he just continues - what to make of that? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that this image of the cast of Instant Star shows Alexz Johnson looking very much like she does in the edit we promoted. Most of the images I found through a Google search have similar colors. That, to me, shows that the white balance edit is an accurate representation of the character. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

After Makeemlighter started this discussion here and notified on each of the affected talk pages, Jfitch apparently decided to break up the discussion anyway, so there's now some of it on Talk:Jude_Harrison (probably the place that gets the least traffic). I invited him to rejoin discussion here, but he is ignoring the request and continuing with posting in that new location. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded here, so not ignoring your request. The simple fact of the matter is that discussions about FP issues are done here, which i am not argueing against here, Discussions relating to an articles lead image are ALWAYS held on the articles talk page. That is why the discussion should be there. JFitch (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
What you haven't perhaps realised is that the default is always to replace an article's image with the promoted version, and there would have to be good reasons that haven't been previously discussed, for an exception to be made. All of *your* concerns, however, have been discussed, in detail, at the FPC. There is no new information, and no swaying of consensus. It's just you reverting because you didn't like the consensus, nothing else. This is clearly not an article issue, since you had no interest in either of the two affected articles previously. Lastly, this is the appropriate place to discuss this because our standard procedure is being hampered by your bad attitude towards consensus, and not least because two articles are affected, both of which need to be discussed together, not separately, so centralised discussion has to happen somewhere. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Not so. This is now a discussion about the use of one file over another in two different articles. The discussions belong on the respective article's talk pages, not at this talk page, which is for discussion of featured picture candidates. The fact that one of the images in question is an FP, even when the other image was rejected as a FP, does not suddenly mean this is the talk page where it should be discussed. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought centralizing the discussion would be a good idea. Well, it is a good idea, just not the right one apparently. My bad. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I think centralising the discussion is the only constructive and correct answer in this case. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change to intro ("how to comment")

[12] Because it's easy and efficient (aka no-brainer) to just copy and paste the comment to the already wiki-linked creator on the nom if it's something like asking for additional info concerning the file - anything, basically, that isn't available to anybody except the creator. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons FP backlog

I've been complaining about this in the margin for a while now, hoping that somebody else will jump in to help with these. We have a backlog of unknown but considerable proportions, of images that are FPs on Commons, but not here. I suspect that all subject areas are affected by this, and all I've had time to do is not let the backlog of nature (biology)-themed images get much bigger than it is. Here is an outline of what I consider best practice (i.e. what I'm doing with those that come to my attention):

  1. Determine if the image is of the "encyclopaedic" type - this means, mostly, subject fully visible and in decent lighting/exposure and focus.
  2. Determine if the image is used on en-wp articles. If no, find appropriate article and insert, or create stub article with the image. If yes, determine if there are other relevant articles that it should be placed on, e.g. if it's a species, consider whether both the species and genus article should exist and carry a reasonably good image. The main point is it should have been placed and stable on one article prior to nomination - it's uncontroversial imo to create additional articles during the nomination, including those that voters may request.
  3. Wait ideally two weeks, but more realistically, about a week. Skip this step if the image has already been stable in a relevant article for a week or two.
  4. Nominate for en-wp FPC (i.e. this project).

One last point that I want to mention is that if I worked harder at this than I'm currently doing, I could relatively easily nominate about ten images a week, the majority of which will pass, this confidence deriving simply from the fact that they are already Commons FPs, which is a process with very similar standards to ours (and slightly higher in some areas), not to mention the fact that Commons FPC is a sister project with partly shared voter base.

What I've also noticed is that many Commons "Quality" and "Valued" images are similarly suitable - for instance, Nick Hobgood has been nominating several for those processes, which haven't (yet) been nominated/elevated to FP status, while some of them are quite clearly fully eligible imo (and a few have been so promoted), so there are potentially even more images that should be reviewed for eligibility.

My battlesong would be that we continue to nominate these without fear of "hogging the queue" or such like, and with the confidence that if our hordes of legitimate FP candidates require a faster process, or a redesigned page, we can discuss these in due time and come to a conclusion about what is best for the project. Also, if there's enough interest in re-reviewing Commons FPs for WP:FPC, I'm sure we could split this task among a number of us. Let's attack the backlog. Comments? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added a nomination, will add more when I find some time, :) I've been noticing for a while that Commons has been promoting many great images, several of which aren't even in use here yet (and could/should be). (And I'm still interested in a new layout for the page. We need something better than "new ones at the top, scroll 'til something bright/horrible/huge catches your eye". Change would be good. So would more noms. And reviewers.) Maedin\talk 21:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree with both of you. I do think there are a lot of Commons FPs that would not be suitable here for various reasons, but a good number (perhaps one in five?) could find a home in our gallery in time. J Milburn (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Strikes me as an overly pessimistic figure, but reviewers will tell. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a compiled list of what is there XPed and go with something like 5 noms a week from the compiled list. I agree about some of those FP, QP, VP deseriving FP here: I have found some cases where the FP on commons was on a species that had an article but absolutely no image, so if a compiled list were to be created, it could improve the chances of finding those cases. Nergaal (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Because this has been raised a few times recently, I'd just like to note a few things about captions:

  1. Captions used at FPC are not then used on articles
  2. Captions used at FPC are not then used for POTD.
  3. Captions are usually copy-pasted from article text.
    • Corollary: Since article text is more important than FPC captions, corrections should be made to article text first, and only optionally to FPC captions.
  4. Factually accurate improvements to any of "my" captions are welcome at any time. Be bold, because I suspect others feel the same.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Criterion number 7 should refer to "image description", not "caption"

Seems to be left over from yonder days. Endorsing? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Both? J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Should be both. Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually why not have the exact text as caption and image description? Most of the times the caption is better than the description, or the other way around. Nergaal (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Was discussed but not yet implemented. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly agree I've always thought the caption requirement was pointless unless you took it over to the file page. I also think the image description on the file page should be appropriately linked to relevant Wikipedia articles. I think some people are scared to do that because they don't know it's so easy to link back to Wikipedia from Commons (i.e., [[:en:Statue of Liberty|Statue of Liberty]] will link to Statue of Liberty). upstateNYer 14:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • A good caption in the articles in which the image is used is also, sometimes, important. I think it would make sense to oppose images because of poor captions in the articles in some cases. J Milburn (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC
  • How about making this official? Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really think all of that info should be in the caption, which seems to be what some people are still suggesting. I think it belongs in the image description (that's re: the people who said "both", although I'm not even sure that's exactly what they meant...) I think disagreement could possibly arise from the fact that it doesn't say whether it's referring to the caption in the article or on the nomination, and tbh, I don't know which either, but I think noms should be reasonably light-weight and people *should* definitely look at the image description page, as an absolute minimum. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing thinking about page layout

The "FPC urgents" are now in a more visible space, at the top of current nominations. The slightly altered layout of the template is made possible by a conditional clause, so that other transclusions aren't affected. The next step is to see if the template can be hidden when empty. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The answer to my self-posed question seems to be that it can work using some very brute force syntax, but it may require purging the cache each time, which would have to apparently be done manually. Not sure if this is any easier than commenting the page contents in and out each time, which also doesn't leave behind table rot (the solution I found, does). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a decent enough solution - someone will have to manually remove the FPCs anyway, they can very easily comment the entire table out in the process. Jujutacular talk 15:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's do that then. Reverted to the manual version. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to add that I don't have a strong preference over commenting out the template on WP:FPC vs commenting out the table within the template (needs more care with placing comment marks, but only one edit vs two - at least when refilling). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the urgents template should be higher in the page, similar to the wp:FLC page. Also, if it is going to remain centered, then why not list the pics in a row rather than a column fashion? Nergaal (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. The idea was to keep it intact in other places such as userpages; also, width is usually in shorter supply than height (just scroll). However, it would be possible to add a parameter to the Row template to allow it to display panoramas at greater width, with the text placed below it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. The position where it's currently placed allows anyone that jumps straight to "current nominations" to see it. FLC doesn't have that jumping link at the top, so they have to scroll through anyway (unless using a bookmark to WP:FLC#Nominations). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

A bit unrelated to the above: the page header is a bit too big. I think some of the text below the Step1/2/3 boxes should be in smaller font to emphasize the remaining one. Also, is Due to problems with disruptive canvassing, all promotion of other processes in votes will be removed. Promotion does not include directing the user to a group or pages that may help improve the featured picture candidate, such as the Graphics Lab, or mentioning awards an image has gotten elsewhere (e.g. "already a featured picture on commons"). really needed? Nergaal (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "Due to problems..." - it's not needed IMO. I support removing it. Jujutacular talk 19:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems okay to remove. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Boldly removed. Jujutacular talk 20:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to just place whole "urgent" nominations at the top? Noodle snacks (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Before this goes much further, can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/new layout and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/new layout b, which is the general direction I see things going in? Proposal b in particular shows that contextual information can be added, possibly including some kind of signage that identifies noms in need of feedback or closing. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the current layout - it lets you read lots of nominations in a short period of time. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that type of layout would require more maintenance, and attention could be skewed towards certain types of images (formatting panoramas?). Jujutacular talk 01:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It would need a bot, but it also allows returning to the current format at any time, for example should the bot ever fail. Panoramas could be formatted to take two slots. @Noodle snacks: Reading nominations is not helping us much - there are still noms that don't even get reviewed by five people. Pile-on supports are not what we need, we need each candidate reviewed, and we're only scraping the surface with our nominations, as the comparison with Commons' volume shows. Placing the attention-requiring noms at the top makes it harder for closers to tell what's going on, although the red banner helps (but sometimes needs manual cache-purging to show up). There's also the possibility that people will essentially bump-war among their favourite nominations. I think that should be avoided, which as a minimum would require that we write down clear criteria of when it's okay to bump a nom (less than five weighted opinions*, less than three and a half days to go?). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC) * comments, questions, info, and neutrals wouldn't count

TOC layout

I've played around with the instruction entries on the page and made them look almost the same; the difference is that they do not have the edit button anymore and do not get a TOC entry. This way, the TOC itself lists only actual nominations. Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Closing instructions need to be discoverable. I've reinstated these. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
But I think they can be added in a different way than now, which is kind of lost in the TOC while also clogging it up. Nergaal (talk) 08:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chlorine?

I promoted the edit, which there seemed to be a marginal preference for (I interpreted Greg's request as fulfilled by the edit), and was waiting for someone to get around to deleting the file (imo erroneously uploaded to Wikipedia by Nergaal) so that the FP star wouldn't be deleted when that happens. In the meantime, it seems that alchemist who was a contributor to the debate (and creator) decided to overrule this without discussion, which I think sets a doubly bad precedent. More often than not, I think people closing their own noms or those they've been heavily involved with, have left a message here, or even asked for a second opinion on whether it's okay. I hope alchemist will comment here (will be notified), otherwise I think the most sensible course of action will be to follow Fletcher's suggestion of suspension and hope for a clearer situation after the retake is uploaded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I and my english: my misunderstanding? But I count 1x support from Nergaal, 1x support from Purpy Pupple, 1x support from Raeky for the original. My proposal: I can upload the "copped" version over the original ... What do you mean? It was a narrow decision. Can we start the nomination again? Or cancel simple the current decision + nomination. Sorry for the trouble. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) P.S: My opinion: I don't like thousands of marginal versions of my images.
If you're going to take a new picture, then I think suspending (like aussetzen, aufschieben in German; it goes here until there is an update on the situation) is the best option because Nergaal would get a little bit of credit at the end, which I think is fair. Do you agree? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I reallly don't care about "credit"; it was just a crop, not actually a true edit. Nergaal (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, OK. Why not. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Seven orphans left to investigate

This is what's left, I checked that none of them are listed on articles one false positive, although the "what links here" is not always entirely reliable, as it turns out (I meant to say "any pages" there rather than "any files"). Your help is appreciated.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. If you're wondering how I do this, I look for the FPC nom in what links here, check what articles it was used in then, then check them. This quickly flags up most issues; chcking for talk page uses does the rest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that's the only way to do them, really. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually no consensus at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Kiwi aka.jpg

