Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 8

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

Technical enhancement of the nomination procedure

Playing around with the inputforms extension I figured we could harness its powers for the nomination process and get rid of some tedious copy paste.

What do you think? --Dschwen 09:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a really great addition. The only minor problem that I see could be fixed if {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}} could be changed to {{subst:PAGENAME}} (it would actually be substituted) to output the proper URL for whatever the subpage is. Also, the intro could probably be a little friendlier and still get the point across. Exceptional work! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the subst trick you suggested is technically possible (and subst:PAGENAME would prepend Featured Picture Candidates/ to the title.). I'll look into it! The warning text was more of a tounge-in-cheek thing, rewording is welcome for the actual live version. --Dschwen 10:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Friggen awsome! I like the wording as it is! Can you make a page that removes noms as well? -Ravedave 14:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Does the input box even need "Featured Picture Candidates/" ? Couldn't you just have it be a blank box that the user would enter their page name into? -Ravedave 16:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
It does need the path. Check meta:Help:Inputbox. The extension itself would have to be modified to support a custom widget. --Dschwen 16:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the MediaWiki sourcecode and the InputBox extension source. It is a six line patch all in all and would solve the prepend issue and automatically insert the title of the nomination into the page. It just isn't very pretty from a technical standpoint. I'm waiting for feedback from a developer to see whether inclusion of the patch is a viable option. A form for removal nominations would be possible as well. We might want to split removals off to a second page in that process. --Dschwen 21:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant one that removed promoted/not promoted pics. OMG is it a pain in the butt to promote a picture! -Ravedave 22:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, that's a whole different story. I wanted to look into that problem some time ago already. Maybe we can come up with a bot/online-tool to automate some steps of the promotion. --Dschwen 22:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic work! I hope you get a favourable response on the patch but even if not, this will be very useful indeed. Re the other idea of a promotion bot, a script that could perform all the steps of the promotion would be fairly straightforward but the user would have to fill in a form at the beginning for each promotion with info like who took it, what headings it'll be listed under, what its main article is and so forth. I'm on a LANless boat for the next few days but I'll have a crack at it if Dscwhen hasn't done it by the time I get back! ~ VeledanTalk 23:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to follow up. A response has not yet arrived, but I had an idea how to make tha patch more elegant. Will try again after the weekend. I thought about the promotion script. If it were a bot/script on a remote server which required user intervention it would run under its own username, unless people were willing to supply their WP login to a different server. That would make it vulnerable to vandalism. The other solution might be a JavaScript Monster, User:Lupin/popups.js shows what can be done in JS (impressive). --Dschwen 22:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have thought about the remote server option myself, but I think it would be more work than necessary to provide so general a tool when in reality only a few people at a time actually work on closing FPCs, and I agree it would be better for people to use their own user accounts. I've made some suggestions for an easier-to-code local script below and I'd welcome your comments ~ VeledanTalk 22:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the path in the box, to include Wikipedia and to have lowercase picture cadidate. -Ravedave 04:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Contacted the developer again. Now I have a (hopefully) better idea for the patch. We'll see. Otherwise I'll add the inputbox as it is. --Dschwen 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Rocket Launcher - Not Promoted?

At what vote does a picture get promoted or not promoted? That picture had 11 votes in support and 5 opposed.

The count just doesn't make sense to me. PPGMD 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

11/16 = 68.75%. Usually this doesn't fall in the range of consensus. Considering all of the opposes had reasons instead of just "oppose," I accounted for them. However, this brings up the point that I have been thinking about for a few days. Should we define a percentage that is needed for promotion? I have mixed feelings about this. It would provide guidance for people who aren't sure if it is promoted, but it would add instruction creep. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Bah, I just typed up all the following and got an edit conflict, and I've got to run... will continue discussion later.
PS2pcGAMER tends to stick to a hard 70% mark, the percentage considered by the community as roughly equal to consensus. This is certainly not the proper way to go about it, but I haven't taken the time to discuss this with him. If you'd like to leave him a message, I know he is open to comments or criticism on these things. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes. This particular image is a judgement call... even ignoring percentages, it's right on the borderline. ~MDD4696 02:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I feel strongly that under 70% is not a consensus. Personally, I like the RfA system... 80%+ is passing, 75-80% is left up to the closing bureaucrat and under 75% is not a promotion. I have been using this as a rough guideline. I'm all up for discussion if there is an issue, but no one has said anything until now. Some may feel that these numbers may be too high or that discretion shouldn't be used in close cases. I haven't really discussed it with anyone besides MDD4646, and even that was only to a very small extent. I accidental promoted an image at this same percentage 68.75%, and MDD4646 pointed out my error. I was under the impression MDD4646 also felt that 70% was also a good cutoff. A guess a discussion is definitely in order. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that nothing under 70% should be promoted. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I belive the comment need to be taken into account. If there are 6 Supports with comments about why its good and 4 opposes that just say Oppose i belive it shouldbe nominated. I think it needs to be up to the closer and if someone disagrees then it can be discussed here.-Ravedave 14:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
This was a very tough one to close, no doubt about that. For what it's worth I support PS2pcGAMER's decision because it's a borderline/judgement call tally by anyone's standards, and I feel that the opposing case was more fully justified in the comments. I'm not in favour of defining consensus by a fixed %, though ~ VeledanTalk 15:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/SydneyOperaHouse