Avenue's vote was apparently counted twice. I don't think that's the way to handle this situation. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Essentially the same situation as the Earl Roberts delist nomination. The image isn't used in any articles, so it makes no sense to keep it as a FP. I figured either way I would hear about it. Delist noms have been tricky lately: they get barely any attention no matter how clearly they do or do not meet the criteria. Anyway, I'll revert if desired. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • No, your close was certainly sound. No, there was no consensus to replace, but this certainly should be delisted. This is just all the more reason to list delists with the rest of them... J Milburn (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it would be good to relist it for further discussion, or to restart the nomination from scratch. I support the idea of reorganising the layout to allow delist noms to get more attention - perhaps reorganising the page and then starting it from scratch would be the best way; alternatively we could come up with auto-delist criteria (who to notify - creator, WikiProjects etc., how long to leave it for, how to handle disputed image placements, etc.). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think a relist is necessary- the consensus looks fairly clear here. In any case, there's not really any precendent for relisting. You could run it or any of the alts through the main process, I suppose, if you feel they should be featured. Your idea about auto-delist criteria, however, is very interesting- what did you have in mind? J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • We're going to do this properly, Milburn, and I would advise you to drop your BUT I LIKE IT tactics. If the consensus is so clear, you have nothing to worry about, right? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry? J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
            • Five votes are required, but only four were given, and only three agreed on what to do. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
              • All four agreed to delist the original, the disagreement was about the alts. The original unambiguously fails our criteria, as it is not used in any articles. J Milburn (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
                • I consider the outcome unsatisfactory given that the participation that is required was not met. Makeemlighter has said he's willing to change the outcome, so I have no doubt that he'll be able to accept one of the above suggestions, all of which are perfectly harmless and will simply lead to a result that we can rely on, rather than a "one of these delist discussions is not like the others" situation. Thanks and EOD. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • So, you feel we should refeature an image not used in any articles? What's the point? Or is this just an argument for the sake of shouting at one another? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Makeemlighter made a good call here. Not used in any articles => cannot be an FP. Not worth discussing this, unless one would be discussing just to make a point... --Dschwen 17:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Discussing is what FPC is all about, and in this case, there has not been enough discussion. If we set out thresholds, we should actually meet them. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • We're not a bureaucracy. The image unambiguously failed our criteria for the two weeks it was discussed, and still does. Once again, do you actually believe refeaturing this image would be a good thing, or are you just trying to start an argument for the sake of starting an argument? J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
          • That's not what the issue is here. The issue is that anyone could dig this up from the archives and say it wasn't done right, which it wasn't. So let's do it right and archive it with a clean conscience. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
            • And when they say it wasn't done right, we say "We're not a bureaucracy. The image unambiguously failed our criteria for the two weeks it was discussed." FPC is a real black horse in that it cares so much about numbers and procedure. Other processes just go with the flow... J Milburn (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
              • To the extent that we've instituted a threshold, we are a bureaucracy. If we didn't want the rule, we shouldn't have created it. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
                • We created rules because they're sometimes useful. When they're not useful, ignore them. They're not useful here. J Milburn (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
                • Yeah IAR would be my answer too. This is getting somewhat ridiculous. --Dschwen 00:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • Milburn can't even decide if he likes IAR or not. Given that this is problematic for him, I have difficulty taking his comments particularly seriously. The core issue remains, why do we have the threshold in the first place. It seems that the threshold is being easily dismissed when it isn't convenient, and yet, no change is actually made to the instructions - that's the real miracle here. A bunch of useful suggestions were made, such as having a mechanism that doesn't require people to approve a delist if the delist reason is orphaning, and while that gets soundly ignored, people keep insisting that the specified minimum number in favour of the delist is not actually required. We apparently like treating FPC commenters as vote puppets that will perform their little dance whether or not we actually require the votes in order to complete the process. In that view, we're actually wasting real people's real time. That aside, and ignoring the suggestions made (let me know when you're ready to discuss them), the problem remains that if we all start eyeballing consensus, there'll be even more bad blood than if we just sort out this one case and move on with the understanding that the threshold is actually in force. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
                    • Having respect for IAR does not mean I ignore all rules anywhere and everywhere if someone shouts "IAR" or does something clearly contrary to rules while citing them, it means I ignore rules when it makes sense to do so. What you did was wikilawyering, pure and simple- you kept a nomination open because you didn't like the outcome, and made up a rule in relation to another rule to do so. That's the exact fucking opposite of IAR, and, once again, you're either showing your complete lack of understanding, or, what I think is more likely every day, trolling. And the irony of you saying "we're actually wasting real people's real time" is delicious. Go and do something productive. J Milburn (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

tag an FP on Commons, please

Could someone please add parameters to the assessments template on Commons for the recently promoted smallpox picture? It needs to have: enwiki=1|ennom=Smallpox added to it. Thanks. Maedin\talk 08:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Jujutacular talk 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, :) Maedin\talk 08:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding comments

Note to everyone: I'm going to be adding placeholder comments in some of the code for a few FP pages. They will be used for a script I'm writing for the FPC closure process. If you're curious, the current test code is located at User:Public Juju/test script.js. Regards, Public Juju Talk 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Make sure it's flexible enough because I think our redesign should be geared primarily towards voters, so if scripts need to be broken to achieve that, I think they should (be broken). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


shouldn't this have been closed already? --Muhammad(talk) 11:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the situation is obvious, but I replied again anyway. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three noms need closing

I voted on all three, they all look like promotes to me (edit 3 for Carambola) except Io, which is a replace. Maybe someone can close these or give permission for somebody else to do so. It seems (at least?) two other regular closers also voted on some of them, which could explain the hold-up. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. My apologies. I was out of town. The wireless connection I expected to have was unavailable. FPC withdrawal! Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New FP category Animals/Cnidaria

Since we already have five of these and may have as many as nine by the end of the current nomination period, I thought it wise to give these their own category. It also looks like we'll have plenty of coral photographs in the future, many of them via Nick Hobgood, so there's another reason for having this category. While reviewing the "Other" category, I noticed we don't yet have any Porifera (sponges) featured - room for improvement, I think. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't like having such an unusual name for a section, but from a technical point of view it makes sense. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


was the last time there were 30 noms at the same time? Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Not that long ago, maybe 12 months. It used to be much more active here before Durova, Shoemaker and Fir left. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
We had over 40 noms at once as recently as August: [13]. Jujutacular talk 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Has Durova officially left? I know she hasn't been here in months but I didn't know if it was because of RL obligations or a decision to leave. Do you know what made her leave? Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
[14] & [15]. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FPC urgents rules?

Have we developed rules for when nominations may be listed at Template:FPC urgents? I just added a placeholder blurb (<noinclude>) on the template and suggest we decide on rules if they haven't been decided before. Jujutacular talk 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that if after 6 or 7 days a nom is neither obviously going to pass (i.e. consensus + more than 5 sup votes) nor obviously going to fail (i.e. at least 2 oppose votes and no supports) that it should go up on the urgents template. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Added that wording, with at least six days old. Jujutacular talk 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures (3d nomination)

Seeing as the project has historically been close to this one in various ways, input is appreciated on the latest deletion nomination of valued pictures. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:FeaturedPicture update

I have made a small change to that template, adding a | parameter for "video" or "animation" as files like File:Bombing of Hamburg.ogg are not "pictures". I hope this is OK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. I've set the parameter on the video you linked. Jujutacular talk 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove all my images from FP.

I gave Commons one more chance, when undealt with racism and attempts to harass those complaining about the racism got too much to deal with in silence.

It did nothing but put a target on my back.

I'd lik to ask that all my images lose their FP status; I regret having ever contributed anything to Wikipedia, and while I may not be able to delete my files, I'd prefer my presence be hidden.

I'd also request my user page, user talk, and all other pages relating to me be deleted.

A culture where racism is defended is not one I can be any part of. Ever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop misusing the word "racism". Wikipedia has enough legitimate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. without you using it to cry wolf about run-of-the-mill harassment and incivility. German isn't a race. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
We're referring to the same person who harassed a Jew with anti-Israeli cartoons. If you don't like German as a race, I don't think you can argue with that one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Here is not the place for a discussion of who or what is racist. Short of a major copyright problem or something, I really don't think there is going to be a mass delisting of pictures; there's not really anything to discuss here. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with J Milburn about mass delisting. Listing an image as FP involves contributions, and sometimes significant work, from several people besides the uploader/creator/restorer/nominator, and in any case we all agree to irrevocably release our contributions when we post them. Regarding the rest of Adam's request, there is WP:DISAPPEAR, but this is not the place to request that. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

more than one?


can I add more than one nomination or should I wait until one nomination is over? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as they don't become disruptive (e.g. mass nominations of poor quality images), multiple nominations are welcomed. Jujutacular talk 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Pretty sure that a few people have had 25 or so (quality) nominations at one time. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure script

A working version of the closure script is now available. See User:Jujutacular/closeFPC for documentation/instructions. A few tasks are not yet supported. I would appreciate any testers that can give me feedback on how well it works. I used the script on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Incahuasi Island, and it seemed to behave correctly. Jujutacular talk 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I will check this out in the next few days. Looks good so far. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I just used it to close a nomination. Here are my initial thoughts. First off, it's cool. It seems to work pretty well. The script completes most of the normal procedures. There are a few that it doesn't do that you didn't mention that I'm guessing it doesn't do: replacing an image in an article with an alternate that was promoted and removing the nomination from FPCurgents. I found the little form a bit confusing. It asks for "Creator (If Wikipedian, not nominator)" which led me to believe I only filled that in if the creator was different from the nominator. I left it blank, and Mbz1 ended up with the nominator credit on his user page rather than the uploader credit. Either there's an error in the script or the instruction needs to be more explicit. I discovered something a bit strange. It looks like all the pages the script works with were removed from my watchlist after using it. That's the biggest problem, as far as I can see. I don't want to add WP:FPC back to my watchlist every time I close a nomination!! Other than that, it looks pretty good. I didn't actually read through the code, so there might be something important I missed. I'll leave that to someone else. I'd also add that unless the other parts are added (Goings-on, sub-page, and FP tag), I'd probably prefer doing everything manually. This is certainly a good start, though. Thanks for doing this. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you, very nice feedback. Indeed: I haven't included switching alternates in articles or removing from FPCurgents, and I forgot to document that. Regarding giving credit: I always use the nominator credit first, and only use upload credit if different from the nominator. Do you think it should be upload credit by default? About the watchlist: I have no idea why it would do that, I've never encountered that in my testing. What OS / Browser are you on? Jujutacular talk 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Firefox 3.6.12 and Windows 7. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • And, by the way, the non-promote I just did also removed two pages from my watchlist. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Hmmm... well I'm stumped. I'll work on seeing what is causing this. Thanks again. Jujutacular talk 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Also just noticed the script didn't remove an old FP from the new featured content template for you: [16]. Jujutacular talk 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Note: I found out why this happened and fixed it. Jujutacular talk 01:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • With the number of crops and edits flying around, it might be worth letting closers enter the credit manually. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't about that, just that we should decide which kind of credit should be given if one user is both nominator and creator, or both nominator and editor. Jujutacular talk 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I've always considered that creation/editing/uploading "trumps" nominating and use the creation template in preference to the nominator template. It seems illogical to me to do it otherwise—it's perhaps like giving credit to someone for "wikifying" an article but not for writing all of the content, too. I agree that it might be better for credit to be taken care of manually (we don't want to have the mess that Commons does, thanks to their closing bot). But I haven't tried Juju's script yet and it could be written to encourage appropriate and inclusive crediting. Maedin\talk 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I always give the uploader credit to anyone who creates/edits/restores an image. I only give the nominator credit to a nominator who did nothing other than nominate an image. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
                • Sounds like that is the norm, I'll most likely alter the script to do that instead. Jujutacular talk 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Another comment/question: does the "Name of nomination" field support Wiki markup? I'm mostly wondering if I can use ''name'' to italicize a species name or something similar. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Just amended the script to default to give credit as {{UploadedFP}} instead of nominator credit if applicable. Still working on the watchlist issue. Jujutacular talk 17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Fixed the issue with pages being removed watchlist. Cache will need to be cleared for these changes to go into effect. Jujutacular talk 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I finally broke it! Closing Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Bite marks from Great White Sharks: it was moved on the FPC page and archived properly, but the whole Not promoted stuff wasn't added to the nomination page. I had to add it myself. Just a few things to note that may be important: I added a closing rationale ("Withdrawn by nominator") even though I clicked "no promote". I'm not sure if that's supported or not, but it should be. Also, the nomination page was missing the <!-- additional votes go above this line --> and the {{-}}. I think that's probably what caused the script to fail. Unfortunately, I don't recall what it said after it finished. I thought it looked fine (and I'm fairly sure it did), so I clicked reload page. So what do you think broke it? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, if that comment (<!-- additional votes go above this line -->) was not on the page, it won't make an edit. The script looks for that comment and adds the "Not promoted" template after it, then any additional rationale (which is supported). The script won't throw any big IT DIDN'T WORK signs, but it will not include "Saved [Nom page]" - which it will include if the edit is successful. Jujutacular talk 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. I suppose we just need to figure out how to make sure nobody deletes <!-- additional votes go above this line -->. It happens maybe 5% of the time. Not a big problem, though, as long as everybody checks to make sure it works. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Bug - If there are parentheses in the title of the nomination page, it will not be removed from the 'current nominations' list at WP:FPC (but it will add a transclusion to 'recently closed'), as seen in this recent closure: [17]. Working on fixing this. Jujutacular talk 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - added code for editing the file description page during promotion. Jujutacular talk 04:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate time extension

The voting is over for my ACOG M16 photo on the FPC page. There were only two comments. No votes.

Could I get a time extension or do I need to re-nominate it?

AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a time extension would help. A lack of comments is sometimes taken as an indication that people do not feel strongly about it- a renomination in a month or two may be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture Challenges

I feel that featured picture challenges such as the Christmas tree challenge and the gasoline challenge need a more structured and consistent approach. Putting them together with other candidates can confuse voters, and I suggest a different approach. For the Christmas one, I did what I can by adding two entries and making a gallery section. But so far, the dearth of entries for such challenges (e.g. the Gasoline one only received one entry before it was closed) makes them quite useless in general. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they need a different kind of nomination- I don't think they're really something we should be encouraging :P J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we be encouraging them though? If you mean that FPC nominations aren't the best place to encourage them, then yes I guess I'd agree, but any time we encourage new photos to be taken, it's a good thing, surely? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I meant the nominations- the last thing we need is another type of nomination confusing everyone. Let's get delists sorted first! J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just consider challenges experimental at this point and not worry about process any further - I don't think they have gotten enough interest to really bother continuing them. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential delist nomination

To whom it may concern: I stumbled upon File:Polar bears near north pole.jpg at Commons and happened to notice the quality a bit lower than the quality bar when I participated in the project in the past. I'm not sure if the standards are the same but just thought I'd let you know in case anyone wants to file a delist nomination if the bar has risen. Happy holidays, --ZooFari 00:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, nominated: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine. Jujutacular talk 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - delist nominations

Hi all. It's time to talk about everyone's favorite subject: delist nominations. These noms have always been problematic, mostly due to a lack of participation. With the requirement of 5 votes in favor of delisting, it's often hard for an image to be delisted. In the case of this nomination, it was Kept despite the current FP not being used in any articles. A similar result came out of this nomination; the result was eventually changed due to this discussion. Another nomination for delisting of an unused image fell short of the required 5 votes but was delisted anyway due to my mistake and then support for the result despite the mistake. Finally, here are two other nominations where the logical result would seem to be delisting (4-0 and 4-1, respectively), but the requirement for 5 votes held them back. These last two images were at least used in articles, so they aren't as big of a problem. But the unused ones really should be delisted regardless of how many votes they get. So what's there to do about it? Here are some ideas I've had:

  1. Nothing
  2. Auto-delisting of unused images
  3. Change nomination period to the longer of 2 weeks or 5 votes minimum
  4. Delist images when there are no Keep votes at the end of the nomination period

I think those were the only options I came up with, but someone else might have others. Of the options, I don't really favor any one, although I think auto-delisting would not work well. The nomination process gives people a chance to find a use for the image elsewhere or put it back in the article if it was mistakenly or strangely removed. Doing nothing is an okay idea, since this isn't a huge problem, but I don't like to subvert the process like I accidentally did in the kiwi nom. Maybe there's an easier solution that I'm missing...any thoughts? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a few quick thoughts. I am of the opinion that this urgently needs fixing. I think, first of all, delist nominations could be listed with other noms; that may make problems worse, though. While I agree "auto-delisting" could result in problems, surely any image that is not in use at the start and end of a delist nom should be "auto-delisted"? Your fourth suggestion is also sound, though I don't think a longer voting period would help anything. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like maybe we need a slightly different process for delist noms in which the image is not used. I'm not proposing a completely different process on the page - it's just that really we're not arguing about whether it's good enough anymore as we would for normal delists, but whether a home can be found for it. As such delist and keep votes are irrelevant. The process should really be used to highlight the image's homelessness, buy us some time while we(hopefully) trigger some discussion on whether it could still be used. In summary, an auto-delist nomination with a delay on processing to allow for it to be rescued. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with most points raised here. I think making the delist period longer would be ok, and consensous nominations (i.e. 4-1 or 4-0) may be allowed even further. I was thinking of lowering the threshold to 3 supports and consensus, but then 3 supports are a bit easy to obtain. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If an image is unused at the start of the nomination, and still unused at the end (after two weeks), I think auto-delisting should be in order. That would solve the majority of the problems IMO. Jujutacular talk 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seems clear and uncontroversial. I've boldly updated our instructions (1, 2) with the idea of "auto-delisting". Anyone got an objection to retrospectively applying that to our (still) orphaned FPs? We seem to be clinging onto them for bureaucracy's sake. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, this sounds very open to being gamed. If a reasonable home has been identified, with moderate support, but someone for some reason opposes this strongly, all they have to do is obstruct its placement until the clock runs out. --Avenue (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If an image is not stable in an article, that seems a pretty strong argument against it being a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer just to drop the number of required supports by one and avoid rule creep. Raise it at FPC talk before the delist ends if something isn't going to get enough votes. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I prefer option 4. One support could be abused if in the wrong hands. – SMasters (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I've undone Milburn's changes, agree with Avenue that it's open to being gamed and there's no consensus to accept that proposal. Maedin\talk 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand the concern, but I'm not sure how relevant it is. The problem images (the ones I'm mostly concerned with, at least) have been ones that were removed from an article before the nomination and didn't find a home even during the nomination period. I'm really just interested in the procedural problem of a nomination which does not receive enough delist votes despite the image not being used. There's a separate issue here related to arguments over image placement - I don't care to offer an opinion on it. I think that NS's suggestion might be best: a 4-vote minimum for delisting would solve some problems while avoiding excess rules. And his other suggestion - saying "check out this delist nom" on this talk page - might work even better than that. I don't have a strong opinion, though; I'm just interested in fixing the loophole that allows unused images to remain FPs. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Maedin, what do you propose as an alternative? Surely you agree that the fact we have images remaining FPs despite the fact they are unused is a problem? J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think delist nominations should be allowed to go longer. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We tried that- they already go on for a longgg time. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think that the potential gaming is a significant enough problem. I recognise that the potential exists, but I think that we could probably find consensus in the article despite opposition from one 'man on a mission'. Besides, there's always the three revert rule to keep gaming in check. And if it truly becomes a problem where we can't agree on whether it has a legitimate home or not, there's always the ability to suspend the nom while discussion goes on in the article talk page. I don't see why we can't implement a rule that will work 95% of the time just because it might struggle 5% of the time... Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and, worst comes to the worst, we could revoke the rule later anyway. It's worth a try, surely? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
But we already have a problem which is only a problem 5% of the time. Why would we want to implement a "rule" that has the same rate of failure, only the difficulties and consequences much worse? Maedin\talk 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I think there's a little flaw in the logic... If the current problem (image no longer used in articles) is only a problem 5% of of the time (I'd say it's probably a lot more than 5% of delists though), then the solution that only applies to that 5%. And if the solution has problems with gaming 5% of the time, then in reality, you have to multiply 5% by 5% (or in decimals: 0.05 * 0.05) to get the probability of any given delist (with 5% chance of it being unused, and then a further 5% chance of that nom being gamed). In other words, it's pretty unlikely. Or we could use a slightly more realistic figure which is maybe 20% of delists involve an image no longer used in articles. Then you are comparing a 20% problem rate if the above is not implemented, with 1% (.2 * 0.05) problem rate if it is. And I know it's kind of silly to use this sort of mathematics for what is a procedural problem, but it makes a big difference to whether it's an improvement if you look at it that way. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The nomination period for delists is already 14 days instead of 9, and that shouldn't be extended. I think the best and simplest solution at this stage is to mix the delist noms with all of the rest, reduce the length of nomination to 9 days to match, and to use the talk page and Urgents template as required. I oppose the idea of reducing the number of votes needed from 5 to 4, if only because that's given us 2/3 supermajority difficulties in the past and probably would again. This first step solution may not solve our problems, so, on to another stage that's a little more involved: I think it was Papa who first proposed a PROD-like mechanism for orphaned FPs (similar to what Diliff suggested in his first comment, on the 14th). iirc, his original suggestion for orphaned FPs was that they would default to delist if no home was found at the end of the nomination period, but that it would default to keep once it or an edit, svg, better resolution, etc had been placed in an article. We need to have something other than "delist" noms for these, though—both delist & replace noms and orphaned FP noms are unsuited to the delist template as is, and delist and keep votes often don't apply to them. I or anyone else could knock up a variation of the nomination template that runs in a slightly different way. That's obviously something that will need further talking about and some draft templates, but, to recap, I think our first step should be to run delists with the rest for the same period of time, and make efficient use of the talk page. If the need comes up, I think we could easily keep noms for orphans open past their closing date, and in the meantime work on drafting an alternative nomination type that better addresses orphans and replacements. Maedin\talk 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 1: do nothing. I've always considered delisting pictures a loss of time. Either we have some kind of automatic process which removes the FP status when a picture is no longer used or we recognize that the FP gallery represents both the best we have to offer today and the evolution of our quality standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Maedin that mixing the delist noms with the other noms is probably a good idea. I completely disagree with Alvesgaspar- deliberately keeping pictures that simply do not meet current standards completely defeats the point of FPC. If something isn't good enough, we shouldn't be keeping it "for old time's sake", even if it is still used in an article somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The delist nom mixing has been brought up lots of times in the past, and I've never seen any objection to it. It would be non-disruptive to implement and it could easily fix delist participation issues, without rule creep or anything untoward as a consequence. I say we make it Option 5 and see how it goes for a while, and review it in a few months if necessary. We can always do something more drastic later if it fails to do the job. Maedin\talk 10:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Option 5: List delist nominations together with the rest of the nominations, to run for the same period of time, and to also utilise FPC urgents.
  • If Option 5 is the way to go, I'd like to request that we make it obvious that they are delist nominations. Otherwise this could be confusing to casual voters / newcomers. Jujutacular talk 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's go for it. Someone willing to do the legwork? J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to do it, but we should probably give time for others to comment. Juju, I was thinking of adding a small banner where Urgents normally resides, just mentioning the change, probably leave it up for a week or so. After that, I think the first vote being an emboldened "delist" or "replace" would be sufficient. Did you have anything else in mind? Maedin\talk 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yea, maybe that will be enough. I couldn't think of anything better. Agree we should wait at least a week or so to implement this (especially with the holiday season). Jujutacular talk 22:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the approach now being suggested is workable. Nine days for delists with additional exposure per option 5. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The next FPC Challenge

Since Noodle Snack's Christmas tree challenge was such fun, I was trying to figure out what the next one should be. One article I was surprised didn't have a good picture was breakfast. I looked around on Commons and couldn't find any good breakfast pictures there either. Does that sound like a good suggestion or are there other prominent articles in more dire need? Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I always thought the picture at Peanut butter and jelly sandwich was particularly bad. Jujutacular talk 03:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is a need for the winner(s) to be mutually exclusive here. I think that File:Breakfast at Tamahan Ryokan, Kyoto.jpg could quite possibly pass for example, though it isn't a typical western breakfast. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I would second that replacement as lede image of the article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The floating PB&J sandwich is hilarious! Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
That plastic looking fried egg with the slightly burnt toast really should not be used as the main lead pic – It looks so sad. It's completely unappetizing and I'm not sure who would want to eat that (unless they were famished). – SMasters (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Jó Kritika

I didn't want to make comment on every vote, but just note that the user created an account on 12/28, and of the 13 consequent edits since then, 11 of these have been to FPC (the other 2 are to userpage). In addition, every single FPC edit is an oppose. SpencerT♦C 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitely concerning, but I'm not sure anything can be done at this time. All of their opposes seem to be accompanied with a legitimate rationale, with this oppose seeming to be the weakest, but still legitimate. Jujutacular talk 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the basis on which this is being raised? As Jujutacular said, the opposes are legitimate, and we are not generally in short supply of supports. The user started here as an IP, which doesn't seem suspicious to me, until our abysmal welcome (read: non-welcome) and disregard for his/her comments made creating an account necessary. I don't consider there to be any cause for suspicion, nor reason to be concerned. Let's hope our continuing inhospitality doesn't drive a new contributor away. Maedin\talk 09:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • At Commons we had recently a flood of new accounts/socks created with the purpose of participating in FPC. Our solution was to establish a minimum account age and minimum number of edits for voting. That is the usual measure in other type of decision processes in Wikipedia and I doubt it will drive away any good faith contributor. Anyway, it is weird that the very first (and only) contributions of a user to Wikipedia is voting at FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That said, I don't think we have a flood of socks (interesting image!) yet. I'm willing to give Jó Kritika the benefit of the doubt (though that swallow image isn't blown :) ). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • [18] [19]. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't anything personal; I was just having deja vu with the particular editing habits (only edits to fpc). It's happened before: 1, then 2. SpencerT♦C 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Eh. Sorry for any disturbance I caused. I actually come from another wiki but I'd thought I'd give the program here a shot. Jó Kritika (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to FPC then ;-) --Muhammad(talk) 20:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Large number of orphaned FPs

I suggest going through these 86 files and trying to find homes for them. In doing so, I believe we should take care not to overrule decisions made for good reasons by article editors. Any that we can't find homes for could then be nominated for delisting. Shall we give ourselves 10 days for this? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a number of these got hit with the recent thumbnailer bugs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
That may be the case, but we shouldn't assume that editors will put them back when the thumbnailer sorts itself out. (I was still seeing some (different) problems earlier today, has the dust now settled?) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. Don't think it has completely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've striked quite a few false positives, I'm sure there would be more. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not sure. Everybody else seems to hit these except me. :) I promise this was not designed as an easter egg hunt. :p Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New Year

FPC stats, 2007-2010.png

Happy (belated) New Year everyone. In celebration of this momentous occasion, I present this chart showing the number of nominations per month over the past four years. The data table can be found here. 2010 seemed to be a year of extremes, with the two least active months occurring: January and April with 64 and 60 nominations, respectively. However, we also saw the fourth most active month of the past four years in August, with 156 nominations. Here's to many more amazing pictures to come. Cheers. Jujutacular talk 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I think there is a bit of a net decline though particularly as some previously active contributors are no longer so. I'd encourage people that mostly spend time reviewing to spend a little either producing or finding images and placing them in articles. A good number of interesting nominations is important for the long term health of the project in my view (it gives people something to come back for). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot cat removal

Why did the bot remove all the links [22]? Is this correct? SMasters (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked a few of them, and they were correct to remove. For example, the French link was: [23] (looks defunct), here is one that just seems to be a POTD process, not FPC. Jujutacular talk 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for basic reforms at featured sound candidates

Dear colleagues, User:Sven Manguard has proposed two reforms, concerning the minimum number of votes required (3 -> 4, still must be two-thirds majority support), and avoiding the appearance or actual conflict of interest. Your contributions would be welcome.

I do urge FPC people who have sound-file or musical experience to consider watchlisting the candidate page and participating as reviewers. It is important that we revamp this aspect of featured content, IMO. LINK Tony (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help a humble newbie (Wilmer W. Tanner)

See Wilmer W. Tanner candidate. I tried getting the caption and alt text to work (can see in edit mode), but it is not displaying right. Will someone please help me? Don't want my cool image hated because I was too ignorant on how to do the file code.TCO (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You had a pipe, |, infront of the link name on a link in the description, this malformed link broke the image tag... and welcome to FPC! — raekyt 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for fix and explaining. Gaining all sorts of experience. Hope it is not too trying for others as I rush around like a bull in the dish shop "being bold".  ;-) TCO (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Being bold is hugely important, don't apologize for that. ;-) — raekyt 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Waiting period in FP criteria

I've noticed that some images are being nominated, usually by their creators, within a day of their being uploaded. I'd like to propose changing "The image is used in one or more articles." to "The image has been used in one or more articles for at least 30 days." in order to counter this. My thinking is this will help ensure that FP nominations are supported by the community as a whole rather than just the person who created the image. (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria.)--RDBury (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. I didn't know the rules and worried it would be like DYK, where you have to get it in ASAP.TCO (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with a delay period. It was proposed for VP and I don't know it helped in any ways. Other review processes don't tell users do your work and then wait for 30 days for others not to undo your edits. FP reviewers can judge if the image is used properly without waiting random editors. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Mh, I complained about that years ago already. We has some prolific contributors who specialized in the upload-nominate routine, minimizing the time in between. The result were images that had to be removed from their articles during nomination and good images that were kicked out for encyclopedically inferior images (which takes time for article editors to notice). The practice of pushing freshly uploaded images into articles for nomination purposes is putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Dschwen 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The only thing in my defense is I am not a photo stud and did it for the first time and even the photo was obtained, not taken by me. And I went and got the image for a very particular article purpose. Just thought I would come here and try it out, learn something at least. I'm not someone (yet, haha) racking up the FP count.TCO (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
@TCO: No worries. You followed the normal procedures (as they currently exist). I would definitely support adding a requirement that the image be in use for at least a week or so on the article before being nominated. This would go a long way to reducing the problems outlined by Dschwen. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this can be an issue, but 30 days seems a little excessive. How about 7 days? Jujutacular talk 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Has this been an issue at all lately? I think it's better to just judge images on a case-by-case basis. Thirty days in a low-traffic article means very little, and surviving one day in a high-traffic article probably means the image is good for the long haul. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thus I think 7-days would be a good all-around threshold. Even 1-day would be a good threshold. The point is that if there is a threshold at all, people will check it and the longevity of the image's use will be discussed. Right now, no one checks it and no one discusses it. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If this is done there should be an exception for articles that did not have an image at all, which is often the case with our nature images, portraits of less well-known figures, etc. The issue is not fast nomination, the issue is inserting an image into an article that may not need it for the purpose of nominating. Chick Bowen 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why waiting one week to nominate the image would be problem, even in those cases. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that a week isn't a big deal, but on the other hand, is there currently a problem either? I don't think the occasional issue with images being removed necessarily warrants a rule for it. Other discussions seem to have concluded that we can't legislate for every possibility. Better to keep the rules as simple as possible and use common sense to deal with these things IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Full ack Diliff! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to disagree somewhat. I would see this rule not as legislate for some small possibility, but as a definition of the character or "philosophy" of FPC. Insert my very strained ox-cart image here. --Dschwen 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is highlighted above. The 30 days rule at VP was rather long but had the effect (as last time I checked) that all images -although considered of inferior technical quality to FPs- were still in articles after two years. I supported before this idea for FP and I'll remain consistent with that. I think most relevant is to allow feedback time for editors which have an article on their watchlist to review new image addition, placement and accuracy of captions. I think 5 or 7 days should be sufficient for that. --Elekhh (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There are one or two orders of magnitude more FPs than there were VPs. Many of those featured pictures are much older too. It is hardly surprising that there are far more orphaned pictures. Just apply common sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Between 200+ and 2,000+ there is one order of magnitude only. Ideally one would compare the rate over the same time-frame, if anybody volunteers. My "common sense" understanding is that having over 5% of FPs orphaned over 7 years appears to be a higher rate than a 0% rate over 2 years. --Elekhh (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we can draw any conclusions from these numbers, though. Sometimes FPs are removed from articles for legitimate reasons; sometimes they're removed for trivial reasons or no reason at all. For example, an editor removed this FP from an article with no reason given. I later reinserted the FP into the article (it was far better quality) and was thanked by another editor who didn't know a higher quality version existed. My point is that images get removed from articles regardless of quality, value, etc. A higher percentage of orphaned FPs than VPs doesn't tell us anything about the VP 30-day rule. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, I don't think I'd support instituting an x-day rule. I don't see the need for a rule, and I can't see how it would help the project. Reviewers should already be checking to make sure that images are used properly in articles. An image remained in an article for x days tells us a little, but no more than a good reviewer would. As I've said, if an article has 50 editors and it lasts 7 days, it's very likely going to stay indefinitely. But 7 days in a low-traffic article means little. That image may be removed as soon as an editor shows up, or it may remain for a long time. Anyway, I can't see how the rule would work. Speedy close a nomination for an image which hasn't been around long enough? Or suspend it? You'd have to put some banner up to make sure people know about it, and even then, only regulars will know about the rule. I just don't see it... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

In light of the above comments, I'd like to change the proposal to adding the sentence "Please only nominate images that have been included in an article for at least 7 days." I think this will satisfy the people who thought that 30 days is excessive and also make it more of guideline than a rule. My object is get people to think twice before making a nomination that will essentially be booed of stage; this doesn't happen often but when it does it's not good for anyone.--RDBury (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 30 days limit is totally reasonable. I'm an article guy not a photo guy so am biased obviously. And we could make this thing totally disaccosiated from the encyclopedia and just run a set of awesome-looking pics. But I think the articles need better images and if we require stronger connection to EV, this may prompt y'all image-photo studs to take pics of stuff we need in the articles or to write articles or work with article writers or what have you. And really, lasting 30 days in an article is NOT that hard. The only inconvenience is having to wait to enter your stuff in FP (I agree that is a pain in the ass). Maybe some system to allow submission, but just not display for 30 days? I donno. But GregL informs me that there are too many FPs anyhow. So maybe some restriction to higher EV, is worthwhile as a filter. I donno...  ;-) TCO (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and added this to the FP criteria. I tried to be conservative in the interpretation of the consensus here, it can always be strengthened (or weakened).--RDBury (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
    • 7 Days is fine with me. In a stub with no available pictures (eg), I'd ignore it if I felt like it (apply the word preferable). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of these uploads have any potential? It's OK to rip them just want the insights on what to look for:

Western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii), Oregon - 20060422.jpg

Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - western painted turtle hatchlings vandebergh odfw.jpg

Southern painted turtle carapace.jpg

TCO (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In general you want to avoid what photogeeks call "blown highlights"--patches of pure white. All of these photographs have them--the middle one is almost half blown, but the other two have blown areas on the shells, reflecting the flash (or maybe the sun on the last one). It would be better to photograph these species using indirect lighting to avoid that reflectivity. Also, I'm not sure if the three-quarters angle all of these have is the best way to photograph a turtle; if you want to emphasize the shell, than take it top down, with the shell centered in the image; if you want to emphasize the rest of the anatomy, getting down to the animal's level might be a better idea. Chick Bowen 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you are looking for WP:PPR. – SMasters (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Is the licence for this photo no good for FP? [[24]] Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe that license is okay. As far as I know, anything that is licensed correctly on Commons is fine. Jujutacular talk 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

There is just less than an month and a half until April fools, and only a few nominations for FP have been received Here (two of which are from me). Just wan tot heep the discussion going so that no one forgets about it.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muhammad

What do we do with this? There is little confidence among the voters there that this is public domain in the US. Perhaps we should put it a request at Commons:COM:DEL? It may take some time, but they are very good at sorting out this kind of thing there. Jujutacular talk 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's start a deletion request, and suspend the FP candidacy until that's resolved. --Avenue (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Done: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg. Jujutacular talk 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposals

Dear FPC community, a note to make you aware of an existing proposal and a future proposal for main page inclusion.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to Talk:Main page for the current FS proposal and shortly where the FL proposal will be listed. Many thanks, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Elephant

I suggest that it's about time to close this. It has support and it's still used in an article. Jujutacular talk 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I make it a rule never to close nominations where an animal's erection is unexplained. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting rule. I hesitate to ask, but has been applied more than once?! Jujutacular talk 05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I agree that it's time to close the nomination. I understand PLW's concern, but (1) the image has enough support without his vote; (2) the image would pass even if he opposed; and (3) it's unclear when/if we'll get an answer. I'd say close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jujutacular talk 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons POTY

I just bounced over to commons to check in on the Commons:Picture of the Year and realized that one is not under way. What is going on this year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviews please

Here and here please --Muhammad(talk) 11:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone broke FP

The FP star now suppresses the Commons file description page, apparently. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Commons file description currently seems to be missing from the en wiki page for all Commons-hosted images that I've looked at, not just FPs. There is still a link to it, but it isn't included in the page by default like it used to be. --Avenue (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
And now the file descriptions are back. I don't know why. --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama_of_Edo_bw.jpg FP status

This image was delisted awhile ago here ostensibly to be replaced by File:Edo_Panorama_old_Tokyo_color_photochrom.jpg but since there was some controversy about the replacement image it was not automatically promoted and the color image was rejected here. I have a personal stake in this (I nominated the original black and white image) so I resist the urge to be WP:BOLD and do it myself, but I believe that the original image should be re-added as a feature picture without the need for a new nomination as it was delisted under "mistaken" (to assume good faith} pretenses and since it seemed that most of the other reasons for the delist were in relation to the new color nomination it should be fairly non controversial. Cat-five - talk 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What are the 'mistaken' pretenses? It seems that at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, there was consensus that the black and white image was not worthy of FP status, but that the photocrom version may not be either, and would need a separate nomination to become an FP. Jujutacular talk 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The only errors that were ever noted in the denom were also noted in the nom and were considered acceptable considering historical value, and those were the stitching errors (along with some disputed size issues). As far as I can see from the denomination the new one supposedly having less stitching errors was an issue that was later rebuked. I'm perfectly willing to renominate the original black and white if necessary but I don't think that should be necessary. Cat-five - talk 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I really do think this is a wonderful image, but I think that we'd really need to get one or the other somewhat larger before it could be promoted. Further, the photochrom version of the image has replaced the black and white in all articles, and I think that's probably the best choice, as photochroms generally managed a fairly high level of colour fidelity.
This image deserves to be an FP. But we just need it larger. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The Library of Congress has an album of 200 images of Beato's work, among other things. [25]. It may be worth asking them if they'd consider adding it to the digitization queue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see any form specifically for that but I put in a general inquiry, it looks like some of them are rights restricted still (a bit odd) according to the site but hopefully they'll put at least some of them into the queue for digitization eventually. Cat-five - talk 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's what I received from the Library of Congress in response to my request. I edited out the very beginning and the end since it was just a restatement of my initial request (seen above) and their notices of recognition when it moved from department to department.

{{Quote box|quote= Thank you for your interest.

We do not generally take requests for adding to our digitization queue. Generally, preservation priorities and support for the Library's publication and exhibition projects dictates much of what goes into that queue, along with considerations about the popularity of the images and rights considerations. With more than 14 million items in the collection, many of them fragile negatives, there is much competing for our limited digitization resources.

That said, we have given some priority to digitizing albums, given the preservation concerns that often attend them. (If you have not already seen it, you might be interested in our recently added reference aids on photographic albums: <>).

We do have a color laser copy surrogate of the Beato album pages that we offer to researchers in the reading room, but I will mention the interest in this album, in case their is some sort of surrogate we could offer digitally. Cat-five - talk 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes.

CONTACT INFO ORIGINALLY POSTED diff then removed for space. Cat-five - talk 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcements template

Please see discussion at Template talk:Announcements/New featured content#Proposal: Redirect to WP:GO. Jujutacular talk 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently closed

Hallo, I have some wonder refering this recently closed nomination and the rules where is stated that 4 supports are required not 5.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." That's 5 total (4+nom). Makeemlighter (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The concerned nomination has exactly 4+1?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
An expression of "weak" support is generally given half the value of a 'normal' support, thus it was 3.5 + nom = no promote. As Makeem noted at the nomination, this may be worth nominating again at some point, as opposition was not strong and it very narrowly missed being promoted (I would still support! ;-) Regards, Jujutacular talk 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, in this case I suppose that "strong support" = 1.5 ;-) Is there a rule when should it be renominated?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Just in case there is any confusion (not sure if your comment was in jest or not), "strong supports" and "strong opposes" do not equal 1.5. The only affect of the "strong" modifier is to perhaps sway other voters more by having expressed strength of feeling! Only "weak" alters a vote from having the value of 1.  :) Maedin\talk 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, there is no fixed rule on when a closed nomination can be renominated. Generally though, it's best to wait several weeks and let it fade from reviewer memory a little before trying again. Maedin\talk 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support from nominators

Is support from nominators still counted towards the minimum of 5 supports needed, or has that changed? If it is the same, perhaps this would be best noted in the rules at the top of the page to differentiate this process from FP on other Wikipedias and on Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And if an image creator supports a nom, is it counted? Separately from a nominator. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that counts too. So Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Noisy miner currently has 2 support and 1 oppose. I see the point SB is making, but it's really not an issue. JJ could just have easily nominated the image and then you would have supported. The nom needs to get up to 5 supports regardless. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's not an issue with respect to the outcome but is an issue with respect to having clear wording that accurately describes the process. The nominator's support vote is counted because 5 positives are required. However the current wording implies it is not included. A simple change in the wording could reflect reality by stating "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with 5 or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list.". That the nominator's vote is included is implicit in the Support next to their name. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Saffron that this is best clarified. In theory, the nominator could be neutral, as is often the case on Commons; five support votes would still be required. We could also have joint nominations- it happens in most other processes. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current wording could be better. How about "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with 5 or more reviewers in support (including the nominator) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." However, this begs the question, if an image has five reviews but four are weak support, would that still qualify the image for promotion? How about an image with four votes in favor and one weak support? Should we say "5 or more reviewers in support" or "5 or more votes in support"? Pinetalk 09:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Change made. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sensible. May be worth including a link to this discussion in a hidden comment once it is archived. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this change, but I also think that "five reviewers" should be changed to "five votes." Pinetalk 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please advise me on which pics would be best for FP

I found this guy on Flickr who has some really awesome sports images. We have some uploaded, but some are not. I want to get some uploaded or just nominate some that already are uploaded.

Dude also has some cool building shots and the like, but I'm not as motivated that way. But letting you know.