I was planning on closing this along with the other two that were pending closure but I think that this requires more input before closure due to the fact that the image was entirely changed halfway through and many of the votes either changed or were not revisited after the image was revamped. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would consider closing it as is, simply based on the fact that no one has voted on it in the last three full days. However, on WP:AfD, the person doing the closing has the option to relist it for more time if s/he feels that a consensus hasn't been reached (i.e. more input is needed). If I had to lean one way, I'd say close it, but it is of course up to you. I see no problem with not closing until there is more input here. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue I'm concerned about isn't really whether to close it or not it's if closed which way should it be closed since there are quite a few extenuating circumstances on this one. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of biased. If I had gotten around to voting, I would have voted opposed. The artifacts are too distracting for me. But if we are going to play the numbers game, there are 7 supports and 4 opposes... 7/11 = 63.63%. I don't think most people who close images usually promote at percentage in this range. The opposes are all legitimate opinions too, at least in my opinion. I'd wait for someone else to comment besides me though.  :p --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course I'm a little biased but here are my two cents: When I closed FPC's aeons ago, something slightly more than 50% (provided that there weren't any other issues to take into account) would've been promoted. Things may have changed, but remember that this isn't RfA where you need 70-80% support. In addition, the closing person also has the discretion to ignore or place less weight on votes based on factors that have been addressed in subsequent revisions. enochlau (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

(exdent) The more and more we have been talking about exactly what consensus is lately has really started to make me think. When I started closing nominations about a month ago, I just did my best. I hadn't spent a lot of time on FPC, so I wasn't aware of previous precedent. I tried to keep anything with 70%+ promoted and anything under that would be not promoted. Like most of Wikipedia, FPC seems to be turning into a vote instead of a discussion. Anyway, to give some statistics (pulled from Wikipedia:Supermajority):

  • 75-80% or larger majority support for a Wikipedia:Request for adminship (WP:RFA);
  • two-thirds or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD);
  • 60% or larger majority support for Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM); and
  • 50% or more to reconsider, and 75% to overturn a deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion review (WP:DRV).

Obviously consensus varies on a case by case basis. If an image is updated half way through the vote and the vast majority of the votes are supports, we tend to ignore the earlier votes (even if they were all opposes), especially if the image addresses the concerns of the earlier opposers. It is a tricky line to follow. Looking at the statistics above, I am beginning to think that my 70% guideline may be a little too high. However, I don't think that it is a bad thing to hold our pictures to a high standard. Over the past few years, the FP criteria has gone up.

The other issue is that some of the nominations have 20 or more votes which makes it hard if you start trying to weigh each vote differently. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I agree that 70% is perhaps a little high. It does make an Oppose vote count for a little too much sometimes. That said, I think I may have voted with an oppose, too, if I had gotten around to it. IMHO, it is a good images, but not a great image. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the Sydney Opera house nom as not promoted since there wasn't a consensus in favor of promotion. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? -> FP criteria

I think Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? should be moved to Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria. This might help the newbies. If I don't get any feedback I'll move it tomorrow. -Ravedave 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't forget WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFPo, and WP:WIAFL. At the moment they all follow the same pattern. I think you'd have to post this to the talk pages of those pages too and move them all or none. The other problem would be the shortcuts. The new pages would have the same initials as the relevant candidature pages ~ VeledanTalk 08:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Upload to Commons