I'm not sure their total technical beauty, but most seem "decent" at least. And some of are highly notable athletes and from moments of incredible importance.

Here is his flickr stream: [26]

Ones that I especially like:

  • The FX finals Oly girls lined up before the judges before starting (it's kind of a weird shot, being from the back. But it shows their physiques and the chalk and even an aspect of the sport...the nerves and the facing the judge. Kind of arty in a way).
AA finals 2008 top 6 qualifiers.jpg

(note athlete 396 is "Semmy" (our recent FP, shown below)

  • Michael Phelps, 8th gold, hands up, teammates embracing. I mean...momentous. EV to the max, no?
Michael Phelps wins 8th gold medal.jpg
  • Dara Torres, after 50m race, won silver (EV)
Dara Torres 2.jpg
  • Shawn Johnson pose, before starting FX at AA, 2008 Olys (EV, she won silver AA and is most popular teen female's athlete for like 4 years now).
Shawn Johnson competes.jpg

When, I think of this recent FP we had of Semmy:


it just doesn't seem as good. It is not at the Olympics. Not during competition. Not in sporting attire (look how clothed she is). Not even a good training shot. Sort of a portrait really. I mean, I was very happy that we got a shot of a middling famous gymnast up...but I just routinely see stuff on blogs as good/better than that (and not all rips from newspapers...sometimes just bloggers who attended the competition).

So anyway...any of the above have a shot...and which one?

Oh...and if you see any of his stuff you want to nominate (actually including the sports), go ahead. He has a lot of nature shots as well.

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • So are you're asking if you can nominate them for FP? If others will think they are FP quality? Can you clarify what your saying? Dusty777 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Picture peer review. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This. The Shawn Johnson one is the closest of the new pictures in my view, but it is blurry, and if the exif is valid, this is purely down to poor camera settings choice. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, especially JJ. I will nom at least one. Not a total evil EV provocation. I think when we really step back and look at the photos, especially at the size used in Wiki, it is hard to say that the Semmy photo we FPed is anything as worthwhile as say, the Phelps photo, which shows a more famous person and in the exact moment of his acheivement. And maybe we give some benefit of the doubt for pictures of really famous moments, where no alternative exists. Don't worry, I won't nominate them over and over or disturb the universe. I just want to toss one out to think about!TCO (Reviews needed) 20:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JJ totally. The Shawn Johnson one is easily the best, but at a decent size it's poor quality, and as JJ says it's chiefly to do with poor choice of camera settings (most notably 1/15s for an action shot). And as Makeem says, PPR is for these type of discussions. --jjron (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Press pass trial

Re the Phelps photo. I wouldn't mind betting that hundreds, if not thousands, of similar photos exist from spectators. Just because we generally only have access to fairly poor sports photos, it doesn't mean we should be featuring it. That doesn't mean such photos can't have good EV though. We should be trying to figure out how to get better photos. Eventually I think that might come down to the wikimedia foundation working towards press passes and stuff, when someone is interested etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude...we can make that presspass thing happen. If you want to work on that with me, let me know. I think even doing just a few demonstrations so that people get the idea could be a start.

Are you in Australia? What part? Willing to shoot some training shots of Lauren Mitchell? Or championships or something? not sure where Pac Rims is this year.

BTW, what do you think of this site? [27] Like is she your kind of peeps? TCO (Reviews needed) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • In principle yes. I'm in Hobart, Tasmania, most major sporting events are going to occur on the mainland somewhere. Lauren Mitchell is in Western Australia, a substantial distance away. It may make more sense to find someone more nearby in her case. I've got limited funds, and would not spend the money out of my own pocket to do it - I'd need travel grants in order to do so. There is also the issue of equipment. I'd be fine for an indoor gymnastics training session provided that I was allowed to set up off camera flashes. As a spectator in the gymnastics championships I'd have to upgrade equipment (namely my 70-200mm IS to the f2.8 model) to get reasonable shots - it might make more sense to send someone (jjron, for example, if he was willing), with the right equipment. I'm pretty well equipped for the outdoors. We should really be discussing how to get someone with good camera equipment into the Olympics! JJ Harrison (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I volunteer for an Olympics press pass, no travel grant necessary. ;-) Haven't got a single ticket for any of the Olympics events though, but will probably get some photos of some sort during the Games, probably just the village and other public areas. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You need to get onto your local Wikimedia chapter ASAP regarding that :P, at least have a go. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Diliff, I think any kind of demonstration of the concept would be useful. (1) I have found sometimes with image donations that contacting people and representing myself as a Wikipedia editor gets traction. So even just trying on own is a possibility. (2) Another possibility, is I know some people that regularly get press passes as bloggers (I see them and Wiki as sort of in the same stratum...I think that is how to play it, we are not AP or NYT). See this link: [28] (3) We can try to work Wiki UK (GLAM or whatever).
I'm up for pushing on all fronts. I would not make it only about Olys or some huge process. Let's do something (soon) and just build traction. I can contribute what I can to get it going and would also write some content to benefit from good photos. (but most would be on you, you would be the hero.) Note there is a CURRENT competition going on (on podium IN LONDON: [29]). Trying to get into that might be easier as a first step. EVen though the shots would not be as historic, you can get some great competition shots or at least some great pre and after cometition (and training gym). i bet you can at least get "action shots" of famous gymnasts.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oly's is probably trickier, but World Championships is doable. Certainly for podium training and the media pen. (Perhaps even the competition floor...can try.) And you can get excellent shots for training time. The most important bloggers had press passes (like Gymnastike...actually that site is maybe even more than a blogger, but certainly Gymnastics Coaching and The Coach Gymnast are just blogs, good ones, but still). I think we could get that level of access with a little chutzpah. Note the Wiki article for World Champs had an insane spike during the competition. So it's doable to kinda play on that (social media is more and more a thing they use...they all have twitter and facebook...and we fit right in in terms of their press strategy). Doesn't really have to be gymnastics although I know a little more there.

2012 Pac Rims is here: [30]. If we had somebody local, would not be bad, even if a ticket price charged.

Let's figure something out and do it. I just want to try things and advance things. This is doable...I can feel it.

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Right, In order to find someone local I had a look around Everett for geotagged pictures. Kiwi Cam releases CC-BY-SA pictures and appears to live relatively close to Everett. He might be your best bet to approach. Assuming he/she is interested, then there will need to be talk with the Pac Rims people, preferably via wikimedia to get a press pass. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1. Dillif (and the Everette, WA) volunteer should start the process by applying on this website. [31] The proper category is EP. I think you just create an account to get started and ask for whatever event you want. I still think going for the event now (they took some late media according to my contact) or the Test Event (this spring) would be an easier first step than the games themselves.

2. Left a note with a couple WMFers asking about who can write a letter for us.

TCO (Reviews needed) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While on the subject, it's coming up to the TV and movie award season here in LA. I'm sure there'd be people who would be willing to mingle on the red carpets and get press passes for the actual ceremonies. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Something like that where we could get snaps of a lot of different actors would be good. We got ripped in 2009 by NYT for how lousy our celebrity photos are.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the press passes, I think it would be a great thing to have. In Tanzania for instance, many government buildings do not even allow photography from the outside unless one has a media pass. If I had one, I could cover delegates who visit TZ as well --Muhammad(talk) 02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • in particular JJ Harrison (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
        • [1]The main thing I get from that is that they basically regard photos/photography as trivial, simple, and largely irrelevant. To pull out some figures, 15 points for getting through a Good Article or Featured List to which you may have contributed, 50 points for a Featured Article, hell you even get 2 points for simply reviewing any sport related article, but getting through a relevant FP earns you a whopping 1 point (yes one). Plus there's a limit in how many points you can get through that. Personally I regard that as insulting. If I took anything from that it would be that we wouldn't be getting any support in gaining press passes from Wikimedia. Bah! --jjron (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, the Australian Paralympic Committee is in the habit of releasing their photographs, and I presume we will get some good photos from the 2012 games too. For this reason I guess that getting wikimedians to take photographs is low priority, particularly from the APC's point of view. The 1 point is for getting an existing picture or sound featured. You get 5 points for taking a picture, which is still nothing mind you, and getting it featured. Given that the APC is generous enough to donate plenty of good pictures, I'm not too concerned about it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As a complete novice, I just wrote to Sydney Olympic Park to find out who to talk to for sporting events. Here's the answer:

Thank you for your enquiry regarding media passes to major sporting events at Sydney Olympic Park.
Sydney Olympic Park Authority manages the precinct as a whole, not specific venues such as ANZ Stadium, the Sydney Showground or Allphones Arena.
For sporting events at these venues you will need to apply to the relevant sporting organisations for a media pass, thus the AFL for media accreditation to the AFL matches held at ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Showground Stadium, the NRL for matches held at ANZ Stadium, the ARU for Bledisloe Cup matches and internationals held at ANZ Stadium and so forth.
For venues that the Authority does manage, such as the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre, Hockey Centre, Sports Centre and such, the Authority is not the agency that issues media passes to specific events.
That is the realm of the sporting organisation which is managing the sporting event, such as Tennis Australia for tennis events, Swimming Australia or Diving Australia for events involving those sports at the Aquatic Centre, Netball Australia for netball matches and so on
The advantage is that if you are accredited by the AFL for example, you are accredited for all AFL matches, not just those at ANZ Stadium.
Good luck with your enquiries.

--99of9 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the impression I have as well. I think a point of approach is to decide on a national sport federation and just make it work with one of them. I have a little knowledge of gymnastics (know someone on the accrediting committee) so was pushing for that. Also, I figured it was a little easier than say NFL football which gets all the media it wants...but still not totally obscure either (very big draw during Olympic years for instance).
But honest, any sport or nation would be movement forward. I think this is not actually as hard as we might think, but just something (like doing donation requests) that once you have played the game a little, you get used to...and it serves as a good model forward. I know someone who has connect and can get some allowances with concert photography also. We just need to bootstrap something and get the early simple win and move forward. Really even for venues where we PAY for a ticket for admission and DON'T even get "courtside", just having the credential to allow taking professional level lenses in would be a step forward.
And once we get used to filling out the silly paperwork and have some demonstration of capability (and some repeated discussions with federations so they "know us"), I suspect they will look favorablly on us. REally...I think it will end up a success and a win/win both for us and the federations. I know we have good photo-takers here. And I know that Wiki has high readership. Once, we get going, I think it will work!
TCO (Reviews needed) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


eg 1
eg 2
eg 3

Firstly, myself and User:Bidgee attended a women's national basketball league game (Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder) thanks to the generosity of User:LauraHale, who purchased the tickets. I mostly attempted to capture some of the action in the game. I think bidgee was a little more completionist, also aiming for portraits of the players, coaches and so on. After the event started, I had no problem leaving my seat and walking around basically court side to take pictures from a better perspective (I was careful not to block the view of any spectator). The stadium was well lit, and a F4 lens was acceptable.

I also snapped pictures of the end of this years Sydney to Hobart yacht race, though I didn't go to much effort, shooting from the shore with my 500mm (it'd be better to do it from the water). I also went out some time ago after the last discussion and snapped a few people in a mountain bike orienteering race.

Secondly, at the conference itself, press passes were discussed. Basically in the near future will be to produce a few wikinews articles, and then one will be able to get an official looking pass with a microchip and stuff.

Thirdly, born out of a discussion on Wikimedia and sport, a new model, called NEXT, has been coined for current events coverage. Have a look at outreach:NEXT. I believe Wikimedia Australia will be developing, and then committing funds to this model. Presumably, if it is successful, then it will spread across chapters, much as the GLAM stuff has. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am proud of you guys for getting something going. I really hope that this can kind of grow and become something we are used to doing. GLAM only covers museums and such. But Wiki needs the same sort of engagement with sports and even music and movies. It's all about starting something going, so glad you got it done. Not sure if I can support in any way other than cheerleading, but FWIW, YEAH JJ!!! :-) TCO (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm also very impressed! Good work. Jujutacular (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire photos

Pretty technical discussions ([32] and [33]) going on about getting better photos of the gemstones in the Yogo sapphire article. Wonder if some superstars from here might have good advice or help. I think a topic like this would benefit from good looking, representational, pictures. After all that is why the gem is worth so much, from aesthetic appeal and appearance!