I suggest that all free FP candidates be uploaded to Commons. Each week Signpost publishes a list of newly promoted FP. I would like to use them in another wiki (Slovenian Wikipedia), but can't, as I am working from a public computer (unable to download) and they are not uploaded to Commons. Thanks very much. --Eleassar my talk 14:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Which of the pics is not already on commons? I didn se a single one in the last 8 Nominations. And actually not only free FP should be on commons. Almost every free pic should reside there. --Dschwen 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Check images listed here. --Eleassar my talk 15:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing a nom with edits

This is a difficult question - say that we have one original nom, and 2 or 3 edits over the 7 day period. How do you judge when closing the nom? Do you count all supports, for whatever version, against all opposes? For example: 10 supports vs. 5 opposes = featured. This would be more fair than splitting the supports, giving 4-3-3 vs 5 = not featured. If enough people support any one of the versions, I think there's a tough decision to be made by the closer, i.e. choose one of the versions, and also considering if the votes that were been given before the edits appeared are valid, or if they can be counted towards the most supported edit. What do you think? (The old nomination of Machu Pichhu is a typical example - there were nine versions at closing, so it had to be re-nominated...) --Janke | Talk 17:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Interesting point. There was an edit that I made to a FPC a few months ago ([1]) that I strongly felt was the best version for many reasons. However, because nobody specifically commented on it, Raven4x4x was not able to select it as the featured picture. I can understand his reasoning but sometimes it can be frustrating. Then again, I could always just go ahead and upload an update of my edit over the top of the original. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Closing an ambiguous discussion is never something I look forward to, and I think it needs sense and judgment rather than hard rules. If I think that an edit is an improvement (especially if it addresses concerns in previous comments), and it is not opposed, I will promote the edit and leave an explanatory note. People can always comment if they disagree, and the promoted version could be changed if necessary, but I haven't had a dispute yet. Regarding the Machu Pichhu nomination, I closed that one as No result because a few experienced editors had requested a null result: until I saw that request at the end I had been intending to do my best to pick a version based on existing comments, and I'd have left messages for the involved editors to explain and request their comments/any newer versions. ~ VeledanTalk 14:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POV-ray nomination, time to choose the version

I simply put it on top of the list of noms. If that breaks something, can someone more knowledgeable in wiki intricacies please fix it, thanks! --Janke | Talk 05:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Flag diagrams are not welcome...

I am taking this to the talk page because I don't feel like getting into a revert war. User:Pegasus1138 added "Flag images are welcome however flag diagrams have been deemed unsuitable for nomination so please do not nominate them." to the intro paragraph of the page. I feel that it doesn't belong here for a few reasons. First, in the time I have been here (granted, I have only been on FPC a few weeks), there has been only one flag diagram nomination (the current one). This nomination has gotten off to a really bad start for a few reasons (lack of civility, etc), but let's keep it to the fact that it has had only opposes so far. I strongly feel that this one instance is not notable enough to include it in the lead paragraph. Further, making absolute statements like "flag diagrams should not be nominated because they won't pass" is a really bad idea. If an explanation of why flag diagrams are discouraged is really necessary, it should go on WP:WIAFP with the other examples. The nomination hasn't even been listed for a day yet and it just doesn't seem right to have a policy listed about it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that very few people actually read WIAFP right? I get the feeling that is one of the reasons why we've recently been getting so many crappy FPC nominations though that's an entirely different issue for an entirely different time (somebody remind me to bring that up later though). My issue is the fact that even this one nom has made it painfully clear that those who put in the effort and time to comment on FPC's do not want diagrams of flags on FPC and the same can be said for maps which I probably should have expanded the notice to include since as long as I have monitored and watched I have never seen a flag diagram promoted and very rarely have seen a map image promoted and of the few that were promoted several have been de-promoted since people don't feel they fit with the current "criteria" for a featured picture. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a case of WP:POINT to me. Anyway WP:WIAFP would be the right place it it weren't just a sulking reaction. "No one liked my FP, darn it, lets put it in the rules: images of this type are not welcome". Where does it end? Should we add a Boring pictures of food platters are not welcome either, so don't nominate them to the page as well? This is just weird clutter. --Dschwen 07:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well apparently it doesn't begin with you following WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF since that's not what your doing. Contrary to what you apparently mistake it to be it is not just because of my nom, it's because of a general trend that map and flag images are not welcome on FPC and are almost never successful at FPC's though I'll definitely add it to the WIAFP page. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Pegasus, why can't you accept the oppose votes? Everybody is entitled to his own opinion, and FPC is all about opinions, anyway. I accepted many rather rude votes (or rather, laconic, such as "boring") on my first FPC, and learned from them, but I didn't add "boring images of steam locomotives are not wanted" to the page header... --Janke | Talk 07:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)]
Because that would be A) too narrow and based off a single nom, I challenge anyone to find a flag diagram that is featured status, or a map diagram for that matter, although I know there are at least a few map diagrams that got through a long time ago when more stuff got through FPC unscathed. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the sulking remark was a little harsh, I appologize. Secondly your challenge is counterproductive. Each picture should be voted upon on its own merit. Who knows, maybe the perfect Flag diagram is waiting around the corner (Image:Austria_Bundesadler.svg maybe?). So why generalize instead of being open? Your nom fell through, big deal, maybe another nom has more luck, dont't scare them off. --Dschwen 07:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I consider this a great map diagram. Although it was originally listed as a FP and has since been nominated for delisting and it looks like that nomination will not pass. I can say with some confidence that if this were a new nomination, it would pass. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say that since the image had no chance I have withdrawn and archived the nomination and I apologize for apparently wasing all of yours' time with what seems to have been a futile and pointless nomination. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Not the nomination was pointless and futile, but this discussion apparently was. --Dschwen 08:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Definitely no fault with the nomination as such. It is a nice image. If it were not for the unpleasant clash of strong opinions (on both sides), it may well have received more supporting votes. --Janke | Talk 08:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Civility/Personal attacks