TCO (Reviews needed) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to J Harrison for coming over to "article land" and giving a superb discussion on how to take best photos. I don't think we did all he asked for, but we did prevail in getting somewhat better pics nonetheless. I really think improving appearance of pics on a FA is important (even if they don't get to FP!) and especially for an article on a gemstone. We are presenting multimedia content to the viewers...and even print media like magazines "care" about the quality of illustrations. They attract huge eyeballs and are an integrated part of the overall presentation. Not just ornaments in the walls of FA text. (/editorial) Again, thanks J.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Overturned delisting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Since a request was made at WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion, I will, though I don't know if formal closure will help much. There is a numerical majority in favour of the proposal, but only just. Given the number of people who have supported with caveats (in particular King of Hearts' proposal for a quorum of three), it is my opinion that there is no consensus. If there are strong feelings about continuing forward with this proposal, I would respectfully suggest further discussion geared towards a more refined proposal—this may be a case where we moved too quickly to the voting without sufficient discussion, and a numerical majority ≠ consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Phyllopteryx taeniolatus was not properly closed - only four out of the required five votes in favour of the motion. As I'm likely not to be around for some time, I wanted to complete the task rather than leave this hanging for others. Anybody should feel free to renom it for delisting if the strength of feeling persists, but on this occasion, it must default to keep per the rules that we've consistently used for some time now and that we should be continuing to apply the same way to all nominations. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

J Milburn has reverted Papa's overturn of the delist decision, citing that closes like this have been occurring without controversy and that "the norm is shifting" [34]. I haven't been around FPC much myself recently so I took a quick look to verify: in the last year 5 delist nominations have been closed as "delisted" in spite of not having obtained the required minimum of five delist votes. I had no idea that this was happening and would have objected if I had. If a closer makes a decision outside of standard practice, I would expect to see a notification of this on the talk page; correct me if there was a discussion about it and I missed it?
We've recognised in the past the need to get more eyes on delist nominations and there have been several suggestions on how to achieve this. Instead of bending the rules to make something happen, we ought to be putting energy into making positive changes to our process. It may seem uncontroversial to say "no arguments in favour of keeping", but there were two delist nominations last year that were short of five delist votes, also had no keep arguments, but they were not delisted. Why the difference? We now have a problem that the rules are intended to prevent, that of inconsistent closures and an appearance of a closer making a decision based on personal opinion. I'm not going to get into a revert war and overturn J Milburn, but I oppose delisting featured pictures in the future without the agreed quorum. Julia\talk 00:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I, being a reasonable person, support common-sense closures. If a delist nomination has been open for some time, and sports several voices supporting the delisting and no voices supporting retention, then yes, it should be closed as delist. As I have said, if you genuinely support these images having FP status, then stand up and support them, providing reasoned arguments as to why we should consider them the most valuable images on Wikipedia. Don't sit here and claim with a self-righteous tone that the rules have not been followed. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not about whether anyone thinks they should be retained or not; I've just given two reasons why "common sense" closures cause problems that are messy to resolve. We've had huge conflicts about it in the past. Care to comment on that aspect? Why is it any more acceptable to delist with fewer than five votes than it is to promote with fewer than five supports? One of the out-of-process closures had only three delist votes and another only had three and a half. Julia\talk 01:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Julia, could you link to the other ones you are talking about? In terms of the 'commonsense' aspect I guess we regard not getting enough 'supports' during a nom as an indication that the image doesn't have the 'wow' required to be an FP. The corollary of that in terms of delists could be that by sitting for two weeks plus in the delist section and not attracting a single argument to 'keep' that again the image doesn't have the 'wow' anymore to lead anyone to want to speak on its behalf. I think that's also why we should ensure we are vigilant in notifying original creators and/or nominators though. In addition, by the closer choosing to delist without the five votes, they in effect are adding their consensus to the delisting, otherwise they themself would register a 'keep' vote or close it as a keep. I'm not arguing necessarily for or against this behaviour, but there does seem some commonsense to it. However, perhaps with this in mind we should alter the delist rules to simply state that if an image has consensus to delist then it be delisted, rather than actually specifying how many votes it should get. A single 'keep' would effectively mean it would need to reach about the current number of delist votes anyway. --jjron (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Oh my apologies too; it's neither here nor there, but I didn't realise you were the reborn Maedin. It's just I was wondering who this Julia was that apparently used to be a regular here and knew a lot about the history. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, 'tis Maedin! Sorry for the confusion, I got tired of using a made-up name and followed JJ's example! Here are two delisted with fewer than four votes: 1, 2, and two closed with four votes: 3, 4. Here are two with not enough votes that were kept: 5, 6 (this is the inconsistency I referred to. If we're going to break the rules, we'd at least better do it consistently). It looks like the original nominator for the Blender image was never notified of the delist nomination. This is precisely the kind of way in which we'll get ourselves into trouble. It's not about "petty rules-lawyering"; I'm not a kid trying to make things difficult for no reason. It's about being fair, considered, applying the same rules in the same cases and being above criticism. That's what they're there for. Also, it's been argued plenty of times that a lack of votes doesn't necessarily mean "it's not good enough"; it just as often means "neutral". The community might not be able to definitely say it ought to be kept, but they're not positive it should be delisted, either. That happens to me plenty of times. It's not for us to second-guess why a nomination isn't attracting support. Our job is to sufficiently improve our process and build our community so that we don't have a problem with ignored noms. Julia\talk 13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Julia, I think this is the crux of the problem. You say that "[i]t's not about whether anyone thinks they should be retained or not"; as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what it's about. If no one wants the image as a featured picture, I can't comprehend why people would sit here claiming that it should be one, just for the sake of process. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we should use common sense, we should ignore rules when they get in the way. You also claim that you have "just given two reasons why "common sense" closures cause problems that are messy to resolve". I'm not sure what they were- could you please write in plain English what these two "problems" are? As far as I can tell, it's that there's inconsistency with how it is done now, and how it used to be done, and that it leads to drama. Neither of these are real problems- with the first, yes, the norm is changing, and we all know that consensus can change. With the second, it leads to drama on the talk page because some people love to create drama on the talk page. The problem is not with the change in process, the problem is with the petty rules-lawyering. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Your tone is pretty irritatingly condescending without cause, particularly when you're the one who needs in plain English what I've already written in precisely that. Here's an example. A nomination with three delist votes and one weak delist (that's half a keep!) was closed as "delisted". In the same year, another nomination with four delist votes and no keep votes was closed as "kept". That's a discrepancy, an inconsistency, with how we're closing our delist nominations. The first case is out of process and was never discussed. This is a problem because when the original creator or nominator comes along and witnesses this, he or she will have cause to say, "hang on, wait a minute, why was MY image delisted without quorum, but this other one wasn't?" Answer him that. It leads to the second problem I already mentioned, that of the closer, who is meant to only be an interpreter/counter-upper, giving the appearance of making these closures based on a personal preference. No matter how "reasonable" this is in one particular case, there will be cases where an involved party will feel it's not. We can all recall the numerous conflicts we had with MER-C about exactly that kind of closing. I thought the whole point of those endless discussions we had was to move away from these potential points of conflict. If you're so concerned about a few featured pictures hanging around for longer than they ought, you can take it upon yourself to do several things, such as adding them to the Urgents pile when their time is about up. You can renominate them. You can work on changing the way they are listed so that they're not at the bottom of the page. You can make talk page notifications to let people know that a nom hasn't reached quorum. The point is to get the community involved; not get the community pissed off with repeated applications of ignore all rules when there is insufficient cause to do so. Julia\talk 13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm still not clear what these two problems are. In response to what you claimed, if the "the original creator or nominator" wants to participate in the discussion, they're welcome to; these are all cases where no one has supported keeping the image. If they then are annoyed that "their" image has been delisted, they're welcome to renominate- inevitably, it will fail, which will serve to vindicate the delister anyway. Your problem is a completely hypothetical one, while the problem of weak images sitting around with the star for extended periods is a very real one. As I have said- yes, there's a discrepency between closures. These things are decided on a case-by-case basis, as is written in the closing instructions, and practices and conventions change with time. This is not only obvious, but enshrined in Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, the only part of the "community" who are "pissed off" are you two. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is too long for me to read now. Here's the short reply: this type of closure has been made before, by myself (April 2011) and others (June 2011), without controversy. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Having now read the above discussion, I see that these closures were mentioned. The two, so-called inconsistently closed noms were different from the others. The one only had 3 delist votes (not 4) and consensus was not clear in the other (which had also been sitting for a month and I closed "Keep" despite voting "Delist"). As far as I can tell, nothing has been closed against consensus. If someone wants to argue that the images should be kept as FPs based on the merits of those images, please do so. Arguing that they should be kept because a quorum wasn't met seems counterproductive. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Having looked at those 'inconsistent' keep closures before reading Makeem's reply I concur that I had also concluded that I could also see where they could have been considered differently from the ones delisted. One had a dissenting opinion to the delist, which while not explicitly termed as a 'keep' vote could be taken as enough not to delist, given it also had not reached five votes. The other had a somewhat dissenting opinion (though again not explicitly a 'keep') along with Makeem himself having voted delist; given that had then sat for a month after it was meant to be closed before Makeem himself closed it, I can understand why it was kept, with the dissenting opinion and Makeem wanting to show neutrality as closer. Then I'd suggest the two closed with less than four delist votes were perhaps a bit less clear cut or convincing in being delisted, but I wouldn't personally disagree with the delist. However Julia also raises a very valid point, that of being been perceived to be consistent or of following our own rules. While an FPC cognoscenti may be able to see the difference in these things, a casual observer or even a less regular FPC participant may not. And a person who happened to wander back to find their prior FPC image delisted against the stated rules (especially when they had not been warned about the delist) could indeed be quite miffed. I'd therefore suggest the closer probably should be particularly vigilant in such cases to ensure the nominator/creator had been notified beforehand and given a chance to respond. Overall, as I wrote above, I'd therefore suggest we change the wording for delists to reflect this current practice, so as to remove this possible perception of inconsistency. I'll put a proposal below. --jjron (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist procedure changes

Based on the above discussion, and reflecting evolving practice and low participation in delist nominations, I propose that we change the wording at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates#Nominations_for_delisting to remove the specification of how many votes are required in order to delist.

The wording would change from:

  • For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures.