This needs to stop. FPC is getting much more hostile recently. FPC newbies are being bitten with comments like "Why is this a FPC?" and "Quality is going down since FP appears everyday on the main page." Saying WP:NPA prevents you from attacking someone's logic falls under incivility. I don't feel that sarcastic comments are appropriate here either. If a nominator doesn't follow instructions or appears to have not read WP:WIAFP, that is not an excuse to attack them. All of my examples were from the past week. I hope no one takes it personally if I have listed something that they have said. In my opinion, FPC should be taken seriously. What we do here ends up on the front page. Not only that, it should be considered very prestigious to have a featured picture. I wanted to address this issue and see if anyone would object to me adding a sentence or two in the supporting and opposing section about conducting yourself on FPC. I suppose it is time for me to get off of my soapbox now. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you add pointless oppose votes for made up reasons to the list then go for it otherwise it will be as toothless as campaign finance reform. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 06:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
NPA and civility violations will be enforced. They are Wikipedia policy. I wish I had time to handle these problems more directly, but I've only recently noticed them at this level over the past 2 days. Unfortunately I tend to get very busy during the weekdays and I haven't had a chance to talk to people about it. However if people leave warnings on user's talk pages and the user continues, they can be reported to an administrator who will handle it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
"Pointless" oppose votes? No vote with a stated reason is ever pointless. The opposes have been clearly defined. The problem here seems to be that you simply can't accept the reasoning behind the oppose votes. It makes one wonder if you are deliberately trolling for escalation? The addition to the page header was a clear provocation, IMO. --Janke | Talk 07:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Janke, I'll ask you again to please remain civil and assume good faith since I have done nothing to deserve the incivility you are showing me. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 07:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Seemed pretty civil to me, what incivility are you refering to? Disregarding other peoples votes as pointless seems way more incivil to me. --Dschwen 08:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Accusing me of trolling and purposefully trying to escalate a conflict, neither of which are true btw is quite incivil. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read my comment again. I didn't accuse you, I said "it makes one wonder" - that's not the same thing (and I'm glad you answered the question with a negative). I tried to be as civil as I possibly could, and still get my message through. If you found my comment above uncivil or insulting, I apologise. The reason for the strong(ish) laguage is that I have never before seen such a vehement attack on other voter's opinions - we shouldn't fight over such things! --Janke | Talk 08:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well after this reception to putting up an image to FPC I don't plan on doing it again anytime soon and I apologize if I was incivil at all during the nomination. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well said PS2pcGAMER. Pegasus1138, I'd encourage you to re-read your own comments here and at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Union Jack a week from now to see why you received such a reaction. If you wish to be an administrator, you need to recognize negative tone in your writing and do your best to stay level-headed. ~MDD4696 16:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, Support adding WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL somewhere. PS2pcGamer. -Ravedave 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Idea: featured photographs / featured illustrations?

I feel this page is heavily biased in favor of photography, especially centering on technical aspects thereof. Therefore, I'm just throwing the idea of splitting it up between photography and illustration in the ring. I'm not quite sure if it would be workable, and it might create considerable overhead, but I'd like to hear some opinions on the basic idea. What do you think? -- grm_wnr Esc 09:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some opinions related to your idea: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive3#Featured_Diagrams --Dschwen 09:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I'm going to read the discussion. It seems to be quite thorough. -- grm_wnr Esc 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, read it - it seems to be slightly in favor of the idea, especially since the most vocal opponent, BrokenSegue, was of the opinion "Stop trying to argue that striking images are the only ones that can pass through here", which is patently untrue as of April 2006. Maybe it's time to revisit the discussion. -- grm_wnr Esc 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I just went through the April 2006 archive. Out of 72 Nominated photographs, 17 were promoted (23.6% of nominations). Out of the 17 nominated paintings, drawings and diagrams, 6 were promoted (35.3% of the nominations). It seems that the Stop trying to argue that striking images are the only ones that can pass through here is a valid point. Glaurung 11:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't have thought that the ratio was so high, though I have to say hat FPC isn't operating in a vacuum - I for one, don't bother to nominate illustrations here at all because I know in advance what has a chance and what doesn't. Also, of these six promoted illustrations, five are scans of old illustrations now in the public domain - not what I had in mind, I must admit (I reflexively thought "scan = photography", which is of course not quite true). -- grm_wnr Esc 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)-- grm_wnr Esc 02:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Former Featured Picture

Janke raised the idea on Template_talk:FeaturedPicture. I hope he doesn't mind me copying the discussion to this page due to lack of paticipants ;-)

Should we have a "former" template for pictures, too, as a courtesy to the creators? I ask because there is currently an active period of de-listing FPs. --Janke | Talk 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a pretty good idea to me. What about this: --Dschwen 08:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Subst of {{FormerFeaturedPicture}}

Featured picture star This used to be a featured picture, however it was found by community consensus to be not up to the current standards anymore. If you have an image of higher quality, be sure to upload it, using the proper free license tag, then add it to a relevant article and nominate it.
  • Yes! Looks good. --Janke | Talk 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea - they have that already for old featured articles. enochlau (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've substed the template and removed the category as it was categorising this page :) enochlau (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and plugged it onto the nine delisted images I found so far. Check out Category:Wikipedia_former_featured_pictures. --Dschwen 11:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it, good work! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, good idea! -Glaurung 05:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Promotion 'bot' practicalities

I've been thinking about making a promotion tool, further to a side comment in the '#Technical enhancement of the nomination procedure' section above. This would not be a bot in the sense of an automatic process: it would instead be an 'assisted user interface' that would allow a user to promote FPs one at a time much more quickly than by the current manual method. The user would provide all the necessary information such as which version to promote, and the tool would automatically make all the time-consuming edits that follow.

I'd like to jot down some thoughts on the practicalities here and I'd welcome any feedback on whether people think it's a good idea, or on any specific points:

  1. FP promotions require human input for such things as the wording to use in piped links, choice of section heading to list under, etc: any tool will have to allow the user to make all the necessary decisions
  2. It should also allow the addition of a further comment to the vote closure if desired, or an added personal note with the {{PromotedFPC}} template on the user talk page of the nominator
  3. The tool would perform the promotion steps sequentially. It should provide a progress report upon completion that lists any edits that failed, so that they can be completed manually
  4. It'll only be suitable for the use of experienced editors who can finish off the work manually if necessary and so there should probably be no mention of it at WP:FPC and the promotion instructions would not be changed. Anyone who makes a couple of promotions manually and comes to the talk page to complain about the lengthiness of the procedure can be offered it :-)
  5. I have no intention of doing more work than is necessary, and if I am the one who writes this, it'll be a text-based python script built on the pywikipediabot framework. I'd include a 30-second guide to installing python and starting the script of course (it's free and cross-platform, and it really is that quick and easy)
  6. The tool should validate user input interactively where possible: for example, if the first user input is to paste in the name of the FPC nomination, the tool should check that the page exists and the nomination hasn't been closed already before going on to ask for more information
  7. The tool should remove the nomination from WP:FPC as soon as it identifies the page to prevent edit conflicts, just as human editors do when making promotions
  8. Where possible, the tool should provide a multiple-choice list of inputs: for example, the list of possible headings at WP:FP would be fetched by the tool and presented as a numbered list
  9. I considered all the steps while performing two promotions this evening, and I do believe it'll be possible to write and use with confidence. I haven't included the finer details in this post, but I'll write them up here and/or at WP:BOTS if feedback here suggests it's worth going ahead with the idea