  • For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with a consensus of reviewers supporting a delist or replace, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures.
  • Support as proposer. --jjron (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The nature of delists seem to make this approach much more sensible. Jujutacular talk 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Sensible; both appropriate as a normative prescription and an accurate description of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support the only sensible approach. --Extra 999 (Contact me) 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Make it three or more + consensus. Some AfD closers consider even two !votes to be consensus, and I don't think it's fair to delist an image with such minimal participation. -- King of ♠ 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with caveats. Any less than 3 votes isn't consensus in my opinion, merelyt the opinion of one or two people. As such, I don't want to complicate the guidelines further, but I would say this would satisfy everyone's concerns a little better than what is proposed:
If less than 5 votes but more than 2, and if no opposition, then delist.
If less than 5 votes but more than 2, and if any reasonable opposition, then keep.
If less than 23 votes, then keep.
If more than 5 votes, usual 2/3 majority consensus applies.
Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems sensible as solid rules of thumb, and certainly more sensisble than the hardline position as espoused by Julia and PLW. Of course, there may be other cases- what if five people have voted "weak delist"? Sounds like consensus, but, following the "half vote for weak" rule, it would not be three delist votes. What if the image is not in use when it comes to closure time, and it was nominated on the grounds that it is not in use? The image pretty unambiguously fails the criteria, but should it still be kept? The trouble with hard and fast rules is that there will inevitably be exceptions; we just have to rely on the common sense of the closer to judge consensus. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I still believe that your concept of "common sense" (which seems to be that you will support any delist decisions, however they may have come about) is a really, really, really, really bad idea, and will create a lot of strife in the project over an extended period of time, until people realise that actually, having hard closure rules with possibility to renominate (and, as Julia correctly points out, create more awareness of closure noms) makes for much calmer life and is a much preferred option. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Still seems like a storm in a teacup to me... My opinion still lies somewhere in the middle. J Milburn, I could be misinterpreting, but you seem to be refering to using speedy closures or something similar when you discuss the rationale of delisting an image no longer used in an article. But the problem is that while sometimes things appear open-and-shut, the process of nomination actually gives others the opportunity to make adjustments to the image or its article use so that it can satisfy the criteria. But if after a proper nomination period, an image is still no longer used in an article and yet people have voted to keep it, then maybe indeed you could discount the keep votes as being based on an flawed premise. The closer does still have the ability to interpret votes for validity against the criteria, I assume? It's semantics, but I would say common sense within predefined bounds is analogous to sanctioned closer perogative, wouldn't you PLW? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a proposal some time ago to adopt a prod-type mechanism for images that have fallen out of use. I still regard this as the most sensible approach. Executive summary: open a "use it or else" nom, notify appropriate people (creator, nominator, article editors), give it ten days for someone to reinsert, allow four days to assess stability/pass criticism of placement, with possible extensions to discuss/change placement. Exact number of days can be subject to discussion before we adopt this new process. As for my willingness to bend to some "common sense" that has to be argued over on each occasion, my answer is a clear no. My concern is a smooth and fair running of the project, and while Diliff's suggestions bend this motion back towards a sensible course, I'm not yet convinced that making more complicated rules that are going to be harder for newcomers to follow along with, is the best way forward. Anything that excludes people is bad, full stop. Your inclusion of "reasonable" in your proposal is particularly problematic, as that's bound to give rise to disputes. I honestly don't know why we don't bot-close noms by default based on only support/oppose or keep/delist, with human input needed only to correct the bot during the "recently closed" latency period before a second bot implements the decision. It seems to me that 90% of noms could be correctly closed by a bot, with humans perhaps ticking off the result to make sure it's been reviewed. I'll reiterate that we have quite enough general participation that it would be possible to get conclusive results on delist noms even with the current requirement. And if a delist nom has to be run twice, what's the big deal? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not convinced that 'reasonable' is a dirty word. I just meant legitimate votes for a 'keep' with actual rationale, as opposed to blank votes that ignore any of the points raised in the delist nom. I'd be all for bot-closed noms (with human sanity-checking between stages, as you say), but nobody seems to have coded one and demonstrated its use - or have they? As for having enough participation, I agree that there are enough of us around to make the project function, but population does not equal participation, and noms do slip through without enough votes - the question that keeps coming up is how to handle it and it seems we're still not in agreement. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have the automatic closure script, which, being client-side, is arguably more involved than a closure-suggestion and -execution script might be. Filtering for "weak", "support", "oppose", "keep", "delist", etc. while weighting only bold text and avoiding struck things should be reasonably simple. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Diliff, I wasn't meaning to refer to speedy closures- while I could still support them in principle, the way they were used was a long way from ideal. That's not what this discussion is about. I was meaning exactly the kind of thing you described- I support the application of common sense (as PLW has said, he considers that "a really, really, really, really bad idea"...) and I support trusting those closing nominations to make sensible decisions, and not just count votes and compare to the number listed at the top of the page. PLW, your characterisation of my apparent automatic support for delisting is unfair and unwarranted. I have opposed delist nominations before- here's one from a couple of days ago, and here's one from last month. Even if it was fair and/or warranted, it has nothing to do with the current discussion. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
My words are being twisted: There is no formal definition of "common sense". For formal law to be based on "common sense" would therefore be meaningless - the same applies to any area of making rules or policy. Some of us, however, seem to think themselves above the law, or relish the prospect of being frequently involved in disputes. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
We're not trying to enshrine common sense into FPC doctrine, just acknowledging that there are times when the closer needs to make decisions that fall outside of the guidelines. The way I see it, we have two fundamental choices. We either legislate for every conceivable possibility in a nom, or we create guidelines and let the closers make nuanced decisions. I don't think anyone really wants FPC instructions the length of the Apple iTunes terms and conditions, so it seems logical that we go for the latter. If we go for the latter, then it seems to me that we need to simply find the right balance between closer decision-making and written guidelines. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I trust closers too. I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to apply their own agenda when closing noms. It would be nice if PLW could support the same impassive approach to dealing with innocent mistakes made by closers (politely pointing them out, perhaps? Requesting a second opinion, etc) as PLW wants us to apply to the closing process itself. As much as I'd like a closing process that covers as many circumstances as possible (as I've tried to create with the amended guidelines above), I really just don't see the problem with a closer using that dreaded 'common sense'. If people are going to get so upset by what they see as a bad decision, then I think it's they that have the issue, not the closer. We can all be reasonable and discuss things rationally surely. And I agree that if we apply the 'would it pass today?' thought-experiment to our delists, giving them the 2/3 majority benefit of the doubt is more than generous IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Diliff 'rule of thumb' amendments (I swear you should have been a lawyer ;) ). Re the second one, hmmm, maybe I'd make that "If less than 5 4 votes but more than 2, and if any reasonable opposition, then keep." but don't really want to make it even more complex. However I wouldn't really want to include them in the closing instructions due to their length. Maybe a simplified version for the closing instructions could be to simply change the next line from "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator" to something like "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and at least two other supporters." --jjron (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agreed with the delete discussions, but would prefer a hard and fast rule. No system is perfect, but I think that serves us better overall. Note, I had voted to delete the one picture at issue. I'm a little worried that we will start doing the "consensus judging" on the approvals as well and basically the more mechanical system has just served this program well. I think if we start putting the delist discussions inline (not at the bottom) with the normal discussions, that might help get more eyeballs.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We're talking about delisting, and no one is challenging the notion as a whole. I really have to question whether you have any idea what this discussion is even about. Quite clearly, the system does not serve us well overall, as the current delisting process is laughably ineffective. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Alligatoren (Alligator mississippiensis) in Florida.jpg
Hey, no fighting, no biting. I might be WRONG, but I did follow the discussion (and articulate a trade off)TCO (Reviews needed) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi TCO, not sure if you noticed a key point I made above. Let me requote: "In terms of the 'commonsense' aspect I guess we regard not getting enough 'supports' during a nom as an indication that the image doesn't have the 'wow' required to be an FP. The corollary of that in terms of delists could be that by sitting for two weeks plus in the delist section and not attracting a single argument to 'keep' that again the image doesn't have the 'wow' anymore to lead anyone to want to speak on its behalf." What that means is that, AFAIC, there is no issue about us "doing the "consensus judging" on the approvals as well", which would be a concern for me too. Now given that I was one of the drivers behind changing from four to five supports for promotion, and given that few other regulars around here would propose shifting promotions to a straight consensus model, I don't personally think it's an issue atm (for interest's sake have a read of a discussion on this very point from only a few weeks ago). Essentially this is the opposite of that - it's like saying that it should be harder to be an FP than to not be one.
What we're really doing is trying to address the lack of participation in delists. If again you want to think about normal noms, I'd say you'd rarely get a nom that gets five Oppose votes - most people see a few opposes and don't want to just pile on to bag an image out. But effectively voting 'Delist' is akin to voting oppose and voting 'Keep' is more like a support. By voting 'delist' you're making the effort to go out there and criticise this image just as with an 'oppose', but furthermore you're criticising an image that at one stage the community had decided was FP worthy, so effectively you're also saying all those people were wrong (or are at least wrong on current expectations). If you really think about that you may get more understanding of why delist noms struggle to attract votes for delisting, and also why some us think that if it can sit for two weeks without attracting a single effective 'support' then it's quite likely no longer FP worthy; it's not just about a lack of eyeballs. --jjron (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What we're really doing is trying to address the lack of participation in delists. - Surely that should be done by increasing participation, not decreasing requirement? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
My reply was addressed at TCO, and he may care to actually read it in full. TCO, what do you make of this? --jjron (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
(unindent) Jj: Kudos for writing a thoughtful comment. I did just now read it in full, per your comment. (I don't always, else I turn to nitpicky debaterish and THAT is a turnoff.)
In terms of PRACTICAL things (getting more delists done), I could support your proposal if you changed the word "consensus" to be "majority". Making majority the hurdle as well as removing an minimum vote number would serve the purpose of making it easier to delist. But without bringing in subjective closes (and who does them and how they are argued and blablabla).
I also heartily urge putting the delists INLINE with regular voting (and just make them the same period too, while simplifying, probably both 2 weeks or both 9 days or whatevaz). Those penalty boxes at the end are just confusing for a newbie and a bother even for the veterans. (and to your point, don't be pedantic (Jmil!) about if they say keep or support or delete or delist.  ;-)
In terms of the logic issue with straight votes versus consensus, I don't buy the "one would be subjective and the other numerical". I can easily imagine running your whole program with "judging consensus" or with "strict votes". Neither is unthinkable, realio. So saying you would do half one way and half the other makes little sense. There is nothing that drastically different about the two that require different philosophies. And actually given the recent discussion, seems like people are open to considering going all "consensus" throughout the process.
I just had one diagram pass that was on the knife's edge...and seemed to linger for a little while and get a late oppose (and was not closed by person who usually does all the closes...since he was the late opposer. PLW closed it instead.  :)) I just worry that we are closer to abondoning the straight voting than you think. Then this place, which is already pretty small and numerically dominated by a few photographers, will have a small group do all the judging consensus also. I just think the straight vote has served you guys better than one might think and is kind of a charming model to keep around (even just for efficiency and less bad feelings). So would be reluctant to start walking away from it.
But I don't care THAT much about it.  :) Was just TRYING to wreslte some brain cells down and think about it and be fair and all. Anyhoo...those are my two cents. FWIW. Keep that firey Milburn guy from shitting on me, please. (kidding)  ;-) TCO (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm not intending to change your Oppose and doubt that I will, but I'll just make some points about a few of your concerns. I don't see why saying 'majority' rather than 'consensus' would be better, especially given that 'consensus' is the typical way things are done on Wikipedia. For example a nom that got 5 delists and 4 keeps would have a majority, but not a consensus, but on your wording that would be delisted - now that would be a major change to how things have been done, how promotions are done, and how pretty much anything else is done on WP.
The concept of inline voting is a valid point, although as I've just pointed out in my "Casual observation" down the page I don't really think that 'lack of eyeballs' is really the problem here. On the next point, I don't really know where the 'subjective vs numerical' stuff came from - certainly not from anything I've said, so maybe I missed it in someone else's comment; anyway, given that it's not my view I won't comment on that (FWIW my view is that we should be looking at a combination of vote counting and subjective comments in any nom, normal or delist).
I will however again disagree with your comment that "given the recent discussion, seems like people are open to considering going all "consensus" throughout the process" - as I pointed out above, that was proposed by one person on a few weeks ago and roundly knocked on the head by everyone else who commented. Most of us didn't bother commenting, knowing the general feeling. I also aren't sure what your personal example illustrates - are you suggesting our regular closer should be banned from voting? I believe he even pointed out that his vote was late, and therefore would probably be excluded. I believe his vote was simply stating that he himself did not support the image and did not feel comfortable performing the promotion. He did not in any way obstruct the promotion, and I believe it unfair to characterise his actions in this way.
Anyway, as I say you're free to have and voice your opinion, I just like to think that it is informed by the facts and details. And given that I'm apparently simply one of J Milburn's cronies I don't know that I'll be able to fend him off, but I'll do my best. ;) --jjron (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
We're cool, man. TCO (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Quality always trumps quantity.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per my detailed comments above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support proposed change to wording. Nikthestoned 14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support so long as it is based on consensus and not vote counting. For delist nominations, a 4/0 commentary for delisting makes it clear that a delisting in order Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The proposal, however, would remove any requirement whatsoever. That doesn't seem to be what you want. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"Based on consensus" is hardly "[no] requirement whatsoever"... Nikthestoned 14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal of numerical requirement of five supports. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose it is simple for me: under the same requirements how to vote for an FP image: minimum 5 votings and double more then contras. Why other??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems you've signed up for the wrong team. You just supported a motion to remove the requirement of 5 votes and then contradicted it in your comments. Any why other? Well, because legitimately below-standard images are being kept because not enough people have voted. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I think that this is definitely a sensible proposal. SpencerT♦C 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 3+votes and consensus per King of Hearts. (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 3+votes and consensus with consensus defined as 2/3 or more votes in favor of a delist, per King of Hearts and Diliff's post that immediately followed King of Hearts. Pinetalk 09:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • But what is consensus? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Consensus. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • And how would a bot be able to tell? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Then we're agreed; a bot closing discussions is an utterly ridiculous idea. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
            • To be fair, PLW's original bot suggestion was that the bot decisions would be sanity-checked by one of the closers before being processed by the bot. In that sense, I have no problem with a bot being involved and doing the tedious work, but with the closer making the final decision. But as per my discussion somewhere else, I wouldn't support it being used to ultimately decide nominations. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 3+ votes per King of Hearts, although I wouldn't mind 2+ votes. Given the low interest, the proposed solution is less bureaucratic. The weight of the dissenting votes, however, should also be considered. Plus there has been always a judgement of the closing person. Brandmeister t 11:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's incorrect. For about the last two years, we've been happily vote-counting with clear criteria for when votes could be discounted (IP voters, opposes with no reason given, and socks). This procedure was adopted as a direct result of the survey and has only recently been abandoned by two of the four regular closers. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The requirement of "five or more reviewers" is moot in my opinion and may create a new backlog. I think the number of delisting candidates is gradually decreasing largely due to stricter demands and soon there could be only candidates for superseding to vote for. Brandmeister t 23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I follow... You're saying there are fewer candidates because of stricter demands... but nothing has changed in two years. I'm not sure that the number of new candidates causally follows the number of successful delist noms - among the people nominating images for delisting, there can't be many who consider it a feather in their cap to have shot down an FP. More commonly, I would say that people nominate because the low quality of a particular FP they've come across, bothers them. And saying that the number of nominations is small and that there could be a backlog (because of the suggestion that renomination would be an option when the minimum is not reached, presumably?) is kind of contradictory. I did (once again) suggest a prod-like mechanism for unused ("orphaned") FPs, a bit further up on this page - this is something that could even be automated, so if you're just thinking in terms of backlogs and looking to increase throughput, I'd think that's your best option right there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am not fond of delisting in the first place so I am not about to make it easier. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support 3 or more support votes & consensus, oppose consensus alone. I wouldn't say I'm fond of delisting, but it should be easier than at present. Also support PLW's prod-like proposal for out-of-use FPs. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Good idea. Don't use majority; use consensus. Majority means we've gone back to vote counting. Clegs (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal: increase visibility of delist noms

Well-meaning, but not really a counter-proposal in that it could easily be done regardless of the outcome of the discussion above. Methods of attracting increased participation, however, may be a subject worthy of further discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 25 February 2012 (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.

Simple solution: make an effort to frequently add delist noms to the FPCurgents template which highlights nominations with additional input needed at the top of the FPC page - same as we've been doing with normal noms for some time. Requires no change of rules, just a minor adjustment of actual practice. Closures which, as outlined above, have been incorrect by current rules, should be reverted and can be re-run as needed.