Thanks all, ~ VeledanTalk 21:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A tool like this would be great. It would also help keep the backlog down because I think more people would be willing to help out if it was much more automated. Your point about not making it "pretty" is valid as the application really doesn't need to be fancy, it only needs to get the job done. Anyway, if you need someone to help test it out, drop me a message. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I will do. If it works well, I may well relent and learn enough tkinter (python native gui kit) to provide an ugly GUI and package the result as a standalone .exe file for ease of use. Writing the tool in any language other than Python would be out of the question because it'd involve reinventing the wheel. I do like Python but it can make deployment fiddly. ~ VeledanTalk 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: I'm hoping to have it in testing this afternoon. ~ VeledanTalk 10:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to start debugging the script on the live nominations currently waiting. I copied loads of pages into a /subsection of the sandbox for testing and debugging, but the namespace isn't the same of course and the testing I've been able to do was very limited. I'll be proceeding in debug mode and checking every edit so I'll be correcting anything that doesn't work right of course. ~ VeledanTalk 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


it works! I've used it to close 9 noms this evening and the last few were without glitches but I'd like to carry on testing it on the next few closures for the next couple of days before handing it over. Also I want to add the ability for it to automatically swap image versions in articles where an edit was promoted.

An example of the text interface for anyone interested in how it's used is here. All user input is preceded by the --> prompts: the lists of possible images etc are provided by the script. It's basic but the good news is once you've made the decision about which version to promote, it takes only 1 minute to perform :-) The reason the script mentioned the nomination it was working on wasn't listed at WP:FPC by the way is that someone removed the transcluded entry at the same time I started it running. Lastly, there are more questions it can ask but they weren't needed for this particular nom, and I'm too tired to write it up now! ~ VeledanTalk 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work Veledan. I have stopped closing noms partially to let you test your application and partially because I have gotten lazy. I can't wait to see the final product. Cheers. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Have several thousand cookies!
Amazing. Promoting pictures is the worst part of the FPC process (incidentaly, I think FPs are the best and least controversial part of wikipedia). I used to do promotions until I got tired and lazy. You deserve several thousand cookies. BrokenSegue 02:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Just like BrokenSegue and others, I did a fair stint of closing FPC nominations a while back, but then got burnt out by it. A working bot should be a big help. -- Solipsist 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! I'll try to add the code to do the picture substitution tonight then I'll make the distribution package & source code available. A pity we are going through a quiet spot in the nominations - we won't have many to test the amendments on, so we'll have to release it slowly. I am away on business for most of next week so I'll hand it over to PS2pcGAMER (who was first to volunteer) for further testing if he agrees ~ VeledanTalk 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Good job Veledan, thats a great tool! Can you have the tool also update the featured picture count at the top WP:FP too?-Ravedave 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for spotting that :-) I'll fix it tomorrow ~ VeledanTalk 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin help requested

Would one of you admins please delete the May archive I just created? You can speedy it under G7/author request. I made the archive page in advance because the script needed it to be present, but then I fixed the script to be able to create the page itself from the appropriate template if needed. I need the May page deleting so the new code will receive a live test on Monday instead of having to wait till next month! ~ VeledanTalk 21:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I find it's a very efficient service one gets around here nowadays :-) ~ VeledanTalk 21:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


  1. I found this handy page: Wikipedia:Templates_used_for_featured_content
  2. Does anyone know why Template:Wallpaper has the FP template inside of it?
  3. Does anyone know why Template:Wallpaper isnt part of the promotion process?

-Ravedave 03:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It also appeard to have been moved from Template:FeaturedWallpaper, which doesnt make any sense, since the template specificly aims at features pictures (thats probably wha it contains the FP template). I dont like it very much and would rather give the FeaturedPicture Template a parameter wich would add a scentence and the category. I.e. {{FeaturedPicture|wallpaper}}. And we'll have to set some standards. It is applied to ridiculously small pictures. I guess nowadays even 1024x768 is even considered a small screen res. It would be niche to have the wallpapers all be above 1600x1200. The smaller resolutions will be covered automatically by downsampling. --Dschwen 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say any pic that works on a background should be in there. There are still millions of peope using 800x600. I would think {{wallpaper}} and {{Wallpaper|Featured}} should be the templates. I also think that Featured wallpaper shouldn't have the FP tag in it, as they are seperate things.-Ravedave 15:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Well ok, maybe the pictures could be subcategorized by size picx >=640, >=800, >=1024, >=1280, and so on (put them only in the biggest category). But then again, is Wikipedia the next Desktop-Background-Download-Site? What does works on a background mean? Most of the digital camera pictures are 4:3 and anything >2MPix could easily be used as a wallpaper. I'd say toss the template. --Dschwen 16:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree killing the template would be OK - as you say a rough 3:4 ratio applies to most FPs anyway, and it's easy enough to go browsing at WP:FPT or WP:FPV without needing another category to filter out the few that don't fit. Also, most of the FPs which do have the right ratio are not listed so uinless someone wants to plough through adding the template to hundreds, it'll be less work just to get rid of it ~ VeledanTalk 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

What is a featured pic

I updated Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? again to try and make it clearer by bolding the main points. Should "Adds value to an article" be "Used in an article" with details saying it needs to add value? -Ravedave 15:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Closing Mtl-metro-map delisting

Could someone please close the delisting debate for Mtl-metro-map.png? I've closed all the other noms but this one is 5/3 counting Dschwen's vote as a keep for the .svg version, and I am obviously too involved to close such a borderline case (I nominated it for deletion and haven't changed my mind)

Thanks, whichever way it goes! ~ VeledanTalk 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC) The bot worked perfectly tonight on the 4 closures :-)

  • Have I made the required impression in the tally? ;) It is now 6/3. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, at least we now have an SVG version. Although this might count as extotion in some countries ;-). --Dschwen 09:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol :-) I'd have thought the 6/3 helpful to another closer but not quite enough for me to do it, but with ed_gs2's vote as well it was 7/3 so I thought it safe to close it as a delist since no-one else had. Thanks guys ~ VeledanTalk 16:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion in article criterion

Some of the nominated pictures have been found by users on article pages. Noticing that such or such picture was of excellent quality, they nominate the picture as FPC (which propably is the way that FPC should work). Sometimes however, a user upload a picture to wikipedia in order to nominate it as FPC. As one of the criteria is the inclusion of the picture in an article, the nominator/uploader includes it in one or two articles (sometimes not the most appropriate ones) and nominate the picture here. But regular editors of the article(s) in which the newly nominated picture was cavalierly added may not appreciate this picture (especially if the article in which the picture was included was not the most appropriate regarding the photograph's subject, or if the article is already overloaded with images) and decide to remove it, leaving the nominated picture without an article. I think that to avoid the inclusion of pictures in articles as an excuse to nominate them as FPC, one should add a new criterion about the inclusion in articles. Something like : Before nominating a picture as FPC, it should have been displayed for at least one week in an article. This would force those who nominate their own pics to wait and see if their picture is accepted in the article before putting them up for FP promotion. Any thought? -Glaurung 06:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been bothering me as well and sounds like a very good idea. This could be added to point 5 on WP:WIAFP. and has withstood peer review after inclusion in the article for at least one week --Dschwen 06:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. A good idea to avoid the clutter we've had the past few weeks. When implemented, orphan image noms can be removed immediately, with an explanatory note to the nominator - who can come back after a week... --Janke | Talk 07:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree, as it wouldn't be a significant issue for nominators. I have to admit that, on occasion, I have taken an photo knowing that it would probably be worthy of nomination and added it to the article and FPC page, but it has never been for the purpose of FPC alone. ;) I know we try to avoid elitism on wikipedia, but it can be difficult to set policies that avoid newbies wasting everyone's time, while still allowing experienced contributors some flexibility. Whether newbies actually follow any of these policies is another issue, too. Time has shown that no matter what has be defined as policy, there will always be some people that don't read or even ignore them. Such is life. ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, when the article has been inapropriate the pic has been removed by FPCers, and the nom failed. If the image is good enough it will succeed in articles. If the users can't even understand that a pic has to be in an article what makes you think they will read far enough to see that it needs to be there for a week? Also why is this "clutter" bothering everyone so much, it's not your time being taken to either nominate, or close (unless your name is veldan). -Ravedave 14:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)