  • Support Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is no solution. "Make an effort" to do something that should be done already? That's got no teeth. If you're genuinely worried about lack of participation, what's to stop you doing this anyway? Alternatively, why not propose something that may make a difference, like listing the delist noms with the regular noms? J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I like the listing with the regular noms (in line) idea. They are too much down in the penalty box now. Good call, JM.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, Milburn, no one has been listing the delist noms in FPCurgents until now. It's not actually been necessary. You're one of the extraordinary individuals here who think that delist noms may not pass without result, but normal noms may. Somewhat inconsistent, don't you think? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Not at all; and my view is hardly "extraordinary" when it (or something close to it) is quite clearly held by the majority of the community. (Or, should I say, all of the community apart from the two "extraordinary" individuals that are you and Julia.) A lack of participation in a nom, whether regular or delist, implies that no one cares about the image. I could argue that I'm the one looking for consistency, in that I support images which no one cares about not being featured pictures in all cases, while you support them not being listed in only some cases. It is widely held that lack of interest in a nom tells us a lot about the "wow" factor of the image; it seems clear that something similar is true about delists. It certainly isn't the case that if no one participates in a delist nom that everyone clearly is happy with it being featured picture- instead, it clearly means that no one cares. Does an image like that truly make a decent featured picture? Of course not. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody cares to vote in favour of delisting it is what you should be saying - clear evidence that there's no great enthusiam in favour of delisting. You see, interpreting abstaining as a vote in favour of the motion is what people like Robert Mugabe or George W. Bush do. I don't think it is suitable here. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. At least a couple of people are in favour of delisting- that's the nature of these noms we're discussing. NO ONE IS IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING THEM. That's the important point. And you really think these images make good featured pictures? This is getting ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
You're still missing the point. The very serious concern is with deviating from the way that the project has been very happily run for several years now. Suddenly you and your cronies (I must assume) are creating an infraction here, a disturbance that is not needed and not appreciated, and is wasting your time as much as everybody else's. Please return to the clear consensus that was achieved in a series of surveys that had wide-spread participation, and we can all, once again, get along, rather than engaging in this poor person's version of gang warfare. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's poor form to label as cronies anyone who happens to agree with J Milburn. Your tendency towards paranoia apparently knows no bounds. Regardless of what you think of us or our ideas, we all have the best interests of the project at heart, and I suspect you do too, even though you're frequently quite rude, obtuse and obstructive. Your suggestion that the project has run very happily for years seems like history rewritten to me. There have always been flare ups of disagreements, debates, catfights and straw polls. This is how the project has always adjusted its processes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Then you have a short memory. This place has been a haven of peace relatively speaking since we implemented vote counting. You guys are lobbying for a very short-sighted step back where inexplicable "consensus" closures reign and the closer's "vote" counts double. Not my kind of future, nor, I suspect anyone else's who's thought this through. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Clearly anyone who disagrees with you has failed to think it through. Anyway, back to reality. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
As a light-hearted aside, after re-reading your comments, it occurred to me that if you substitute the concept of opposing consensus with opposing immigration, you'd come across as a proper right-wing nutter. "It used to be a place of peace and harmony, then those immigrants came along!" Letting those Muslims in is short sighted, soon Islam will reign and us locals will be marginalised in our own country!" "I'm not at all comfortable with the direction this country going, and I suspect anyone who loves <insert country here> will agree with me!" Hmmm. :) Just seems a bit alarmist to me. I'm not convinced the sky will come crashing down if we implement change. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
That was very light-hearted indeed, flowers are in the post. Might I correctly guess this as an appendix to your accusing me of creating an unhealthy tone around here, perhaps? I suppose you felt license to call me a right-wing nutter as soon as you'd disposed of any feelings of guilt you might encounter on your part, by establishing, by authority of your infallible benevolence, that I am the source of the bad tone. But since the accusation cannot stand, let me diffuse it. My argument is more akin to me saying that things were fine with immigrants in the country, so why revert to bigotry? Bigotry, since you initiated the comparison and shall now have to live with the rebuttal, being assigned to your side, I suppose. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't actually call you a right-wing nutter or even imply that I thought you were, so your rebuttal to it is unnecessary and you're attacking a straw man there. I compared the language you used, and your apparent paranoia towards change involving those whose beliefs differ to your own. In that respect, I still maintain it's not so different. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that delisting should be made easier when participation level is at a low for FPC... And I definitely don't agree with removing the # of votes requirement to just general consensus. For me, sometimes I see delists that I don't agree with but are not getting many votes so I don't bother because they shouldn't pass with just a couple votes. No comment means more than just not caring. Delisting something from olden times of FPC when there was poor quality standards, shouldn't be very controversial, but I don't think many of those exist now. But some of the recent delists, like our new element pictures, should require the number of votes and be given the chance to be readded back to articles. So basicly, no to removing # of vote requirement is my vote. Donno what else is going on.. heh — raekyt 13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Those kind of cases certainly do require discussion, and I don't think someone would close them as a delist lightly. They're not really what the discussion is about. The discussion is really about cases like Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, which spawned the discussion- clearly should be delisted, but some wikilawyers like to scream bloody murder when noms don't have the precise number of votes. This isn't about auto-delisting, it's about trusting the closers to apply common sense and interpret consensus when closing, rather than just mechanically vote-counting. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily suggesting that we implement this, but imagine if the Delist process was replaced by a new FPC nomination process (as if it had never been featured before). In this case, a delist vote would be the equivalent of an oppose, and a keep would be the equivalent of a support. In this case, it would seem ridiculous to retain/feature an image with 4 oppose (delist) votes and no support (keep) votes. This just demonstrates how considerate we already are to current featured pictures that we give them such a benefit of the doubt. Again, as I said, I'm not suggesting we replace the process, because it would encourage gaming the noms if you don't get the result you were hoping for, and I think the delist process can work if we can adjust it to suit our participation levels. Just some food for thought. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that participation levels have changed? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel that's the main point Diliff was making... Nikthestoned 14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's the supposed basis of the whole debate. It seems to be a case where people will keep repeating a statement until everybody believes it's true, without any data having ever been presented to support it. We don't write our articles that way, so why should we accept unsubstantiated suggestion as the basis of our policy-making? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the numbers of votes in the FPC Delist Archives I'd say that participation is about the same as usual at this time of year. However, I still feel the above is a valid argument: 4 delist votes with no opposition after 14 days is pretty clear cut and I support the decision to delist; 4 opposes to a FPC with no supports would in no way be considered for promotion. Nikthestoned 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The example is flawed. The contrast is between CHANGE (promote/delist) and NO CHANGE (leave unpromoted/keep as FP). The rules as they currently stand say that in order for any change in status, there has to be a 2/3 majority and 5 minimum in favour of the change, otherwise we default to doing nothing. This protects us from making the wrong decision on the basis of small groups of people who may happen, by random chance, to be feeling the same way about something when that feeling is not shared by the community as a whole. It's protection against undue influence of an unrepresentative sample of people. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I concede, you are correct; it is a flawed argument. Shows what use that Critical Thinking A-Level was... Face-blush.svg Nikthestoned 17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
If in a 14 day period, every single participant decides to delist, then I blame any poor reults on those supposed community members who failed to participate. The community is really only ever as big as those who are actively participating. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Nik is right, it's beside the point. You don't have to prove that there has been a change to prove that there's a problem with the status quo. Fact is, we're keeping images that would never stand on their own if we applied current FPC nomination standards to them. That alone shows that there is an issue to address. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What you're saying does not match the community opinion, which had a split decision when asked whether in the case of raising the resolution requirement, any existing FPs should be automatically nominated for delisting. Arguing with increasing standards "wouldn't pass today" has usually been rejected as not being the correct standard to apply, but I suppose everyone brings their own biases to every new debate is also a slightly strange road to take as I would argue that standards were higher two years ago than they have been recently. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I accept that opinion was split on the issue, but I still maintain there's a concerning discontinuity when we don't apply the same standards to both new and existing images. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that visibility is a problem, and that listing in line with noms (as well as FPCurgents as necessary) would be an improvement. I would test the effects of this change prior to a change of the rules. There should be however some new way of distinguishing delist nominations from FPCs, maybe with a larger symbol or different background. --Elekhh (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Casual observation. Those opposing the original motion seem to continually claim that all is needed to 'fix' the problem of not getting enough 'Delist' votes is to make the delist noms more visible, or to 'increase participation' in some other miraculous way. Most of us supporting it realise that, while perhaps well intentioned, this is a fallacy. For proof we need to look no further than two current delist noms: Hydrogen and Chlorine. Both of these are smothered in 'Keep' votes with still plenty of time left on the noms. Obviously when 'the community' feels an image is worth keeping they're more than willing to voice that opinion. As some of us have pointed out, voting 'Delist' is not so easy, more akin to voting 'Oppose', and people rightly hesitate in doing so. But this is clearly evidence that over the two weeks allowed the delists are clearly getting plenty of 'eyeballs' as is, and are giving people plenty of time to put in a 'Keep' vote if they think it should remain. As we've pointed out over and over, this storm in a teacup has started over things that no one (not even the original nominator, creator, or original supporters) has been willing to vote 'Keep' on in that two week period, and yet a number of people, in some cases three and usually four, have been willing to vote 'Delist'. Oh well. There's an old saying that comes to mind: "You can't teach commonsense". --jjron (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your observations are completely unrelated to the question - the existence of variability in no way "proves" (cough, cough) that higher levels of participation are unachievable. Also see raeky's comments above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Without needing another distracting argument, I'll just say my observations are entirely related to this issue. Go and read everyone's comments who has either opposed the original proposal or supported yours (there's not that many so it shouldn't take too long) - most of them say that the main problem is probably lack of visibility, or lack of participation in delist discussions, or lack of eyeballs, or choose another variation on that theme. My key point above was that there is clear evidence that there is plenty of participation even as we speak (in terms of 'Keeps') when the image warrants it; what we are seeing though is that there is far less participation in terms of 'Delists' unless the image becomes contentious. You can argue I'm wrong all you like (and that all those images that didn't attract a single 'Keep' deserved to stay), but really, Blind Freddie can look at those two current noms I linked and see exactly what I said happening right now; right now. I'd say my observations are only "unrelated to the question" as you may choose to frame it at any point in time, and that will change to suit your needs. And I never said that higher levels of participation "are unachievable" or that nothing else could be tried (for example see my reply to TCO just minutes after my 'observation' above, where I said, and I'll quote myself: "The concept of inline voting is a valid point..."); anything's achievable, but many of us are capable of understanding the concept of opportunity cost as it applies here and the realities of the situation, some of which I pretty clearly stated above in my "unrelated" observation. And FWIW I have read Raeky's comments and he's more than welcome to reconsider his opinion; I will however note that his very first point is in direct contradiction to your own claim that participation levels haven't changed, so I'm glad you pointed that out. :) (BTW I can point out where you emphasised that if you can't remember). Oh, I'll note that the main body of Raeky's opinion is also in contradiction to the key claim that lack of visibility is the problem, as he says he sees them but doesn't bother voting; how is making them more visible going to help that? (Hmmm, I'm really not sure why you wanted to emphasise his comment.) And ultimately, if this proposal goes through, it will mean people are less likely to think that way as they know only a few unopposed 'Delist' votes are needed, so if anything it will increase participation by having them vote 'Keep' and opening a discussion, rather than just not being involved. A win-win, yes? --jjron (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I got less than half way through that comment before the amount of unwarranted accusations you're throwing around made me want to stop reading. If you want to have a discussion, it's time you learnt a little courtesy. And I hope you're not going to accuse anyone else of bad faith in the rest of this discussion because you've just blown the top off in that respect. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
PLW, you're the prime example of many of the things you tend to accuse others of - in this case, bad faith and a lack of courtesy - and it's long since been that way. I know it's unhelpful to make snarky remarks, but I assure you, you drive people to act this way with your own belligerent responses. The only bad faith claim that I could conceive of in Jjron's comments above is the insinuation that you tend to frame things to suit your needs. I happen to agree with him actually, I think you do twist things around and distract the debate to the point where the original points raised have been lost in the wash and you fail to acknowledge them. In any case, judging by the votes for the two proposals above, clearly your point of view is not being favoured by the community. On the basis of the raw vote-counting that you're so keen on, Jjron's / King of Hearts / my proposal has 14 supports and 3 opposes. Your proposal has just your own support and a hell of a lot of debate. Either it's a massive conspiracy and we're all trying to ruin the delist process for our own short-sighted (or worse, nefarious) whims, or we just don't agree with you. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Seconded - I can see very little offensive in Jjron's comments above (and he makes some valid points), however you appear to be taking this whole thing and any opposing opinion as a personal affront... Nikthestoned 16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I quote: as you may choose to frame it at any point in time, and that will change to suit your needs - does not establish a basis for constructive discourse - anything but, in fact! Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
His choice of words, I agree, was not entirely constructive, but that does not mean that he didn't have a point to make at all. You can choose to ignore the point he made about your behaviour and instead choose to focus on the offense caused, but that is equally unconstructive. Again, IMO, an example of you being no better than the behaviour you criticise. Why don't you re-read his comments and do your best to filter out the language that you deem to be offensive, and try to understand and respond to the points he made? We'll all be better off if you take the high moral ground here. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Your final point is a good one - reducing the minimum required votes may, as a side effect, encourage prospectives to think that their vote will count. It's similar to how I've often felt about eBay auctions in the past - I've been less inclined to put a bid in when I see that it's currently below reserve price. Knowing that the auction isn't 'live', so to speak, discouraged me from participating. I can see a parallel between that and nominations, both regular and delists. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:13, 25 January 2012 (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.

This discussion has gone on for some time, and appears to have calmed- there have been no comments in several days. It would be good to get some closure. I have requested that a neutral editor close it. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Graph of the number of nominations, 2007-2011.
Nominations by outcome, 2007-2011.
Delist nominations by outcome, 2006-2011. Contrary to recent claims, likelihood of an FP being kept was higher in 2007 and 2008 than it is now. If anything, there is no significant trend at all.

FYI, I have created a page to keep any relevant statistics for the project at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Statistics. Anyone feel free help keep it updated / add relevant statistics. I created an updated graph of the number nominations through last year. The number of nominations for featured status was markedly down in 2011, but it looks like activity has increased over the past month. Hopefully activity continues to increase :) Jujutacular talk 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Juju, but what's more in debate at the moment is the participation per nomination, particularly for delists. Any statistics on that? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't really making this as a response to the discussion above. At any rate, gathering statistics per nomination would be a bit more difficult (I don't have anything on this). Jujutacular talk 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
You get these directly from the db? Nikthestoned 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
See the subpage: List created using number of pages in categories (e.g. {{subst:PAGESINCATEGORY:Featured picture nominations/December 2010}}). Nominations before 2007 were not separated into categories by date. Jujutacular talk 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Apologies... Face-blush.svg Nikthestoned 17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem! Face-smile.svg Jujutacular talk 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to PLW's statistics... I'm not sure who made the claim that the likelihood of FPs being kept was higher now than in the past... I don't remember seeing it, but I could be mistaken. In any case, I still think the more important issue is whether they are being kept due to lack of participation vs being kept because they are of a high enough standard. The stats above are interesting, but not the focus of the discussion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If you want to look at it that way, then the data still raises the question why this concern is coming up now, when we've had fairly consistent keep and delist rates for years. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • And your previous question of whether participation could be making a dent is quite patently refuted by the data. Nothing's making much of a dent at all, neither participation nor any other factor. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually I disagree. Whether participation is making a dent can only be determined by statistics that show the what percentage are kept because of consensus (5+ votes and 2/3 majority to keep) vs kept because of a lack of consensus (could be 4 votes to delist). Your stats simply do not show this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 07:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
PLW, can you provide your sources for your charts? Dusty777 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ .