Its sad to see the severe decline in participation in the reviewing of images at FPC. In the past, it was common to see an image promoted with >10 supports. This has fallen quite a bit, such that it is now difficult to get even the minimum 5 supports, and that too with images whose quality is far superior than those nominated before. I was surprised to see JJ Harrison's interesting and very encyclopedic salt image not reach the quorum.
The shortfall of participation is definitely concerning, but I don't exactly agree with most of his points. [I wrote up a large paragraph concerning how I don't agree with it, but it's beside the point really]. What do you propose we do to address the lack of participation? Jujutaculartalk17:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion the present lack of popularity reflects the departure of many self-nominators, who were not only excellent photographers but also good reviewers (Fir, Diliff, Richard Bartz and some others). Anyway this is a natural thing to happen, as projects are born, live and die. Unless some new stimulus are created to make both nominators and creators to come back. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to thank Muhammad for his invitation to comment here; in particular in light of the fact that another semi-regular sent me a private email just this last week stating almost identical concerns. I think the concerns are valid (even down to why NS's high EV salt image failed, while his umpteenth bird will pass). I personally think it may help to look at the issue from some key points; others will simply say there's no issues or chose to ignore what I say because it's far more convenient. Fine by me.
1. FPC is attracting fewer viewers. This is clearly shown in page view statistics. While there's obviously a lot of variation in figures, trying to separate out the background noise I'd say FPC is attracting marginally fewer viewers than the same time last year (say 25 – 50), around 100 – 150 fewer than the same time two years ago, and possibly >300 fewer than the same time three years ago. Sure this will partially reflect a decline in the 'regulars', but despite Wikipedia's overall increased user base, FPC is evidently not attracting the click-throughs it once did. Why?
2. Those viewing aren't voting. OK, sure the statistics show us there's far fewer viewers, but the page is still getting nearly 300 hits a day. While a significant percentage will be return visits—regulars viewing multiple times—there's still a substantial base of people looking at the page, while rarely, if ever, expressing an opinion; i.e., putting down a vote. Why?
I can not answer why but I'd say some may be afraid to voice their opinion or oppose. FWIW, I'd rather have my image shot down with opposes than left untouched. --Muhammad(talk)16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
3. There has been a loss of old-regulars. As Alvesgaspar states above a number of old-regulars have either left or become just occasional contributors. He says "this is a natural thing to happen", which is true to an extent, but there may be more to it. In my over-four years contributing here I saw many 'regulars' come and go—however we used to see them replaced by 'new' regulars. That is not happening so much now. Is it just simply Alve's natural death scenario, or is there more to it? (As I don't visit Commons FPC I can't comment on it, but a start to this could be to ask whether the same thing has, or is, happening over there. If so, it may add weight to Alve's contention; if not, it suggests more of a local issue here.) In short, what's driven away the regulars?
Allow me to share a personal experience. I first found out about FPC from a Tanzanian wikipedian who had nominated an image. He reluctantly told me how embarrassed he was when an a mobile camera image he had nominated was rudely opposed. He never returned to FPC. After hearing this, I gave FPC a go with my tortoise image taken with a mobile phone. The response I got from some of the users (especially jjron) was encouraging and I am still here with many FPs in my collection. While we can be aggressive with regulars, I'd say we should be very careful with newbies. --Muhammad(talk)16:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Newbies aren't being encouraged to vote or contribute, and therefore become 'regulars'. Probably closely related to the above two points, but remember a lot of old regulars only sometimes nominated, and even more rarely self-nominated. What's stopping this process now? Was it just that when a nom had twelve supports already down that it was easy to add a pile-on vote and build some confidence? Did old controversies attract people to state their own opinion (as seems to be human nature), whereas the vast majority of noms today either sit there dead-in-the-water (don't want to vote on that and make myself obvious), or are already 'decided' by a few early votes (dont' want to disagree with the regulars, or stand out too much by being an early voter)? Is there too much biting going on? Is no one making the newbies feel welcome or valued? Once you start contributing and build up a bit of confidence you're more likely to keep contributing and stay around for a while, even if it's only a year or so, but that is what is needed. And if it that's not happening (as it seems) what's stopping the newbies from voting and becoming regulars?
I think that breaks it down into some key points surrounding this issue, and if they can be answered honestly then it may start providing some answers about how to address the (I think agreed upon) problem. I could posit some answers to some of them, but people have probably already heard enough from me. Personally, I'd also suggest that the fact that in more than 24 hours Muhammad's valid concern has attracted only two brief replies is a concern in itself, and another symptom of the issue. --jjron (talk) 02:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone else seen this? It seems like a general problem. I really think complicated policy is really at the heart of the problem - it makes it more difficult for a newcomer to contribute without stepping on toes. I think we have suffered from rule creep here, and also wonder if we shouldn't substantially simplify the ruleset. I also feel that there had been some argument and fallout between various parties, with both sides leaving in the end. Currently things are peaceful, but voters abstain rather than oppose to avoid heated discussion. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was also thinking about that while writing the above, in particular in reference to the newbies. However that doesn't explain the significant decline in FPC page views, as figures indicate overall WP readership is still increasing. (What brings someone to FPC? What keeps them coming back?) I think the oppose = fallout or oppose = payback you mention has been a significant factor here for some time too, which has had increasingly pernicious effects, and has impacted the above. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I thought it interesting that the fifth of the five key points in that document was: "Create a delightful experience for contributing and reviewing multimedia: Images, sounds and videos make our projects richer and better, and they are areas where we’re seeing strong growth in contributors, quality and quantity.". Seems to be the opposite to what this discussion suggests is happening here. --jjron (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I think people would come to vote if there is a sufficient, regular supply of interesting images to look at. Ignoring the last month or so, the number of nominations has been pretty low, which might give less reason to come back. On a tangential note - I'm surprised that we are still sticking to (crap) ogv only for videos. As the defacto standard, we (wikipedia) should be using h264. It is also the only format which mobile devices will generally have support for. Any attempt to get h264 support seems to be met by a weak, philosophical, open source counterargument though. Since we are on a vote system anyway, how do people feel about letting closers vote? It would increase the supply of experienced voters in theory. JJ Harrison (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I was just recently thinking about the sad state of video on Wikipedia. Could you point me to discussions where h264 was rejected? Also, I'd be okay with letting closers vote. Jujutaculartalk11:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
The new video standard which Wikimedia is going to adopt will be WebM, which should have broad technical support in the near future. I would encourage folks to look at the links at Commons:Wikipedia Video and Education to also get an idea of other recent video directions, and even whether we should consider a move toward the development of Featured Videos.--Pharos (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia refuses to allow upload of MP3 files, even alongside Ogg files. The decisions on file types have nothing to do with the good of our users in the least. Adam Cuerden(talk)15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Spring is now slowly coming in Portugal. Let's see how generous mother nature is with critters and flowers... The problem is that many of the easier to find species here have already been shot and it is difficult for us to shift to other subjects due to lack of subjects ... and talent. On the other hand, we really need to find some kind of aditional stimulus to come back. Any ideas? Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not talking of having you back just as nominators of your work. Sure that would be great but I think your comments would also be more than welcome. --Muhammad(talk)00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a general issue of declining content contribution to WP and this may be part of the FP issue. I think there is a tension between serving the encyclopedia and just having a venue to put up pretty pictures. I really think to motivate the pretty picture-takers, we have to cut them some slack. And really we DO. The way the rules are described (talking about finding and article and the like), it kinda implies that people are picture first, article second. And I'm really OK with that, to get the pretty picture taker's motivation. But I think it goes a step too far, to only recognize original produced photos and forbid stuff that is uploads or has more emphasis on encylopedic value.
Ideally, we should be able to keep both sides happy, get contributions from people of what they do best and what motivates them. But also find ways to build together. At this point, as an article writer, I just assume I will get more collaboration from the types who hang out on the image improvement project. I donno though. If I approached someone here who was an FP racking up monster and said, "want this image" would there be any chance of help or would they think I was crazy?
P.s. And the lack of videos and the head in the SAND attitude to IE users (most of our readers) not being able to watch stuff is just baffling. TCO (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Do remember there have been some nasty scandals that drove people off as well. Jimbo running around deleting paintings and engravings which he (and Fox News) thought might be pornography really hit to the core of Wikipedia's credibility as a source of pictures: Why should one upload here, when it just takes one mad Jimbo to ruin all the hard work? What will he go after next? Adam Cuerden(talk)16:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Me 2 cents: now I understand what Greg meant not long ago when he was jubilating about having a new picture, different from the previous ones. Yes, it is almost the most obvious type of FP to go for a bird, but after a while voters just stop caring to vote when almost half of the noms are birds. Nergaal (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a couple of people can achieve that is really a reflection on the low overall activity though. Anyway, I have a possible solution. On the main page the did you know section has a "Nominate an article" link. If we put a "Nominate a picture" next to the "More featured pictures..." then it might let the general public know that anyone can nominate/vote. Thoughts? JJ Harrison (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a gateway with a brief introduction rather than a direct link to FPC? The gateway could also have upload instructions as well. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a good suggestion to help address my 'Issue 1' above. I agree there definitely needs to be a more direct pathway into FPC. For starters I think the POTD box has crept lower on the mainpage over time, as the stuff above has expanded; therefore it probably gets less eyes than it once did. But the fact that the link only goes to the FP page, and then only indirectly from there to FPC, is too convoluted. A straight link more like what is done at DYK, as mentioned above, is a good idea. Not decided about NS's gateway, although looking with 'fresh eyes' I can't help but think there's too much crap at the top of the FPC page itself—you go there and scroll for half-an-hour before getting to any 'pretty pictures', which is an instant turnoff; perhaps most of that can be moved down, or put on subpages? As a subpoint to this, I think we need to consider that most new eyes will be coming via POTD, and maybe we need to reconsider whether all FPs need to become POTD. As an example, my most recent POTD, which was something rather 'different', drew over 30,000 page views, the etching the day before drew about 12,000, the bug the day after drew about 6,000. The most recent flower drew only 4,000 views, the most recent fungus around 5,000, while a typical bird seems to draw similar numbers. There will be variations of course, some images being more eyecatching than others, but I think there'll be a pretty common pattern there. So if we accept that POTD is the most likely entryway to FPC, then surely we want POTDs that will draw the most eyes, i.e., things that are different and that look interesting when small (so that people click-through)? Now I'm not suggesting the excellent bird, bug, fungus, flower, bits of rock and metal, and cut open fruit shouldn't become FPs, but maybe we need to restrict their appearances on POTD? Say once a month for each? Are people willing to sacrifice their time in the limelight in the interests of trying to bring in more viewers? Not sure how to decide which go to POTD and which not, but that's an implementation issue, which we'd need to talk to Howcheng about for starters. And next onto getting people to vote, and getting them to stay. --jjron (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Regarding some of the points above, I wish to add from my perspective:
FPC is attracting fewer viewers: I think there is more competition from Commons FP (getting more active, more international debate, closer to the platform where images are uploaded per default) and Wiki FP needs to differentiate more, by placing more emphasis on EV and maybe less on technicals. However the topic bias is similarly present with
Interesting. I asked above whether Commons FPC was seeing similar issue with declining participation, which no one answered, but it seems you're saying it's not; in fact, you seem to be implying it's growing? --jjron (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I only have been observing Commons FP for one year or so, and my perception is of steady participation with increasing diversification: in particular more French Wiki (no FP on the French Wiki) and German Wiki editors. --Elekhh (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Newbies aren't being encouraged: I've been one of the rather discouraged nominators, and subsequently became more active on VP which I found to have a significant role to play as an "entry level" forum, where many discouraged first time FP contributors gathered... until it was shot down, mostly by FP regulars.
Birds, bugs and flowers: I definitely love nature and am happy to see so many high quality images depicting the topic (and I often voted for these). Yet I am most interested in culture, particularly architecture, and the collection of architecture FPs is extremely limited (and a large chunk come from a single -much appreciated- Wikipedian). In part I got the impression there is much less interest from reviewers to comment on less "cute" topics, on the other hand stringent technical expectations disadvantage images of buildings (i.e. the slightest perspective distortion is considered sufficient to oppose a nomination of a building, while perspective distortion by images of nature is hard to perceive.)
So do you think they should get limited exposure at POTD as I suggest above, or are you going a step further and saying their nomination/promotion itself should be restricted? --jjron (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely would not restrict promotion of any great image on whatever topic. With over 3 million articles to illustrates there cannot be too many FPs. Maybe if POTD would display images in topical order (with topics defined based on articles coverage) it would keep the main page more balanced, possibly attracting more editors. Surplus FPs within a particular topic would simply queue up. --Elekhh (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I know it's about half a page late, but on the topic of inviting older regulars to FPC back, if I remember correctly, and I do since I counted them as a few of my greatest friends on Wikipedia over the years, if users like Gmaxwell and Fir0002, among others, weren't driven off by politicking, the biting, the scorn, and the cynicism that so many voters here, who I unfortunately can't call out due to policy, FPC would still be a respected and active part of Wikipedia, rather than being a shell of its former self. Although I doubt they check here anymore, I apologize anyway to those who should be on the list but aren't, Fir and GMaxwell were the first two who immediately came to mind.Cat-five - talk09:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
From memory though, Gmaxwell was never a regular. I only recall a handful of nominations by him, and very little involvement in nominations that he didn't photograph. I also recall (although it was years ago so my memory could be failing me) that he wasn't always particularly patient or friendly in his involvement here either. I'm certainly not denying that there isn't an endemic problem in FPC, but just because someone is driven off, it doesn't mean it's automatically the fault of the community. Some people drive themselves away. Ðiliff«»(Talk)11:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok it was a little unfair to blame every regular who's left on the other participants at FPC but MER-C is another good example. Some of it may very well be natural burnout, which is another issue although one that also should be addressed if a lot of regulars are leaving, but the arguments here and on the nomination pages are a big reason people leave, and I can't prove it but I'd be willing to bet seeing them probably drives off new people who are smart enough to read the talk page before jumping in to a new, and mostly unknown, corner of Wikipedia. Cat-five - talk17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Section break
Can we make it easier to nominate and vote somehow? I was scared of nominating for a long time because it looks (and is!) so complicated. A button on each picture that says "Nominate for FP", which creates a nomination which then has buttons "Support", "Oppose" and a field for comments??? With the power of the internet at our fingertips, it's kind of not so userfriendly. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be quite helpful. I don't think the voting mechanism should be changed drastically, but a script to automate the nomination process would be nice. Jujutaculartalk21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The trouble has always been (and it is the same trouble that exists with Wikipedia at large) that the higher our expectations of the encyclopaedia become, the less inclusive it is for newbies and 'regular guys off the street'. It's not for no reason that people have to go to Medical School (and have the grades to get there) to become doctors. Likewise, Wikipedia participation isn't for everyone. We can to an extent cut out some of the manual work in creating a nomination I suppose, and spell out our expectations for nominators and voters more specifically which may help, but the inevitable result of that is procedure creep. I think the biggest intimidating factor is not the procedure but the technical knowledge that we expect of newbies, while many of them come here 'for the pretty pictures' and find that it isn't the project they think it is (which may explain why Commons FPC is more successful). I think the I don't think this is an issue that can easily be solved as the two goals are, at times, mutually incompatible. I know we should to endeavour not to be elitist whenever possible, but aspiring to be a world class enyclopaedia is a bit elitist, isn't it? ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I probably agree with most of what you just wrote, let me just ask you if I got one point. Are you implying that lowering the procedural barrier would actually be detrimental, as we then would have even more newbies running into the technical knowledge barrier? If so, then I would agree even more with you. That is a problem I see with implementing such a tool for FPC (not a big problem on COM:QIC). --Dschwen14:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, maybe. It'd be nice if we had a larger number of people who were both knowledgeable about imaging/photography as well as the subjects represented by them, but we don't. But I don't think the answer is lowering the procedural barrier, except perhaps to automate certain manual steps (possible in the nom process but not really applicable to voting). Where procedure actually requires people to think, it's a necessary part of the process IMO. I'm not suggesting we actively make it difficult to participate in order to make FPC exclusive, just suggesting that it's difficult for good reason: making it procedurally easier would dumb down what we're trying to do. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the implementation of some automatism would be nice but irrelevant. As I wrote somewhere above, the problem with the regulars (most of them self-nominators) is probably that the magic is gone and they feel bored with FPC. I confess that is my case and suspect the same happens with Daniel and David. To make all those people to come back some kind of new challenge is needed. As for the danger of easing the procedure bar and attracting all kinds of editors I don’t think it is relevant either, as the difficulties of the present process are no larger than of any other forum in Wikipedia. Some time ago I fought for the clarification of the rules, as a way of making the place more inclusive and friendly (remember the gentleman's club, David ;-)). However I always believed that FPC is, and should continue to be, elitist. That is the only way that I see to guarantee that the best possible pictures are chosen and that the best advice to creators is given. For anyone following Commons FPC in the last months it will be obvious the demagogical attempt of some editors to make the place popular and open to everyone, and destroying the whole thing in the process. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hm yeah, that or my expectation that the zillions of pictures of my two toddler and baby sons which my camera is now exclusively aimed at won't make particularly compelling FP candidates... ;-) --Dschwen21:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
As a relatively new participant, my experience started at WP:PPR, which I believe is broken. There are pictures languishing there since January. When I first put my picture up there many moons ago, it took a very long time before there were any comments. After that experience, I have by-passed PPR altogether. We need to strike while the iron is hot. If we do not encourage those who made the effort to put their pictures there, then we have failed them, and have probably lost more than a few potential contributors and participants along the way. We should either fix PPR or get rid of it altogether if it can't be fixed. I don't believe the voting at FPC is complicated or needs to be fixed. Of course, if it can be improved, all the better. But I don't believe it is the voting system that needs fixing. It is getting people to participate that is lacking. The project does lack excitement. There are the same few of us who seem to vote and give comments at FPC. Sometimes, we may be the one who cast the deciding vote. In reality, a handful of us decide if a picture becomes FP or not. I do believe that the backlog of POTD should be of great concern, and should be addressed. Although it should not be the main reason for contributing, we can't deny that it does provide a lot of motivation to do so. We should definitely give priority to image creators for POTD. My other comment is a suggestion. Volunteers, including contributors, should be recognized and rewarded. They need encouragement and motivation. Why don't we create some excitement and make some noise?! Maybe we could have some sort of contest or challenge? It could go for a month and we could plug it like crazy. To me, that sounds like fun, and a real challenge that will increase and enhance participation here. – SMasters (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, participation has been decreasing at FPC. I don't think it would be fair to deny a candidate simply because not enough people looked at it. It is not necessarily the case that people aren't wild enough about an image to support it (part of the original rationale for creating this rule); it could just be that they didn't happen to see that nom. Of course the nominator is free to renominate the image, but that would lose all the !votes it received. I think a more efficient way to deal with noms with insufficient participation would be to relist it just like XfDs. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 08:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I recall suggesting at our last big FPC discussion that nominations be left open until consensus has formed, but that idea was (probably rightly) ignored. There was a concern about people gaming nominations. Someone could close a nomination as soon as it received that fifth support, for example. That's why we adopted the strict 9-day period with the timer. Bumping a nomination that's one support short to the top and giving it 9 more days might solve some problems, but it might not. What happens if a nomination makes it all the way through again without getting that last support vote? And which nominations do we give an extra amount of time? It seems reasonable to extend a +4-0 nom, but what about +3-0, +4-1, +3-1, +4-2, etc.? It's worth discussing the idea, but I think I prefer re-nomination. To address your concern about losing votes from a prior nomination in a new nomination, we could just count them. We link to the old nom anyway, so we might as well write "Old nom: +4-0" and factor in those votes at the end. It might be tough to keep track of who voted when, but I think it would be workable. By the way, FPC Urgents was created so that noms without enough attention received some exposure. Maybe we need to look again at making it stand out more. Makeemlighter (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Makeemlighter. Also, I think the lack or participation is exaggerated, there are plenty of recentnominations with lots of participation. Any nomination with 1 or 2 oppose comments with nothing else can simply be taken as the community agreeing with those opposes, and not wanting to pile on. Nominations that are 4-0 or 3-0 are really not very common. Jujutaculartalk12:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Response to Makeemlighter: I was never suggesting that we close nominations early. If it doesn't get the required support votes the second round, then close it as unsuccessful and allow them to renominate if they really want it. Response to Jujutacular: OK, perhaps it's not quite like XfDs. I agree with you that FPCs with one or two opposes only should be failed. However, 4-0 or 3-0 results do occur, and I think renominating them (rather than relisting them) is a waste of effort. I feel that anything with more supports than opposes but without five supports should be relisted. Makeenlighter, could you explain why you prefer renomination? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I wasn't sure if you meant re-list for a full 9 days or not. I prefer re-nomination because it's simpler and it's worked so far. There are several things someone will have to do for a re-list: bump the nom to the top, reset the timer, and remove the nom from FPC urgents. Not terrible, but inconvenient. I also wonder the effect this would have on the number of noms on the page. The list can already be quite long at times, which is probably part of the reason some noms don't get votes. Bumping these noms up to the top would make other noms harder to find without any guarantee of more votes. If a nom makes it 9 days without getting 4 votes, will 9 more days really help? I think that might actually lead to more undeserving images being promoted since anyone who votes without voting won't show up in the vote. Did that make sense at all? An image that's okay but not really exceptional will gain enough support votes if you leave it open for long enough. These images tend not to get many oppose votes, though, so we'd essentially be helping out images that aren't necessarily bad but do lack a certain quality (what is it Greg L says? "point, stare, click"?) that many expect of an FP. I'm not opposed to re-listing; I just don't see the advantage over re-nominating. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess that would be OK, as long as the "concern about losing votes" is addressed, i.e. something like 2-0 renominated for 4-0 = pass. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Can a local admin please restore the relevant page for so that it contains the relevant page history, FP notification, and POTD details.
It seems that the day after it was featured as POTD Template:POTD/2011-01-01 it was deleted per: 11:00, 2 January 2011 MPUploadBot (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Parliament House, Canberra, Pano jjron 25.9.2008-edit1.jpg" (Image is no longer on the Main Page.)
I was going to contact the deleting admin responsible for the bot but his page says "I'm extremely busy IRL and Wikipedia is the least of my interests right now." I was then going to recreate the page myself but thought that it would be better to have an admin restore it to keep the page history, etc. Thanks for anyone that can help. --jjron (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, checking Wikipedia:Picture of the day/January 2011 it seems that this thing has run wild until Jan 10. Things seem OK after that. Jan 9 for some reason hasn't been affected, and Jan 5 had the star reinstated by Makeem on Feb 28, but without the page history and no mention of the POTD. --jjron (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
And more problems. Looking back through December it seems it started on December 19 with ; see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 2010. There are a couple of exceptions, mainly when someone has noticed the missing star and reinstated it since (but usually without POTD notification, and definitely without the page history). If some Admin wants to trawl through that 20 or so POTDs and restore the image pages, it would be nice. --jjron (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through and restored the pages that were deleted here - if someone with a bit more expertise could go through & check to see that they're correct as to the project's criteria, that would be greatly appreciated :) Skier Dude (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
User:Lightmouse posted the comments below on a number of candidates. I reverted them as they were general comments about images on Wikipedia, not directly relevant to those nominations or really FPC, and were a significant distraction. However the user would like the comments to be made public, so I suggested that talkpages are a better forum to make general comments.
For the record, diffs to his original posts: 1, 2, 3, 4.
His comment(s) were:
“
Units.
It says "147 KB". If that means kilobytes, it shouldn't have a capital k.
Yeah. My original post to his talkpage when I first reverted elaborates on that, but he was not satisfied with my explanation, so I offered to post here for him instead of on the nominations. --jjron (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
FPs being replaced
Hi all. I saw this change a few months ago, but I forgot to bring it up here. Now I see a similar change, so I wanted to point it out to everyone. Essentially, a higher-quality version of these images was uploaded on Commons, and CommonsDelinker replaced every instance of the original file on en:Wiki with the newer one. Unfortunately, CommonsDelinker was set to do this everywhere on en:Wiki, not just in article space. So that means FPC noms of a different version of that image now have the new image in them. Our FPs have now been replaced, so we need to either run delist noms or just give the star to the new versions. This is similar to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/The Starry Night, although, fortunately, CommonsDelinker didn't replace that FP in its nom and the FP galleries. Any opinions on how to handle this? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing this. I've already stated my opposition to these Google images as too large for the purposes I associate with an encyclopedia, but my view does not seem to have consensus. Of these specifically, I note that Google's Ambassadors is definitely better than our old version, but their Las Meninas is awfully dark. So I'd say we should at least have a full discussion about that one. Chick Bowen02:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This type of thing has been happening for years; they've generally just been left (usually because no one's noticed). One of the weaknesses with our FPs being (predominantly) hosted on Commons is that they're susceptible to this type of 'behind our back' switching. Unless someone can track CommonsDelinker, or get whoever controls it to stop it acting on en:FPs without community input, I don't think there's anything we can do. If someone sees something like this and wants to put it up for a delist, or a D&R, then that's about all else there is. FWIW I tend to agree that these are too big. --jjron (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I have asked User:Siebrand to comment here. I note that as an extreme measure we could full-protect the FP pages, but we'd have to make Makeemlighter an admin first. :) Chick Bowen00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I doubt we need to go that far. This should only happen with a very limited number of images from the Google Art Project, most of which we probably don't have FPs of anyway. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
FPs have been replaced in articles before, but I can't recall them being replaced on FP pages and nomination pages. That's what really bugs me. I reverted the relevant pages. The really strange thing is how many pages are affected by this. The FP credits we leave on user talk pages have probably had their thumbnail images replaced! I don't mind running the delist noms; I'd just like to know when it's necessary. I have every FP page watched if replacement happens there. It's too bad there isn't an easy way to see when images are replaced in article space. I'll start up delist noms in a few days for these two; I'd rather not have too many of those running at once. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I know I've had FPs replaced on my own Userpage by Commons bots in the past when (what someone on Commons decides is) a better version comes along. That's why I say it's been happening for years. It's not just these Google Art Project things. --jjron (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Lamadi woman
Not particularly challenging Makeem's reasoning or decision, but I believe the closure of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lamadi woman raises some issues and needs some further consideration and input. I don't feel particularly strongly about the image either way, but seems to me going on recent practices it should be promoted. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the closure, as Gnbonline's vote is a clear case of meatpuppetry, according to Wikipedia's definition. We are fortunate that this practise is not more frequent in this forum. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I waited a few days to see if anyone else would close it, but the unpleasant task was left to me. The nominator saying that a vote should be ignored was enough for me to ignore it. If not for Hariya's comment, I probably would have let the vote stand. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I tried to nominate a file for delisting, but it hasn't appeared on the main page. I'm guessing either I screwed it up or the tool did. The subpage got created successfully but not included/transcluded on the main page; it's located here. What should I do with it? Cheers. Seegoon (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
What are the considerations in nominating someone else's work? Is it "good" because then he is not self-promoting? Or bad in that one should stay out of it, with someone else who did the work and encourage them to self-nom?TCO (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
You're completely welcome to nominate the work of others. It'd be good of you to let them know, but there's no requirement to ask their permission. J Milburn (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There generally isn't a rule here, if you see a picture you think could be a FP you can nominate it or post it at WP:PPR to get others opinions on if it could be a FP first... If the creator is a user of WP then leaving them a note on their talk page that you nominated it would be considered polite. Other than that, feel free to nominate whatever. Even better go to places in www.flickr.com and search the freely licensed images and upload new images to Commons and nominate the good ones... ;-) — raekyt15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I reckon that may be a problem. It is probably fair enough for diagrams, and we have been largely demanding it for some time, but photos are one area where a certain degree of WP:OR, and therefore non-verifiability is typically permitted. This is in the sense that when someone says this image was taken in such and such place, or this is a photo of this species, or whatever, we believe them essentially unless we have good reason to doubt it, or it can be proved otherwise. In other words it's not WP:VERIFIABLE in the strict sense of the term. Take that freedom out and you largely limit yourself to images that have been published in WP:RELIABLE sources, most of which (other than some very old images) are not going to be available for use on WP for starters, and even if a fair use reason is given, then they will not meet the other FP criteria. --jjron (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to quote the relevant section: "Original images: Because of copyright laws in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." But by putting verifiability in the FPC Criteria it may be taken that you are overriding that concept - perhaps demanding a 'higher standard' of verifiability to be eligible for FP. As I said above there may be a case for some verifiability, particularly for diagrams, but just bluntly stating it as the criterion may be opening up a can of worms. --jjron (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should be clear that OR is allowed for physically snapping the photo, for obvious description of the object (probably both re-verifiable IDs as well as those that are not reverifiable from looking at the pic only), as well as location and the like. For diagrams and charts, we should have some cites in the file description.TCO (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think #6 is meant to cover photographic images, there is already language to cover digital manipulation etc. so in a sense the image verifies itself. It seems to me that it applies to diagrams and other images where labels or other information has been added. It's not really an FP requirement anyway since WP:VERIFY applies to any information, not just article text. The reason I have a problem with the word "accurate" is there is no practical way it can be determined; truth is subjective and WP:VERIFY takes that into account. The rest if #6 basically describes "verifiable" anyway so I think the substitution just makes it consistent and does not change the meaning.--RDBury (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Main page features
A RFC is underway to discuss what features the community desires to see on the main page. Please participate! Thanks. AD19:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
How about an "acquisition" and then merger of Featured Sounds?
How would you all feel about combining in Featured Sounds. They are sorta hurting for views and lack critical mass. Kinda keeps it alive in some form. Also, videos than become covered under here as well (now they can be in either). Basically everything would be Featured Media or Featured Files or some such.TCO (reviews needed) 04:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Lots of questions to answer about the details if this were to happen. Would all of the current Featured Sounds and Pictures become Featured Media? Would the format of the new process be the same as WP:FPC, more like WP:FSC, or something completely new? How about WP:FP? These are things we would have to know (and lots more details of course). Jujutaculartalk04:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. My question is mostly on how y'all would feel about it on a high level. I think details could be worked out. But my quick thoughts (not critical, not wedded to any but a few ideas):
Voting rules/system: just stick with what FP has, bring the FS in to follow how you do it (since you have more critical mass). TBH, I think faster closes would serve FS better anyway...that place has no zip to it with waiting for a month to close or not. If something can't get enough in 7 days, then fail it. We have plenty that fail with 4 supports. gives it some impetus and makes the clear winners stand out more.
Queue: put it all together...that's the main advantage...driving more eyeballs.
Criteria: For now just have separate sections of criteria for each, just use what exists now for each sub-area.
Gallery: Perhaps it makes sense to have 2-3 separate galleries with sounds and pictures (perhaps videos) separately. donno.
What you call it: Donno. whatever you like. If you think FEatured Files or FEatured Media is too drab, I guess you could still call each sort of thing separately (based on what gallery it is heading for (see above). Or you could just call it all Featured Media.TCO (reviews needed) 04:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I support the gist of this proposal. If we had lots of contributors reviewing high-quality sounds, I'd be fine with them as a separate project. But they just don't have enough activity at the moment. I see no disadvantages to a merger, aside from maybe a little lost pride from the sound people, but I hope they don't feel that way: I'd certainly give my slightly educated opinion on sounds if they showed up here. This may also help our drive to include more videos, which to me is a hugely under-utilized resource on Wikipedia. -RunningOnBrains(talk)21:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
We could just call it featured media. FPC isn't as active as it was a few years back either. The only thing is how do we handle the different criteria. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Is .svg really always needed?
Warning, I am file format stupid.
I'm wondering about the default requests for .svg for diagrams. Usually I can get it and it's just a hurdle. But I wonder how much it helps? Stuff looks the same to me. Also for my (running) chemicals FP try, the radial gradients are rather difficult to convert to .svg (perhaps requiring making all new images, perhaps from some other software). and then the .png was VERY easily manipulated several times by the graphicists (moving stuff around, changing letters, etc.) Plus there is almost no text to translate (maybe letters into Cyrillic alpha? even then could just rewrite easily.) And then when I try to view the .png on my computer it is no problem in my default viewers (and I run a Dell laptop, very vanilla mainstream, majority user type). It was the .svg which I could not view!
An svg can be automatically rendered as a png file if png is what you prefer. SVG has a number of advantages, and, while these advantages are not always needed on an article level, this is featured pictures. They're meant to be the best of the best- we do have some non-svg diagrams (some maps/complex plans, if memory serves) but for diagram diagrams, svg really is a requirement, as far as I'm concerned. (Note that, like you, I'm on a vanilla laptop and don't really know much about file formats). J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Would space filling chemical balls with radial gradients of shading be different? *whimper* (p.s. I still can access the .png WAY easier than the .svg, so this is feeling a little ogg versus mp3 to me. Plus the real technical experts have no issue with handling it in .png (so I'm not all getting it.) I guess the one advantage is the vectored thing and infinite scalablity. On usability would almost say it is opposite. ;-))TCO (reviews needed) 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not just the scalability. It's the fact that SVGs can be much more easily amended without affecting other aspects of the picture. It's a more collaborative format. Ðiliff«»(Talk)21:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
SVG is vector art where PNG is raster art. There is a vast difference in not only scalability but suitability for various purposes. Images that we feature ideally could be used for publishing in magazines or books or prints being made, and for that reason Vector art is preferred for things like diagrams. Also it's vastly easier to translate a diagram to another language when it is in SVG since all the text remains editable, when its a raster image (like PNG, JPG or GIF) then text is not editable. Since wikimedia services multiple language wikis we should opt for diagrams that can be translated over ones that can't. And as Diliff points out since each element is ediable and modifiable independently when its vector art (SVG) then others can correct and fix the diagram in the future. If the diagram was a PNG then if an error or change is ever needed in the future it can't be done easily or in some cases at all without recreating the diagram. — raekyt21:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am hearing the "this is how we do it" and I guess the scalability. But on the manipilations, this thing got manipulated very easy in .png by the graphicist, several times. And I can open the .png file on my computer but not the .svg. Also, conversion to .svg led to a much worse looking image. See hyarTCO (reviews needed) 23:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The artist sure, but someone else doesn't have the vector files to modify it in the future. If we feature a diagram then the other language wikis usually translate them to their wikis too later, and without SVG they can't. If your designing it in a vector program (most likely) then there is no reason not to upload a vector version. The server renders and displays SVG as a PNG file anyway... so what your browser sees is a PNG rendering of it, but you have the OPTION of the vector version. It's just something we basically require, just as we have above-normal standards for some types of content, like bird pictures, then other things. Some things just are held to a higher standard than others, and for diagrams being uploaded as SVG is one of those standards. — raekyt23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
How not to convert to SVG.
TCO, if you're referring to File:Fluorocarbon-montage rotated-2.svg, that's because the person who converted that file did an auto-trace. If the original vector file is not available for converting to SVG, it really needs to be redrawn mostly from scratch in order to produce a good result (especially in that instance, with the gradients). Jujutaculartalk00:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You can download a program to run it is somehow not that helpful in the make the file easy to manipulate argument. And I had a graphicist move stuff around and change letters no problem in .png. But I won't fight city hall. It's not about getting a star, I have my share now. More about testing whether we have an empty requirement.TCO (reviews needed) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ask your graphics friend which kind of diagram would he rather modify and change lettering in, a png or a svg... that should make things more clear for you if you don't have any graphic art experience yourself. — raekyt01:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
One or multiple categories?
I have been trying to pick the single category that is the best for an image, but sometimes it is cross discipline. Should I ever put it in more than one category, or would you prefer "best choice"?TCO (reviews needed) 20:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This is my question too, for example I'm not sure which category is the best for this nomination and both look appropriate and fit, IMO this is something that could be discussed at FP candidate pages. ■ MMXX talk02:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The category is indeed sometimes a point of discussion on FPC pages. My aim is usually to look at the picture's use of highest EV (the first article you list at the nomination), and judge what its primary use is there, and what category it relates best to. Keep in mind that the category can easily be changed after the initial promotion, so there's no rush to make sure you get it right. Jujutaculartalk03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a single category works best too. The categories are essentially an arbitrary way to split them up- if we only had 30 FPs, we'd put them all on the same page. J Milburn (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
On July 20, this nomination's 9 day period ended, with a vote tally of 6 supports and 3 opposes. This technically meets the required 2/3 support for promotion. The nomination languished for several days without being closed, and on July 22 User:Spikebrennan added an extra 'oppose' vote, moving the tally below the 2/3 bar. On July 23 User:J Milburn closed the nomination as unsuccessful.
Since introducing the 9-day voting period, we have so far adhered to it on most nominations, but have occasionally ignored it. For instance: this nomination was closed as successful even though at the end of the 9 days, it did not meet the 5 support minimum for promotion.
I am personally OK with the outcome of these nominations, and agree that we should have some leniency in regards to the voting period. I just wanted to present them to the community for discussion. Jujutaculartalk17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, I normally only close uncontroversial nominations- I didn't actually notice that the last vote was added late, but I stand by my closure. I would argue that, in this case, after the initial support, the general tone turned to opposition, due to valid concerns being raised. When this happens in other discussions (for instance, AfD) a little more weight is given to the opinions of those "votes" cast later (IE, those votes cast with a fuller knowledge of the situation/issues). Further, if we're weighing up arguments, I think the arguments in opposition address the issue directly, while some of those arguing in support even aknowledge that there is a real problem. EV is our most important criteria, so I do think it's something that we have to take seriously. I, of course, have no objection to the image being renominated, or my closure being overturned if it is deemed improper. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, and again I'm fine with the result. I just want to make sure the community at large agrees with this precedent. Jujutaculartalk18:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Replacing alternative version with original candidate
Is it ok to replace the alternative version with original candidate when they have very similar characters?
At the nomination page or the article? Generally what happens in this instance, voters indicate whether they prefer the 'alt' or the 'original'. The closer, if it is determined that that the alt was superior and promoted to FP, would replace the image in the article. Jujutaculartalk19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I know how we have traditionally done it. But I think straight replacement would make more sense when it is a nobrainer. Just leave alts when there really are two factions or the nominator prefers his original but is doing an alt to see if people will sign off on that.TCO (reviews needed) 20:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
As Juju says, generally no. Put the new one up as an 'Alt'. We'd usually only upload over the original if fixing an obvious flaw, say repairing a stitching error with no other modifications made. Even changing the levels for example should go up as an 'Edit'. Given that some people have probably already voted on the 'Original' you can't just suddenly change it from under them. --jjron (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at African rock python. Are several images that are of needed file sizes and kinda show interesting images (maybe not the snake in the grass, but like the newborn or the snake on rocks). Just really not sure what to look for on technical aspects.TCO (reviews needed) 05:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The newborn: quite noisy, the egg at the front obscures a fair bit of the snake, crop at the bottom is very tight. Good focus on eye, but low depth of field. Interesting and clear subject.
The snake on the rock: the eye looks a little out of focus, the left and right crops are both too tight, which cramps the composition. Otherwise good. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I just looked at the original of the snake on a rock. That was certainly better from a stand-alone picture point of view. --99of9 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Why don't we have better sports pictures?
Here's AP (probably a stringer at that) for Classics (not even the biggest meet). And these aren't their FPs, just their slide show for that one event.
The biggest reason: professional photographers are given permission to get much closer to sporting events than average attendees. Even getting to a good location, you generally need a very nice telephoto lense ($$$) to get the kind of photos you see from AP, Sports Illustrated, etc. Jujutaculartalk19:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
This is podium training. Even happens tonight (streaming on Universal in evening). And then there is also regular training. And NCAA meets are pretty easy to cover. I know we won't get sideline at the Superbowl. But we could easily do more than what we do so far. We do pretty well with nature photography and that involves physical difficulties as well. That last gymnastics pic that passed was nothing compared to stuff you see all over the place in blogs, magazines, google, etc.TCO (reviews needed) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think equipment is really such a big barrier. Yes, big telephotos are desirable for large field sports, like rugby, soccer or golf, however a 70-200mm (pref. f2.8) would be quite useful for a lot of outdoor sport, and, assuming flashes couldn't be set up, a 85mm f1.8 or similar would probably be good enough for indoor stuff at the sidelines. This is all assuming decent positioning. That sort of equipment is affordable for many photographers that have floated around here and on commons. I think there are two major reasons. Firstly, it suits the stakeholders to create artificial scarcity when possible - it gives the photos value. Most big events in private venues ban "professional" photography gear for spectators and many also have conditions on the photo usage (olympics is personal use only for example). Secondly you need people interested in sport photography who lives near regular high level sporting events. As far as article illustration goes, I think we'd be better off trying to photograph lower level athletes to illustrate the sports themselves. Personally I don't really follow sport, apart from riding my bicycle, and thus don't have a huge interest in photographing it with my limited free time. You are all welcome to give it a go too! JJ Harrison (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I take dozens, maybe hundreds, of sports images a year probably better quality than anything in FP and often better than what I see in the media - but don't upload them because they're of amateurs so of no interest to WP, along with privacy issues, etc. I have put up a few shots of professional athletes at FPC over the years, but most have been rejected, with the opposition often seeming to be based on them looking like they were taken from the vantage point of a spectator (which of course they were), and thus not looking like a 'professional' sports photo. As JJ suggests, other pro sports actively ban photos at their events, or limit the equipment you can take in (they're happy for you to use your phone-camera, but try getting in with a 400mm zoom on your DSLR and tripod and you won't last long). Of course with my shots of amateur sports I can get right up to the action, position myself for the best lighting, etc, like pro photographers at pro events; gives you an entirely different result! :) --jjron (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I know we can't have perfection, but I regularly see bloggers getting better shots themselves than what we run with. Not just in FP, but throughout the 'pedia. (That's actually what I care about more than FP.) If the AP is a "9", bloggers are often a "7" and Wikipedia is like a 2 (not just poor quality, but lacking shots whatsoever!) I just wish we could start moving up from 2 to 7. I know FP can't do it on it's own, but if there were a way to help promote it, would be good.
I also get just generally frustrated with FA and FL, on images in general; they don't take quality of illustration into account enough (and it is even in their criteria). Some of those people actually THINK that all an image check is is rights checks! I'm not expecting National Geographic quality (although we do aim their with prose) given money and licence restrictions. But we seem to take inablity to get a "10", with "2" is fine. No real strain to deliver what is best. Lots of these mofos don't even do donation requests.TCO (reviews needed) 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess it's also a matter of being in the right place at the right time. I actually don't attend many pro sporting events, so get little chance to take photos there. And then you can be unlucky, like when I went to the World Cycling Championships last year, which could have offered the chance for good photos of many of the world's top cyclists, I was blessed with a dreary overcast day, causing me to revert to a slower than preferred shutter speed and giving me overall relatively drab lighting. Unfortunately I could only make it one day, and the other days were much better for photography. Anyway, get enough bloggers in the right place at the right time and you should see some good photos; and as JJ says you could send them image requests. I think you should also consider that many bloggers give scant regard to image licensing, and will regularly grab photos from anywhere, so what you're looking at may actually be pro photos in some cases taken from news sites etc. I also must say looking at the link you gave at the top to the gymnastics, I honestly don't think there's that much there that would get through FPC, especially given they are pretty small and enlarging them to FPC size may bring out further flaws not immediately evident (not that I looked through all that many of the photos). And I agree with your sentiments about the short-shrift given to image considerations at FA, etc. --jjron (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Not enough votes
Okay, I know that no matter how neutrally I try to phrase this I'm going to come out as a sore loser, but I'll try my best. We've been having problems recently (as far as I can tell...I've been inactive until last month) with nominations not receiving enough votes. In just the past two months I've found several examples:
In all of these everyone supported (promoting or delisting) but just not enough people voted to pass. To me, just automatically failing nominations such as these just gets in the way of our project, and isn't fair to nominators, because surely they will be discouraged from re-nominating immediately, even if the image is more than worthy of being a FP. It's not their fault that their nomination slipped through the cracks, and they can't ask for people to vote because that could be seen as WP:Forum shopping.
I propose that we tweak FP to have a system similar to that which they have at articles for deletion. There, if not enough people have offered input by the end of the nomination period, the nomination is returned to the top of the queue, with the message that it has been "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". (a good example can be seen here). To me, bringing these back to the front of the queue would be useful, as it would give more visibility to nominations which have insufficient input from other editors, and would not introduce any sort of bias that I can think of.
Failing that, I propose that we use the holding area (which already exists for nominations which need additional input) to store nominations such as these to give the community additional time to give their opinion. It could stay there for an additional 5 days, and then if there still is not enough input, it can be closed "Without prejudice for re-nomination".
I think some people don't vote neutral. Just don't vote. I think if stunning enough, it will get the five. That said, bringing more people in would be good.TCO (reviews needed) 23:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Something like this could work, but the simple fact is that, unless a person cares greatly, they often won't comment. For instance, unless I disagree with the prevailing consensus, there's a good chance I won't comment. Often, the more borderline images are ignored. In the cases you mentioned, I just didn't care so much- I didn't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and these are probably images which should not be featured. (I have slightly different views on delisting, but that's a different matter.) Relisting may work, and I have no objection to it being tried out at this time (and yes, that's a neutral vote, I guess). J Milburn (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Above there's an interesting conversation about why we don't have more FPs of action shots from sports events. I found this video interesting for how pros work these kinds of events. Obviously he's discussing a very specific, rare situation, but he also makes clear that it's not enough to have long lenses (which he has on multiple cameras) and a good position (even though both are obstacles in themselves for many of us). I've always found baseball particularly tough to shoot given the size and odd shape of the field and the weird angles it creates, so I found this useful. Chick Bowen23:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
FSC is currently undergoing a re-evaluation of their criteria and input from FPC is requested, while artistic differences may exist our community is currently too small to establish a consensus amongst ourselves, in the end both projects strive to exhibit Wikipedia's best media files. Regards, —James(Talk • Contribs) • 6:21pm •08:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Unidentified species pictures should not be nominated
I just discovered File:Icefishuk.jpg that has been nominated. It is a picture of an totally unidentified fish.
Why would we nominate such unidentified picture ? Because we are an art gallery ?
No, we are an encyclopedia and for pictures that have scientific purpose, we should only nominate pictures with scientific interest:
full species identification (for species pictures of course)
GPS position (currently no scientific would study a fish picture without a GPS position) even manualy/approximatively set
description of the location (in this case the depth: was the fish on surface or 100m under water)
date of the picture (fish migrate, get extinct => date is vital)
Um, you may like to check your facts. File:Icefishuk.jpg has not "been nominated" - it was actually promoted way back in the early days of Wikipedia in 2004, when standards were, let's say, considerably more lax than now. This image would be unlikely to come close to promotion now, for some of the reasons you mention, and in fact the vast majority of images from that period have already been delisted. FWIW however, while we usually like to have most of the details you mention for encyclopaedic purposes, they are not always necessary. We are in fact a general encyclopaedia, not a scientific journal or archive - in essence a good picture of an elephant is a good picture of an elephant, and as long as it suitably serves the elephant article, that is the main point of it. Yes, we now pretty much insist on full species ID, but most of the rest is a bonus if it can be provided. Please check the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria, especially criterion 7 that covers most of what you request. --jjron (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes identification to the exact species is really hard or not even discernible by photograph, but images can still be very useful to illustrate a genus article for example. Date, location etc are in the criteria, and GPS position is encouraged, but not mandatory. Per jjron, the picture you refer to probably wouldn't be passed today. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, I was going to say something but the last two explanations are so detailed and clear that I find myself with nothing to say. Agree with jjron and JJ. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
This new account of mine can't yet edit semiprotected pages. I closed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Ebony Bones (?) as delisted but cannot decrement the count at WP:FP. If someone could just reply here that they can and will do this in my stead (so that others know that someone is on the job and we don't get several decrements). For double-checking purposes, as of this writing, the corrected count would be 2850. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
What are people's opinions on the idea that we shouldn't support some images because they could open the floodgates for similar images to be nominated? Promoting worthy images, or an exercise in "busy work"? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the criteria that keeps the floodgates closed is that to be FP, the image must be, "among Wikipedia's best work." This standard applies to any type of image. Pinetalk08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess it all comes down to how you interpret "Is among Wikipedia's Best Work"--does the image have to be truly unique and stand out against *all* of WP's images, or does it simply have to be better than most/all other pictures of the subject? I'll point out that nearly all of WP's Meteorology FAs are about hurricanes, despite them being relatively short & simple articles compared to most other FAs. We encounter a similar situation with SVGs of coats of arms, flags, etc. that are of the highest possible technical standard, but that standard is not all that hard to achieve--for instance, most would agree that File:Flag_of_Russia.svg shouldn't be featured, despite the fact that it meets all of the current FP Criteria, and it literally cannot be improved at all. I think most Coat of Arms SVGs could be discounted under "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way", although that is probably more subjective than we would like the process to be. Mildly MadTC16:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
So essentially, we are voting based on the original creator's artwork, rather than the EV of the item? Simply put, if the artist made a cool-looking coat, it's an FP, if the artist made a boring-looking one, it's not? That suddenly reduces the whole thing to personal preference and what you think looks cool. Clegs (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well yeah of course there's some personal opinion, but that's how we choose good photos. And we have to assess both artistic merit, as well as encyclopaedic value. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I can't arrive at the conclusion that this would be a promotion. Minimum support was not met, and it was not a clear-cut situation in other ways either (opposes almost cancelling supports). But the main point is the minimum support just wasn't there. I think this may need to be reclosed with a correct pronouncement. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Since majority does not rule on Wikipedia, i would say that a re-close is necessary. The minimum of 4 support votes (not including the nominator) was not met, therefore, the file should not have been promoted. Dusty777 (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with PLW. The oppose reasoning is questionable, though hardly unambiguously nonsensical, and, while I personally thought the image was worth supporting, it seems that a lot of people were happy to ignore it. That said, I'd say it was definitely worth a renomination in the future. Perhaps a close as "no consensus" would be a fair one, but a promote seems to be stretching it a little. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I left a rationale. "I would support both being combined into a set" and "Support" mean the same thing. JJ pretty much hits the nail on the head. There isn't a substantial difference between individual FPs and FP sets. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the assertion that there isn't a substantial difference between individuals and sets. I voted support on the other one and oppose on this one. If there is a question about them being promoted as a set, I think that should go into discussion, not be promoted like this. I disagree with the decision to promote this. Pinetalk07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you disagree (i.e believe there is a substantial difference between individuals and sets), could you explain the difference? These groups of images are obviously intended to go together, but I don't nominate them as sets because some people oppose the idea of sets outright. JJ Harrison (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The two photos were nominated separately. If they are to be evaluated as a set, the other template would have been the one to use. I would have evaluated them as a set differently than I evaluated them individually, and Clegs said in his vote comment that he had different views of the two photos and would evaluate them differently as a set than he did as separate nominations. If you ideally wanted them promoted as a set but felt concerned about whether it would have been better to nominate as a set or as individuals, it would have been good to nominate them as a set first, and if they failed as a set then you could consider nominating just one of the two as an individual. Pinetalk20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So the difference is that you would have voted differently, or in other words that images in sets have a different standard required of them? JJ Harrison (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
For Clegs and I, the answer appears to be yes to your first question. For your second question about a different standard, no, I would apply the same FP criteria but I would apply it to the pictures together instead of separately. If the images are nominated as a pair, then I would comment and vote on them as a pair. In this case I might vote in support or neutral on the pair, and the effect of that would be different than my votes for these two separate images, one support and one oppose. I can think of more examples where it would be even more important to know if images have a group nomination or separate nominations, for example a pair of images showing the front and back of an animal, where each image separately might not be significant enough to meet EV requirements but together they have high EV. As the images are presented here, as separate nominations, I vote in favor in one and oppose the other. The reason that I say this belongs as a discussion instead of an outright fail is because of Clegs' comment that he would support them as a pair, but they weren't nominated as a pair, so I think Clegs needs to clarify if he'll support this one as a companion to the other image since the other one passed. I think it was inappropriate for Makeemlighter to promote this based on record as it's written, but it would have been fine to suspend it until Clegs clarified his vote. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 and Dusty777 seem to go even further than I am in saying that this image should not have been promoted, period. Pinetalk07:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Clarification: Here's my reasoning in longer form: The picture of the male is striking, well composed, and has high EV; thus, it is definitely a FP. The picture of the female is poorly cropped and shows only the breast and one side of the head, thus giving it low EV; thus, IMO it's not an FP. However, if the two were nominated under the set template, I would support because the male picture still has very high EV, and the EV of the female picture would be increased by being able to compare it to the male. Make sense? So basically, treat my vote for the female as an Oppose. However, if you wish to re-nom them under a set template, I will support the set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 13:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. With that done, this nomination fails, so Makeemlighter please change this nom to "not promoted". JJ Harrison or anyone else who wishes can re-nom the images as a pair if they wish. Pinetalk21:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Any opposition to just placing the set template on the image page? I presume that those that supported it individually would support a set. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Rather than checking for a lack of objections in this talk page thread, I think it would be better to go through with a re-nomination of the set. It's likely to pass, but there will be less ambiguity about whether it had enough support.Pinetalk06:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Checking back in, has any action been taken? Personally, I am fine with adding them to the page with a set template. Clegs (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
So my understanding is that if Pine were to withdraw support from the male under the set interpretation, while Clegs would support the female only under the set interpretation, assuming the Pine is the only one whose support declines with a set interpretation, we would still promote. Can we get some second opinions on whether that is an acceptable assumption to make? (Or do we really need to go back to every voter on both noms and ask them to clarify?) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Papa Lima Whiskey 2 I think that's more complicated and more work than necessary. Removing the FP tag from this image and then renominating both images as a pair would take care of the issue. Pinetalk23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to worry about the whole set issue unless the image is renominated. As it stands, the male is a clear promote, the female is a clear not-promote (whether that's a fail or a no consensus is not really important). This simple solution appears to have been obscured by the fact Clegs's vote referred to sets. I think the sensible action at this time would be to overturn Makeemlighter's close of the female nom and remove it from the FP gallery, allowing it to be renominated at a later date if anyone feels the need. (I personally can't believe that people were opposing- there are 35 to 50 of these left, according to the article, but whatever. None of the votes appear to be completely unreasonable.) J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Draft rule discussion: closers cannot have voted in a nom that they close
This came up for discussion in a nomination. So far as I can tell, there is no rule against someone closing a nomination if they have voted in a nomination. Some people seem to think that this rule exists already. I am not opposed to such a rule but I would want to have it in writing in the procedures for closing. I am opposed to enforcing prohibitions that are not in writing. Pinetalk20:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I can't find it written down, so maybe it needs to be, but it has been the case for a long time to avoid conflicts of interest. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it's fairly obviously the case, but I could conceive of cases where it would be appropriate- Unambiguous close that's been waiting for a week, withdrawn nomination, deleted image, stuff like that. I would have no objection to it being in writing, as I believe it is elsewhere, but, of course, IAR would still apply. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a rule; it's more of a guideline. There isn't really a good reason to close a nomination that you voted on: there's always someone who can close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Would we want to write this as, "Users who nominate or vote on an image are generally discouraged, although not outright prohibited, from closing the nomination. Nominators may withdraw and speedy close their own nominations. One week after the end of voting, if no other user has closed the nomination, the nominator or a user who voted may do so, although the close is subject to the review of other editors as would be the case for any other close." Pinetalk07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with a voter closing a nomination and don't see the need to refer explicitly to the subject in the guidelines. Notice how simple they are despite the long and detailed discussion we had some time ago. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Alvesgaspar. I don't think there's a need for a specific rule against it, but can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I expect that most of the time it will be non-controversial for someone to close a nomination that they've voted on. howcheng {chat}23:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you guys decide not to go against such closures, I do advise that it is written somewhere so that it can be used as "disclaimer" to potential closure challenges. Have not visited this project for a long time but popped up and saw this, might as well just make the suggestion based on what I've learned at Commons ;) --ZooFari07:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a consensus against having a rule, and I agree that this should be noted if this is the consensus, so I suggest noting this in the closing procedures and linking the note to this discussion. If the consensus stays this way, I will do this or ask an administrator to do it. Pinetalk21:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think any closures should be exempt from being challenged (responding to one possible interpretation of Fari's vague suggestion of a "disclaimer"). And I don't think anyone should execute a closure if they've voted on the same nom and the result is not 100% obvious. An example of what I would consider a 100% obvious result is a straight 5S, with no O and no discussion arising, no new/strange voters and no other history (canvassing, copyvio, image removals from articles, etc.) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
April fools pic question
Hi. I have never suggested an image for FPC before, but I do work heavily on April fools. I recently found [1] which I think would be a stellar choice for April Fools Day. It is featured on Commons and on multiple wikis, but not the English Wikipedia. If I nominate it here, is it likely to pass? I assume it has not been nominated before, but is it because it wont pass here or because simply no one has brought it forward?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this would be a very good FP for April Fools' Day. While red squirrels may not be widely known in North America, I would imagine people think nothing of them in most of Europe and Asia. Great Britain only has very small numbers of them in isolated areas, and I think most people here would not be surprised by a picture of one. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The expression on the squirrels face plus the ear tuffs make it look like the squirrel is incredibly suprized or shocked at what he is seeing. Many editors find it an amusing picture for that reason, but it looks like it won't pass a nomination as it failed by a considerable margin last time, even though many other wikis find it to be an exemplary work, so this is all a moot point.--Found5dollar (talk) 03:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
2012 WikiCup
I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Fast-To be closed
It has been a long time for this image sitting in the to be closed. The ratio of support to oppose is 6:3. This is a tough decision, since no consensus emerges. In my views it still not enough to promote, but love to see other opinions, but close it fast. --Extra999 (Contact me) 09:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Since consensus is generally regarded as a 2/3 majority in support, the picture has qualified (9 votes, 6 support, 3 oppose) and should be promoted to featured picture status. The consensus is clean cut, and there is no purpose to this delay. Dusty777 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone else remembers we're not meant to be just vote-counting. I can only assume this was being left sitting because the regular closers did not want to promote it as they had one or more of the following in mind: (a) they were more convinced by the oppose reasons given; (b) they were taking the 'neutral' !vote as leaning towards an oppose, therefore shifting the ratio; (c) the !voting trend was heading towards oppose (i.e., there were more oppose !votes later, indicating consensus was shifting towards opposing); (d) despite not wanting to promote, they knew that closing as 'not promoted' would bring down a hail of abuse upon them; or (e) something I haven't thought of. Anyway, vote counting it is! --jjron (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Proposal for noncontroversial nominations that are short of five votes
There have been a handful of nominations that have had no opposing votes but not the five required support votes. I propose that nominations be promoted if they have no opposing votes and at least four votes in favor. A single "oppose" or "weak oppose" vote would be enough to make the nomination require the current minimum of five votes in favor plus consensus in favor for the nomination to pass. I feel that this change would be good for nominations which are noncontroversial. Pinetalk10:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This idea has been raised before, and really makes a mockery of having a minimum number of supports. A few points to consider:
Do we really want to be promoting things for which people did not vote because they were unsure?
Do we really want to be promoting things for which people did not vote as the images were too boring (see the criteria- a FP "illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more")?
How would we treat nominations with critical comments or concerns raised in support or "neutral" votes? Just because no one has written the word "oppose", does not mean that people have not raised reasons why the image should not be promoted.
I don't think the idea is quite as simple as you make out, and quite what you mean by a "non-controversial" image with little support is not clear. Could we not say that any image which does not get much support is going to be controversial if passed? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not proposing reducing the minimum drastically from something like five down to two. Being intriguing isn't a mandatory requirement for FP as I think that these examples illustrate 123 and a simple lack of interest only one possible explanation of why someone might not vote. I don't see the harm in reducing the minimum votes in favor from five to four if there's no opposition. Pinetalk21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Intriguing or not, the first two got plenty of votes, and the third managed to get 5S as well. The part of the criteria that addresses "intrigue" is "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more." There are enough people hanging around FPC that the deserving images will pass and everything else will fail. You can always re-nominate an image that ended up 4S, no O. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not necessarily opposed to lowering the minimum number of supports, but I'm not convinced we need to either. A decent number of nominations are still passing. And I'm not thrilled about lowering the standards just because participation is low. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I like it as it is. The simple fact that it doesn't gain enough support is reason enough not to feature it. Some things just simply aren't compelling enough, but also not everyone likes to throw their opposes around. If we didn't have enough active users here then this would be a different discussion, but we have plenty of users looking at the images, so for an image to only get 3 or 4 supports is a message in itself i feel. JFitch(talk)15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Seconding what JFitch just said. I do not !vote on quite a few images because they are meh--not bad enough for an outright oppose, but not good enough to garner my support. In essence, my not !voting on a picture constitutes a neutral-weighted-towards-oppose !vote, and if this rule is implemented, I'm going to have to start !voting oppose on more pictures, which makes me feel like a grinch :-) Clegs (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Possible update of the voting template
I'm not sure whether anyone has ever raised discussion of this previously but what would you guys think of adopting some of the voting layout styles used on Commons? As its a new year I thought the voting template could use a bit of updating. When discussions get particularly long the layout of text can get rather messy with supports, opposes and comments etc scattered all over the show. I think the addition of using these icons would make things a whole lot easier to get an overview of the current nomination, it would be easier to quickly identify specific sections and would give a clearer picture at the end of voting. Also the use of this FPC results reviewed template could be another possible implementation. Obviously we wouldn't have to use all of them but I believe it would just make things easier. It has been used in Commons FPC since 2005 and is still going strong. I would just be interested to see what people think, to try and gain a consensus as to whether it could be a useful change or not. Fallschirmjäger✉17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
This proposal has been made before and rejected, more than once. I found this discussion but probably there are other threads. I support the idea and couldn't really understand why it was rejected. Probably because it comes from Commons... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I would not want us to become completely like them (lose the working together to improve pictures and discussion of article use). But I like the cute little icons. :) TCO (Reviews needed) 18:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I don't want to change anything about the whole voting process and discussions, ie not using icons in place of proper dicussion, just merely giving the procedure a bit of a nicer user friendly look to it rather than just swathes of text. Fallschirmjäger✉20:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. I added one too. Can you make it a template? (I don't think people will use the pictures, remember the text or go cut and paste it all the time.) Support looks open...
BTW, here is an old deletions discussion (from 2005! I don't think we have to say this means we can't make it anew.) And at that time, people liked it...for FPC! [2]TCO (Reviews needed) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nice find TCO, there are some very good points in there, having given it a look. I think it deserves a re-evaluation 6 years later. My thoughts were to just use the icons in partner with the current system, plus the summary box at the end of a vote could be useful to establish the consensus of each candidate. And we wouldn't need the whole plethora of icons, I would say just these ones that dusty said: and perhaps and . Idk, even if the icons aren't a good idea I think the summary box could be useful. Fallschirmjäger✉21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? Is there something wrong with the words Support, Oppose, Neutral or Comment that some people don't understand? Are we too lazy now to read words and it's faster to look at a symbol Because really, how much extra time does it take? Not much, surely? Probably still less than a second. I can somewhat understand using them on Commons, which is for all languages, but this is the English language Wikipedia. We don't need pictures for those who can't understand English. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
From above: ...but this is the English language Wikipedia. We don't need pictures for those who can't understand English. And do we really need to waist precious Wikimedia resources with the fancy signatures like the one shown above? What's wrong with the old-fashioned User:Someguy? Come on guys, what we really don't need is this kind of ridiculous chauvinism here! Many other wikis use voting templates, with obvious advantage to the readability of a poll/discussion. It has nothing to do with our understanding of the language! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this proposal. If we're going to use icons, we'll also need some for weak support and weak oppose. Pinetalk09:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Well. It was six years ago. Also, as Grace Hopper said, it is easier to beg forgiveness easier than ask for permission. Be BOLD. Realio though. I think the way to see if the templates are helpful is to experiment with using them, vice discuss them in the abstract. People who voted against them were probably a bunch of grumpie-grump anti-kitten, anti-Wikilove types. I am going to put the little icons on my page, with the smilie code, but I don't know if I can always be bothered to go back and grab them.TCO (Reviews needed) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I really don't like them. Yes, as per this discussion, FPC is mainly being treated as vote-counting these days, but I'd like to emphasise that it's not meant to be. We're meant to be evaluating opinions and determining consensus, not counting !votes. These little icons just emphasise the vote-counting aspect though. They're OK on Commons, because AFAIK the way they operate there is supposed to be to just count votes at the end. (Oh, but I support getting rid of those distracting fancy-pants sigs). --jjron (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I will have to disagree with your reasoning. The header at the top of Featured Picture Candidates states: For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image;. Vote counting does occur often in FPC, but in the example you gave, vote counting was not present (if am wrong, please point out where), nor was there any real discussion regarding vote counting. There is probably a more suitable example for vote counting. Dusty777 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well thought the link must have been wrong. But no, it goes to the right spot. So please try it again, then read the posts there, specifically my post, and our most regular closer's reply. And FWIW, the three comments above mine (excluding JJ's) refer to nothing but vote counting in terms of coming to a decision! There is no way it could be read any other way. I must therefore assume the link did not work for you last time, so if the link continues not to work for you, perhaps I can put up a diff or paste the full text on your talkpage or something. --jjron (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
My apologies... Sometimes my browser doesn't load up to the linked section, but the one that is either 2-3 above or below (in other words, i should have checked the link). My apologies. Dusty777 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Info -- It is very instructive to check the long and detailed discussion we had more than 3 years ago on the FPC closure process: here, here and here (the reults). The discussion was started (by Maedin and myself) because rules weren't clear enough and the decisions of the closers were often arbitrary. A carefull reading of the 'proceedings' will reveal that a vast majority of users favoured a poll-type decision process based on vote-couting. Though it was explored the possibility of assessing the quality of the votes, and discard those considered not good enough, no acceptable solution to implement the idea was found. The bottom line is: yes, the FPC closing process is based on vote counting and only in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. anonymous votes or socks) can a vote be discarded by the closer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I can almost agree with your analysis. You do, however, notably neglect that an addressable critique has to be given when opposing. As it stands, it seems to be the case that an oppose without reasons (if a previous commenter has given such a reason "per X" or "per above" would suffice) can be disregarded. (Yes kids, always give a reason, okay?) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Opinion Whether or not we use templates has nothing to do with whether votes can be discarded at the whim of the closer or not. We are not, as of last notice, in this discussion thread reopening the issue of whether closers can act as gods. If you wish to reopen this issue, please open a new thread. However, I'll also caution that any new "consensus" that does not at least come close to the participation that gave rise to the previous decision will not gain much credibility with me. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right, this discussion only addresses the use of voting templats, nothing else. It is such a minor issue that I wonder why we need to aprove it! I would have made the templates already if I knew how. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Like Dude...make them. Wiki needs to try more things versus always talking them to death and not trying them. (and yes, I know they were deleted before, I linked to that discussion before others in thread!) TCO (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well said. I didn't want to start a full blown debate over how voting takes place, just such a minor cosmetic change that would have no impact on the current voting format. Ok it may not be to everyone's taste, but why not give it a try, if it doesn't work out then it will just reconfirm previous discussions. Plus a few years have passed, many different users are now involved while some of those that took part in previous discussions are no longer active. I understand the concerns about using this format, that we don't want to simply count votes like how it is done on commons but why not give it a go and see how it pans out. Yes it isn't necessary and the current format works fine but that is no reason not to try and improve on what we have, it may well not make a significant difference but how can it not make the end of vote process easier? Fallschirmjäger✉01:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
comment as some who infrequently views both I like the difference in standards the approaches of each making en look like commons will only make en be like commons and theres more to evaluating a photo on en than there is on commos. Gnangarra02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Nominations by bad-faith users?
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Srinagar was created by Katarighe, a username that was created to impersonate someone else; this account has been duly blocked. Should we close this nomination because of the bad faith of the user, or should we keep it open because other people have already participated? I've never before come to FPC, so I don't know if there's any precedent. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Standard practice would be to strike the !vote of the blocked user, and the !votes of anyone suspected of being complicit. Everyone else that's voted seems to be legit, in that they are either semi-regular or regular FPC folk who I doubt would be sockpuppeting with the fake name. I'll strike the fake and see how it pans out. FWIW a direct link to the block on the Admin's noticeboard. --jjron (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
back!
hey all :) well after a 2.5 year hiatus I've decided it's time to reignite the old wiki account. Not sure at this stage how much of a return this is going to be, but hopefully it will be reasonably long lived ;) Anyway not sure if much has changed here yet (from a brief look it seems its business as usual) so forgive me if I make a mistake or two as I get back into things. Cheers, --Fir000211:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back, it is business as usual - significantly quieter than it used to be (I'm not as active either), but the activity level seems to parallel contributions to the whole project, I suppose. Nothing much has changed with regards to licensing and attitude to those photographers wishing to protect their work though, in case you were hoping for such things. ;-) Oh, and you've got some catching up to do... JJ (Noodle Snacks) has been spamming us with his FPCs and now has 247 featured pictures to his name. Credit to you, though, that with a 2.5 year hiatus you're only about 80 FPs behind... Not that it's competition or anything! ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks all :) (<shakes fist at jjron> :P) Haha Diliff, yeah I have seen JJ has been doing some exceptional birding with this 500mm! But when I decided to come back I told myself I wouldn't do any more FPC noms to avoid the time and dramas that come out of it! We'll see if I can resist the urge to play catch up with JJ... It's a shame about the licensing, but I didn't really have my hopes up --Fir000209:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well - 2.5 yrs; surely Fir could have stockpiled around 100 FP worthy images by now. I say "Game on!". ;) --jjron (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm tempting tempting, but I'll resist helping JJ reduce the FP collection down to the two categories "Birds" and "Others" ;) --Fir000212:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back Fir! Even though I'm trying to come back myself, but anyways I wish you luck with your competition ;) ZooFari (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see you back. I just got back on after about two years off myself. I was surprised how many of the regulars I remembered were no longer on. Clegs (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:SOPA initiative#Summary and conclusion, enwiki will be locked for approximately 24 hours on January 18. I have therefore pushed back all of the ending dates of the nominations 1 day. The automatic notice will not be appearing for this round of nominations, so we will have to be keeping track manually (old school!!). Jujutaculartalk16:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, well done. I went to do that yesterday, got about halfway through them all and realised I was only changing the dates, not the automatic thing that would say the noms had expired regardless of my new date. Since didn't know how to change the auto thing I reverted them all. I was too daft to think to just delete the auto notification. :) --jjron (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Bohadschia argus
The featured picture today shows the Emperor shrimp on a sea cucumber, Bohadschia argus. Coincidentally, I was in the process of writing an article on this sea cucumber which I have just moved into mainspace. Someone with authority might like to add a wikilink to this article from the caption of the picture on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Comment FPC criteria states: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list. Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image;"
Looking at the nomination, the 2/3 majority was not met. (5 support (including nominator) and 2 oppose = 7 total votes). There was no consensus met so it didn't qualify to be promoted to FP status. The closer was correct. Dusty777 (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
::How did you figure that out? A 2/3 majority would be 6 supports over 2 oppose.... the picture only has 5 support over 2 oppose. You better check your math again. Dusty777 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
4/6 = 2/3 = 66.666...% (darn decimal, sorry... I had done the division but neglected to multiply by 100). 5/7 = 71.4% = roughly 5% more than 2/3 Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Result unclear because Fir and Brand didn't specify whether they support the alternate. I likely would have assumed that, but it's worth checking, especially now. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Kind of a dead discussion (sorry for the lateness) but as far as I'm concerned, if a voter does not specify which of alternatives they support, they are equally supporting all of them (and then the decision on which one gets promoted depends on other voters)... So in this nom, I didn't really mind which one was promoted --Fir000211:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll just reiterate that it has previously been considered to be a reviewer's duty to keep up with developments on a nomination, so if they don't specify "original only", their vote has always been thought to apply to new uploads as well. Similarly, an early oppose isn't automatically voided by a new upload being added to a nom. And yes, this should have been a promotion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Pretty clear promotion on !vote count, consensus comments, and trend. Promotion has to go to Alt Crop failing further clarification; 3/5 supports specified Alt Crop, and it was already there when Fir !voted and he didn't specify either way. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, per the obvious consensus here, I'm going to overturn the close and promote the alt crop. Dusty, your maths is way off. You say "A 2/3 majority would be 6 supports over 2 oppose.... the picture only has 5 support over 2 oppose. You better check your math again." That's incorrect. 6 supports over 2 oppose would be a three quarter support (eight total votes, and six is three quarters of eight). 5/7 (what we have here) is higher than 2/3 (what is required): Represented as a decimal, the former is approximately 0.71, while the latter is approximately 0.67. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out for me, (I was never that great at decimals). It is a clear cut promotion. My apologies. Dusty777 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, as someone who is not the most computer-program savvy guy out there, I am having a problem with the recent influx of super-high resolution art scans. I think it's great that we have the capability to feature such excellent reproductions; however, most users (myself included) do not know how to view such a file by using outside programs, and the files are so large, the browser does not support it. There is no point in having the picture as an FP if only the privileged few among us are ever able to view it. The casual readers on WP will not take the time to figure out how to view it through a large image viewer or download it and view from their hard drive. If we, the FPC reviewers, are the only ones who ever see it at full size, what's the point of featuring it?
As it stands currently, I am withholding votes for any of the large art scans b/c I can't see them. If this trend keeps up, I'm going to have to start opposing on the grounds that they have low EV because the general public can't view them.
That being said, I do think we need to have the largest possible copy for FP. Would it be possible to somehow include on the image page a viewing option to see a size that is somewhere between the 800x1000 and 8000x10000 that the viewing size template currently offers? 800x1000 is too small, and 8000x10000 won't view in my browser (latest version of Firefox). What do you all think? Clegs (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You have to use the large image viewer. The template is usually transcluded on Commons, otherwise you can add {{LargeImage}} yourself on Commons. The link is to the right of where it says "Warning" on pink background (sorry, pink is pink). Perhaps we should discuss whether a bigger link button, or some sensible redirection is needed instead, such that the big image viewer is used by default (let JavaScript detect flash and use JS-only version if flash not detected) and the full size image downloadable through an additional link just underneath the thumbnail on the image page, right after 1280xFoo, as well as through the link in the file history, as before. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
As I've said before, using the large image viewers works fine for me even with a bad connection. Regarding a new / improved template, I've seen this mentioned several times. Is there any way to implement something like PLW2 suggests above only on the English Wikipedia, or would we need to talk to Commons? I agree that the current links to the image viewers are not in the most visible position. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
It can be done here, and in fact without any policy hassle, using an appropriate WP Vector/Monobook script, depending on the skin you use. Of course, rolling out nice things to the rest of the world is desirable as an ultimate goal. (Having said that, the same user script should afaik be usable without alteration on Commons as well - you'd want to add it both places, otherwise you may confuse yourself). Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
True, but that would still leave most people who don't bother scrolling down with crashed browsers. IPs, for example, can't use user scripts without an external tool. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said, if you want it to be global, you'll have to fight it through with the rest of the community+devs. Good luck. (And scrolling down is not necessary with user scripts, any link can be manipulated, even picture links.) Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I think this problem has been overstated, especially with the introduction of the links to different resolutions right below the images. Many users don't ever click through to the full size image, let alone scroll down. The problem is there, yes, but it is a usability problem, not a FPC problem. We should be featuring the highest quality and highest resolution copy that we have available. The future will bring changes that minimize this issue. Jujutacular (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
True, but we may need to socialize this so that we don't have people crashing their browsers by just clicking through mindlessly. It's been suggested a million times, but perhaps a way to put that pink template above the image? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Nothing is being achieved here. 126.109.231.71 has confirmed that they are neither avoiding a ban, nor do they have another account known here. No one has evidence to the contrary, and no one has evidence of any wrongdoing or disruptive activity- the closest is a vague claim that 126.109.231.71 is not assuming good faith. Considering the waves of bad faith thrown their way, then, if true, it's hardly surprising. In any case, Saffron Blaze's suggestion is the best- "Tempest in a teapot. Ignore the votes of users not logged in and carry on with business." J Milburn (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So I note the anon IP account 126.109.231.71 continues to contribute and indeed !vote despite repeated reminders that they need an account for their !votes to be counted. I see also apart from the multiple reminders on FPC that Clegs has also left them a separate message on their talkpage explaining the reasoning, which was met with a reply stating "I will never surrender!". While I haven't found this user to be disruptive in their manner of contributing, and in fact find them to be quite well informed in some areas, I'm starting to wonder what to do. Do we simply keep reminding them and requesting they create an account, whilst ignoring the !votes? At what point do we regard the failure to respond to the community input and consensus regarding needing an account as becoming Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and proceed from there? --jjron (talk) 10:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (Note: I have informed the user of this discussion and invited them to take part). --jjron (talk) 10:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping after my invitation that he/she would get the idea, but the user seems to be antagonistic to getting an account. I just posted on their talk page to let them know that they don't have to get an account, but until they do, their input here will be disregarded. Personally, I'm very surprised at the wiki-fluency of this new user (see their first edit here: [3]. Is there any way to check ban logs to see if the user's not trying to get around that? On the other hand, they have made helpful edits at other places. I would suggest a grace period of something like another week; if they still refuse to get an account after that but insist on cluttering up the pages with disqualified votes, then maybe take disruptive editing steps.Clegs (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Clegs, the only thing to do would be to perform a checkuser, but please be aware that "fishing" is not permitted. I was going to say that I cannot think of any other processes as vehemently opposed to anonymous users as this one, but, in fact, the regulars at other processes that rely on vote-counting (RfA for instance) would probably react negatively to the same behaviour. That said, I'm not necessarily keen on excluding a user purely because they do not want to get an account. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In abstract I would tend to agree with J Milburn that no one should be excluded. But in this particular case it is pretty obvious that this is an experienced user, both in Wikipedia, in general, and in FPC, in particular. Considering the fact that there are so few edits associated with this IP, it probably means that he/she already has an account and doesn't want to use it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm feeling a lot of unwarranted assumptions here. As far as I know, anybody, IP or logged-in, is allowed to comment on anything in wikiland. Our rules for vote-counting determine that they have no numerical influence on nomination outcome. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, let’s stop being politically correct and look at the facts rationally. Once upon a time there was an anonymous user who came here from somewhere (probably from Commons, where he/she might be a regular) and start voting on FPC. He was politely informed that voting was restricted to registered users. So far so good. But the anonymous user not only ignored the warning and continued to vote (six times in a row, if I’m not wrong) but also challenged the editor who carried the message with a “I never surrender”. When he was warned for the second time by another user, he decided to show a banner in his talk page with his own warning: “This user is like Snufkin. He may be gone tomorrow”. And when responding to this thread which, in the meantime, had been started by jjron, he used the words “Frog you man, frog you to hell”. Do we really need to assume any kind of faith (good or bad) in this case? Isn’t the aggressive and challenging behavior of 126.109.231.71 clear enough? Come on guys! It is perfectly all right to come here from Commons and start contributing as an anonymous user. It is not all right to show bad manners and threaten the community. Answering our question with a ‘Yes, I’m (or was) registered somewhere but prefer to stay anonymous’ would be perfectly all right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ya; this edit for example shows them to be familiar with QI guidelines on Commons. Likely therefore also familiar with Commons FPC. Could be a crossover from there wanting to remain anonymous for some reason, which could explain their fluency. --jjron (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What damage is being done?
Knowledge could have been obtained by lurking and/or reading the glossary, the latter being something we encourage. Taking measures seems inappropriate and unwarranted. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Lovely witch hunt going on here! I understood that my votes probably wouldn't be counted, but I thought that by contributing to the voting process with actual arguments, I might influence other voters. But calling it disruptive editing, JJRon? Frog you man, frog you to hell.126.109.231.71 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No witch hunt that I see. I agree that this kind of participation may raise some suspiction, as people are concerned with the possibility of 126.109.231.71 being an anonymous version of some well-known user. If that is indeed the case, I'm not sure whether the participation in a discussion as an anonymous should be considered legitimate or not. What about participating in a discussion both as a registered and as a non-registered user? You intempestive answers (instead of a simple and clear explanation) only help to increase the suspiction. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why the hell should I have to explain anything? Seriously, your attitude really stinks. I've done nothing but contributed to a few articles and a few votes and suddenly you guys want to put me up against the wall because I know too much for a newbie. If I had actually caused any problems, that'd be one thing, but I haven't! You guys should lay off with paranoia, it doesn't suit you, it's creepy as hell and more than enough to make anybody want to quit Wikipedia.126.109.231.71 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
126.109.231.71, I hope you feel that I have treated you fairly; I do think people are being overly suspicious, and I cannot see any problems that you have actually caused, as you say. Perhaps it would help lay it to rest if you just tell us something: Are you someone completely new here, or do we perhaps know you under a different identity? J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It's bizarre I should need to put anything to rest, but since you're not being an asshole: I'm not avoiding a ban, I do not have a regular account, I am not and have never previously been a frequent FPC voter. I thought it'd be a fun thing to add to my repertoire, !vote or vote, but I had no idea the FPC community was this unfriendly and hostile.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC) And paranoid, forgot to add paranoid.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I left a note on 126.109.231.71's talk page about assuming good faith. I don't think disruptive editing will stick... I mean, what has the IP done to qualify as disruptive editing? Contributing to a FPC discussion (despite the fact that his/her vote will not be counted) does not seem to constitute disruptive editing. 126.109.231.71, you need to assume good faith and follow the Talk Page Guidlines so that this issue can be cleared up without further delay. Dusty777 (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Dusty, if 126.109... is failing to assume good faith, then I think there are a few others who could do with a similar reminder. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The whole reason I'm upset is that people are wrongfully assuming I'm a disruptive troll avoiding a ban in spite of my constructive edits, simply because I know how to use the wiki! And you put an assume good faith on MY wall? Bigger men than me would have resorted to name-calling right now. You know it's funny, when I saw jjron's message on my wall about a discussion abobut me, I was happy and in my naivety I thought you guys might be considering half-counting my votes or something along those lines. But instead I come here and find a discussion about how to make me stop.126.109.231.71 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please, let’s stop being politically correct and look at the facts rationally. Once upon a time there was an anonymous user who came here from somewhere (probably from Commons, where he/she might be a regular) and start voting on FPC. He was politely informed that voting was restricted to registered users. So far so good. But the anonymous user not only ignored the warning and continued to vote (six times in a row, if I’m not wrong) but also challenged the editor who carried the message with a “I never surrender”. When he was warned for the second time by another user, he decided to show a banner in his talk page with his own warning: “This user is like Snufkin. He may be gone tomorrow”. And when responding to this thread which, in the meantime, had been started by jjron, he used the words “Frog you man, frog you to hell”. Do we really need to assume any kind of faith (good or bad) in this case? Isn’t the aggressive and challenging behavior of 126.109.231.71 clear enough? Come on guys! It is perfectly all right to come here from Commons and start contributing as an anonymous user. It is not all right to show bad manners and threaten the community. Answering our question with a "Yes, I’m (or was) registered somewhere but prefer to stay anonymous" would have been perfectly all right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk)
Re: the frog you to hell line, I'm sorry Alves, I didn't know that being rude to other users was a privilege for those who have registered accounts. I kid of course, I'm not a fan of being an asshole to others and I think it's detrimental to any discussion, no matter if it's by using made-up swearwords or simply by acting like a dick. 126.109.231.71 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FP not currently listed in any category
This photo passed FP but isn't listed in any of the FP galleries from what I can tell.
Thanks. I didn't catch that note at the bottom of the file page, "More than 100 pages link to this file. The following list shows the first 100 page links to this file only. A full list is available." Pinetalk07:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Two recent FPC (Flying Fish poster and The Hooping Life) are film posters for current/recent films and are the original images received from the publishers (rather than scans of old classic movie posters). They are high resolution and technically perfect because they are not reproductions. As film posters go, they win no awards for originality and aren't notable. The concern I have is that Wikipedia does not carry advertising. But a film poster is advertising. All the add agency / film producers need to do is donate their advert to WP and ta da! free advertising. If we start to promote these as Featured Pictures, then they get even more publicity, possibly even Main Page.
If the film producers truly want to donate high-EV images to WP, then they should donate a still from the film itself. I propose the FP criteria be amended. For example:
9. Is not a contemporary advertisement. Wikipedia does not carry advertising promote products with advertisements. Film posters are advertisements.
Exceptions to this rule may be made for advertisements that no longer have any promotional value for any current product, or have inherent EV due to their period charm or notability.
Personally, I think posters have higher EV than film stills. Only people who have seen a movie will recognize a screen shot; posters have wider recognition. On a technical note, we have had a contemporary film still nominated here and that failed miserably. For the related article, The Human Centipede (First Sequence), I would much rather have a high quality scan or original version of the poster. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that a film still would necessarily make a good FP, just that it has higher EV for the film itself than a poster. The publicity for a movie is an aspect of the overall movie article, but is just a minor aspect unless it achieves notability. And when the poster is laden with POV review snippets, then there's a built-in NPOV problem. Regardless of the EV, the problem remains that these are contemporary advertisements. We don't do adverts.... Colin°Talk15:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Would your proposed criteria include a cutoff date? Like say, for 10 years after the release of the film? As a side note, I think we have entirely different ideas on the EV of film posters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
See the "no longer have any promotional value for any current product" exception. The actual duration might vary depending on the life of the film, sequels, director's cuts, 3D remakes, ... Yes, we disagree about the EV and FP for posters. I think an FP poster has to have inherent artistic qualities as an image, which these particular posters don't have. Colin°Talk15:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
See, "no longer have any promotional value for any current product" is unclear (which is why I was asking). For a current example, the original poster for Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (released 1999) could be construed as an advertisement for the 3D version currently in theatres. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Is it unclear? Seems to me that using one's judgement is better than some arbitrary cut-off. If that appeared on the Main Page today, would folk criticise WP for advertising? Seems fairly clear to me the answer is yes. Colin°Talk16:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Like when we had the Transformers article on the main page the day of the sequel's release? I think a tie in is fine; we're not saying "see this film", we're riding the hype. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think your "Wikipedia does not carry advertising" axiom is factually correct. Both are rightly in the respective infoboxes. Even when they're in copyright, we go to great lengths to use them. They're carried. Whether we want to feature them or not is another question, but I think you need to word it differently. --99of9 (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Technical problems in FPC with voting period notices
If the nomination isn't due to close until March 10, why is the nom saying that the voting period is over? Pine(talk)22:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to the Water Polo nom? If so I've removed the auto-timer as it's about five days out, so the closer will have to watch the date manually. Dunno why it's wrong; maybe someone inadvertently changed a number somewhere in the template while making one of the comments. --jjron (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Another problem, the Mezecala Bridge FPC isn't showing the "Voting period is over" message on the main page. Pine(talk)10:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Huge problem with a featured picture - it is not what it claims to be
I was dismayed to see a photograph of what is claimed to be Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus promoted to Featured Picture. The technical qualities of the photo may be great, but it is not a photograph of Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus.
I have raised this problem here [4], and here [5]:
Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, supposedly
I am not at all convinced that the photographed exampled is Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. Make that 100% convinced. I grow it and have been to see the Hemerocallis species and cultivars held in one of the National Collections here in the UK. All examples of the plant I have ever seen are a much more pale lemony-yellow than the version pictured. Given that the photographed example was not growing in its natural range, it is highly likely that it is a cultivar or a hybrid, not the true species. Hemerocallis species hybridise with each other very readily; they are not variable within the species ie they are always the same form, colour etc. This example is not the colour of Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, and it is hard to tell from the photo but the form seems less gracile also.
This brings me to one of the biggest problems in Wikipedia. We have all these rules for verifiability and sourcing in our written material, but in photographs we just take the photographer's word that the photograph shows what it purports to show. I am not suggesting the photographer here was trying to mislead; just that he or she might have been misinformed and by reproducing this photograph as a Featured Picture, that error is being promulgated and given the veneer of authority and correctness.
The fact that the photographer has misnamed their photograph using an upper case for the specific name (Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus, rather than the correct Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus) might suggest they are not very botanically clued-in.
Poeple voting on its promotion here [6] clearly are not botanical experts either. For heaven's sake, one comment was "Support Pretty cool. Its more impressive then other pictures in the article" - which may be true, but it is also 100% less accurate than other photos in the article as it does not show Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus. (I have earlier removed another photo in the gallery that also does not show Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus.)
Are we trying to build an encyclopedia of accurate scientifically-correct images, or a 'cool' gallery of pretty images that are incorrectly named and totally misleading to the public?
Huge problem? If the image is mis-identified correct it! Then we are done and can avert another pretentious debate. As to process... would you care to offer a suggestion other than only allowing some subset of certified botanists to take photos of flowers? Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The reliability of photo subject-identification is a significant problem for WP and well known to be weak when compared with text. All we can do is hope that more knowlegable people, such as yourself, lend a hand wrt fixing any errors. I suggest you leave a message on the uploader's talk page. Is it possible that the flower is correct but the yellow is too saturated due to processing issues or a filter? It could then be adjusted to be more typical. Alternatively, can you identify the correct name? Colin°Talk14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
This has happened before. If we can correctly identify it then we just rename the file and change the associated info. If we can't adequately ID it, but are convinced it's wrong, then it's basically a default delist. Re the OP's other issues, yes, there are potential misidentifications of photos (if you can figure a way to get all professional scientists to donate their high quality hi-res images only related to their area of expertise so that we don't have to rely on the general populace let us know), and if picked up during a nom it will not be supported/promoted. We also have a rule-of-thumb requirement that images should be in an article for a period of time before being nominated - in an ideal world the 'experts' writing the article will have picked up a misidentification in that time between going into the article and the image getting to FPC. In this case the image was in the article for some six weeks before the FP promotion occurred. --jjron (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide a valid source (E.G. Other picture of the flower) to back up your claims that the picture is misidentified, rather then just your personal observation? (No offense intended, I would rather have a source to refer to.) I made the comment you referred to in the nomination (not to get off topic too much), and I judged the picture by the FP Criteria and I made my vote by those set guidelines, and I do not appreciate your implication that the mis-identification in the picture is my fault. I will be completely honest with you. I know nothing about the flower in the picture. I read through the article, examined the other pictures, and made my judgment that the picture was:
1. A higher value then the other pictures in the article.
2. Met the criteria.
My opinion on the picture was completely valid. I'm sorry that I voted for a picture that was mis-identified, I was not aware of that. I don't want a gallery of cool pictures either. I like stuff to be accurate and correct. Your comment gives a negative view towards my judgement of pictures... Kinda like I only voted for it, because I liked the picture, and not for the value to the article. Its not that big of a deal, but I would appreciate if you would strike through the part of your comment referring to my vote in the nomination. Sorry that I am kinda going off topic, but I don't appreciate feeling like I am on the defensive. Dusty777 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The CSIRO has an collection of plant images. I spoke with someone from the Australian National Herbarium a few years ago, he said that plant images are more useful if the plant photographed is stored in a herbarium. The same is true of fungi. This is to allow further examination if an id is thought to be in error, among other things. My university was uninterested in storing samples from me, presumably because I wasn't trained in preparing them, it would be work for them to catalog things, and because I couldn't legally collect material without a permit in many cases. I personally consult many researchers and experts when I have any doubt about the identity of a subject, and encourage others to do the same. We have a rule requiring that images must be in an article for a while before nomination. In my experience, this catches most identification errors, though particularly inactive articles can slip through. Otherwise we currently assume good faith and assume that the author has been diligent. We might think about requiring documentation of how an image was identified on the image page. If anyone is unsure, then asking at appropriate wikiprojects, eg WP:PLANTS can bring about additional scrutiny from people that are educated/knowledgeable in the area, and have access to university libraries etc. At any rate, this is wikipedia, any error can be corrected immediately. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with most of JJ Harrison's points, but I must disagree that "any error can be corrected immediately." An FP delisting requires a procedure that isn't immediate. Pine(talk)07:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It can be almost immediate because once an accurate ID is known, the image can be transferred to the appropriate article, or an appropriate article created. That way, the criteria are still satisfied. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
JJ suggest requiring documentation for how an identification has been made in the file page. I think that would be a very good idea. If the identification method is indicated in the file page, reviewers have a chance to validate the quality and be alert or not. Say, if "Self identified used "Den Nye Nordiske Flora"" was stated you had an impression, that something conscious has been done to identify it, that that it might have to be double-checked by an expert, unless the user has demonstrated previously to master that. If the file page gave quoted correspondence with professionals confirming the ID, you would feel more certain. The rarer the species, the more important would it be to get second opions from experts. For instance, I am a (happy) amateur, but have nevertheless claimed to be able to identify 42 different plant species I have encountered in Greenland back in 2007. And in the 4-5 years that have passed since upload, I have been notified on file talk pages that two (as I recall) of the species were misidentified, although I felt pretty sure myself that the id was correct, when I made it. Others may be misidentified as well. That is at least 1/20 was misidentified. That is actually pretty bad and not something I am proud of. So I think it is a real problem with the verifyability. The misidentifications were not easy to catch by comparison, as for a significant fraction of the species, there are no other images on Commons but mine. --Slaunger (talk) 13:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about it. Two species is not a significant sample size, and taxonomy is in flux all the time anyway. Maybe you encountered species that were about to be split, or merged, or your reference was out of date. Taxonomists also often find it hard, as nature can be quite variable. Just shrug it off. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be necessary to reevaluate the EV of the image in light of its placement in a different article? Pine(talk)10:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
For some more esoteric FPs that could be the case, but not really in a case like this provided it was prominently used and the article didn't already have a very similar FP where a D&L may be appropriate. In general it would not really be any different to any other FP that gets removed from its article. --jjron (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Thanks you very much jjron for warning me about this discussion. To the contributor who removed my picture: it is nice of you to show concern for the trustworthiness of our Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think you should ask and do extensive research, before removing a picture with no warning to the author, telling people you are 100% sure it is not H. lilioasphodelus, without giving certain proof. You may be right of course, but show some proof please... Am I wrong? It is just fair that you found a proof and then raised the problem, but anyways, let's get to the point.
I do not know about botanics and the capital L on liliosaphodelus was a mistake (I normally name correctly the species I identify, you can check that out on my user page where the same picture appears with a correct subtitle, but those are just details we shouldn't argue about). You are free to correct whenever an error like that appears.
I do extensive research before naming a species on Wikipedia, if I am not sure about a name I just don't name it as you can see on my gallery. I understand the responsibility that comes with informing people.
Hemerocallis flava and fulva are the two species I found are most cultivated in Venezuela, both with huge differences and easy ways to identify each.
I can't find this huge difference in color and shape.
As you can see from the file on the right at top H. flava and fulva, my picture shows good coincidence with H. flava (remember lilioasphodelus has many names, flava is one of them), at least under my point of view. As you, I was 100% sure I had the correct identification. So, who is right? Can you provide the proof it is not H. lilioasphodelus? How can we certify this is not H. flava? Well probably we both are right. It might be H. lilioasphodelus, with a slightly different color, nothing too prominent to name a different sub-species. I can only tell you this flower is so often used in gardens in Venezuela, I also have them at home in my backyard with the exact same form and color I might upload a photo to prove it. They are all the same throughout the country here in Venezuela. Guess it is an imported seed they sell here, why would they all be weird hybrids, looking all alike? Maybe due to different conditions (high humidity, and stable high temperatures compared to UK and rest of Eurasia) it grows with a slightly different color, I don't know. Can't be 100% sure, but to me, it looks like it is well identified.
These pictures found through the Wikipedia show the bird Icterus icterus, or Venezuelan troupial, our national bird. Perhaps bird specialist J Harrison can confirm the correct identification of the following files on the right:
Bigger belly, more orangeThin specimenLarger clear area around the eyes. This one is 100% surely Icterus icterus, since it was identified in the zoo I took the photo at.
This last one is a more lemon-yellowy color... less orange, just as it happens with the Hemerocallis. Not always a slight difference means a different species, am I wrong? As you can see, slightly different shapes and forms and colors throughout the world, no need to call them all differently. They just adapted differently on different regions I think.
It is very difficult to get Featured picture status for a non full-time photographer. I lost time taking many shots to get the right photo, lost time uploading it, editing it, identifying the species looking on books (I didn't find it on a Gran Sabana's fauna and flora book - obviously since it is not originary from Venezuela), and then on the internet, annotating it on commons, adding it to the page, describing it and nominating it for FPC. I'm not saying it gives me the right to mis-identify species, but why go remove a Featured picture from its article without even consulting first, finding a proof, or have a consensus? Isn't this a little rude to a contributor?
My father is a lifetime dedicated enthomologist. He knows thousands and thousands of butterfly species. He has shown me how sometimes scientists find even the slightest most subtle difference on same species around the world to name a "new" sub-species, mainly to get some recognition. Things like "this one has a 1mm band with four stripes, but this one butterfly has a three and a half stripe band". And then this information is only to be found in some ultra-specialized book or some paper with no picture on the internet. Look, I'm not getting to that point of spending three months to identify a species, sub-species or hybrid. I'll be a normal hard-working contributor, trying to work responsibly, but I have a life. I'm not getting paid for this, it is voluntary work. It does not mean I'll be mediocre, but let's have some common sense. No one will spend months making sure a species is 100% accurate... still, I found enough evidence to sustain and keep thinking this one is a well identified species.
If you can prove it is a hybrid, then why such a big fuss, it still is a H. lilioasphodelus flower, can be placed on the gallery of the page, with a subtitle reading (H. l. hybrid), and no need to remove it. Just change the name of the file, why such a big fuss and why name it a "HUGE problem"?
Conclusion: I really did not understand why such a big problem was made out from this file. I already lost a lot of additional time writing this and defending my featured picture. This is all I can do, if someone can contact a botanist and clear this doubts that would be really cool. If the accuser can find a proof that's great too! Let's rename it and replace it on the gallery of the page. But please don't go removing pictures like that with no warning. For now it would be fair if picture was returned to the page by the remover, until proof is found, because for now I think the proof I found and demonstrated is more solid than seeing a "much more pale lemony-yellow version in the UK".
Last but not least: I'm not getting into a 2 weeks discussion nor a fight with the accuser. This is all I have to say, from here on, I'll go with democracy, if majority thinks it is to be removed, delisted, and I should be expelled from Wikipedia (lol) for posting such an insulting mis-identification, so be it. Of course I'm joking.
Oh by the way... don't miss Michael Gablër's comment when he supported my picture on Commons FPC. Support I cultivate Hemerocallis and also Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus for decades. Therefore I can say: this image is very good. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that some tools have been going down because user accounts got auto-expired if the person didn't log in for some time. The notice displayed suggests this is to avoid old content being viewable, but it seems to be applied indiscriminately even where content is completely dynamic. FWIW, an example can be seen here. I obviously wouldn't know if this is affecting your account, but might be worth checking. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The image now works in the Big Image Viewer. In teh future, I you can remember it, please just drop me a quick message when you nominate a large image to make sure it works. Unfortunately due to memory limitations on the toolserver sometimes the generation of a zoomable image version fails, and I have to intervene manually and prepare the zoomable image on one of my own machines. --Dschwen16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, will it? Let me check, I thought I added cache refresh code to that tool. If not I'll do that today. I already wrote this functionality for a different tool. It'll be just copy paste. --Dschwen12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you verify that it works? The basic question was, what if the lack of memory availability happens to an image that's uploaded over the top? Is the previous version retained on the big image viewer and shown instead of the new version (bad), or does the previous version get deleted first (good because it allows the error to be readily noticed and fixed)? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Really confused about captions
Looking at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amplexus (common toad) with the comment "Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet CP #7." This criterion just confuses me. From the comment, it appears to concern the caption in the FP nomination. However, the criteria link to our WP:CAPTION guideline which is about article captions. There are also POTD captions and the image description page too. It seems to me the caption in the FP nomination is the least important and just a courtesy for the reviewers. Why would its length be worthy of a review comment? The captions in articles might have been written by the nominator/uploader but they might be in an infobox that has a very terse caption, they could be in multiple articles with differing qualities of captions, and really it is the editors of the article that ultimately decide the caption text. The only vital aspect of an image on WP that I can see is that the image description page is full of useful information. The archive discussions mention the POTD caption but I've looked at a few and they are verbose and don't seem based on the FP nomination.
I've looked through the archives and it seems nobody else understands the caption criterion either.
The criteria need to made more explicit wrt which caption they refer to.
The requirements for geogtagging and meta data are fine (and I agree with them) but concern the image description page and no other (though it is possible an article might want to geolocate an image, it isn't essential and that's an editorial decision for the article writers).
The requirement to be succinct is weird. That applies of course to article captions. But I don't think that should be our concern.
We shouldn't link to the WP:CAPTION guideline because that's not our concern and has different goals from the captions or descriptions elsewhere.
Well raised. I was about to mention that (again). We had a discussion about it some while ago, but it seems nothing got updated. To my mind, only the image description and the captions in articles have to adhere to a certain standard. The latter is nice to have, the former is really essential. The caption in the nomination doesn't need to be particularly good, although we did say in the past that we encourage amending image descriptions and article captions with information that transpires during the nomination. In practice, I believe this doesn't happen often enough. So for now, I would suggest replacing "caption" with "image description". Is that sufficiently unambiguous? And I got the impression that the caption guideline itself is rather poorly written. I'm not sure we should seek our example there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I too do not understand why caption is part of the FP criteria, but as long as it is, it should be enforced. Regarding image descripton, my concern would be that that would implicate Commons, which hosts many images. —Eustresstalk21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we have that conflict. We also have a conflict between people contributing to FP(C) and those writing articles. Most of the time, neither of these is/are a problem. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There are things we would like for a caption or image description page but those don't necessarily have to be FP criteria. For example, I think it is great when people geotag location images on the description page but it not always possible for an FP nomination as the image might not have been taken by the nominator and the location not precisely known. In fact, I wonder if "Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable." is the only essential requirement of the image description page. We could list some "nice to haves" that folk could suggest during the review, but couldn't demand. As for the Commons aspect of the image description page, is that a problem? It is a sister project and has similar goals. I don't see anyone on Commons objecting to WP folk improving the description. The only problem I see might be if the nominator doesn't have a Commons account. But they could ask someone to edit the page. Colin°Talk21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Might not be possible" is not a criterion in the way you suggest. The argument advanced by you only applies to historical images, where the opportunity to take another photograph of the subject does not exist. Similarly, not having a Commons account is not really a valid obstacle if you think about it. It takes less than a minute to fix that, right? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking about pictures donated to WP from some image library or from Flickr. Would you reject such a picture just because it lacked a geotag and conceivably someone could go there and take the picture again? Colin°Talk08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to change "caption" to "image description" - assuming that this terminology is felt to be unambiguous - I would remove the succinctness criterion, as we really want the description to supply as much information as possible, and it often includes descriptive text from other sources such as the LoC that we would always retain for the sake of having it recorded, but which may in fact be overly circumstantial, weaselly, inaccurate, or ambiguous. I would, however, uphold the possibility of opposing based on unavailability of essential information. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you enumerate what you think is essential? Should we have different rules for images where the photographer=uploader=wikipedian and so could be easily contacted to request more info? Should we have an essential list and an encouraged list. Reviewers, could if they wish, oppose if an encouraged detail was missing for no good reason. Colin°Talk08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
My reply to both of Colin's previous comments: No, I don't think we should treat pictures from external archives differently for the purpose of English Wikipedia Featured Pictures. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Well the geocoding aspect is just a "encouraged" aspect currently anyway. I really don't see how we could enforce that for external images and wouldn't want folk to just take a guess at where to stick the pin in the map. Ok. So I'd be happy with #7 changing to "image description", for the succinct requirement to be dropped, and for the link to the WP:CAPTION to be removed. Any objections? Colin°Talk11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I've applied the proposed changes and updated the prose in various places. Material from the footnotes has been moved into the main body of the text. Feel free to raise any further points you may become aware of. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I think some care should be taken that the captions are taken from material that is sourced in the article. I've found some captions in the past to be inaccurate. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Articles can change, so if you think that referencing is necessary, I would argue that the referencing must be in the file description, not just the article. However, this will cause significant upheaval of current processes, where arthropod pictures are often fashioned with an "expert ID" rather than a reference. Sometimes, such a reference would have to be to "grey" literature, i.e. works informally circulated among experts and not easily obtainable for the general public. This could cause a situation where some pictures would be excluded because they cannot ever be verified (taxonomy is a discipline currently in decline, so if the necessary work does not exist currently, it may never come into being), or the effort involved for the expert discouraging. We only recently met with a problem in plant ID, where we noted that sampling is often not possible without a permit, and collections (natural history museums, etc.) may be unwilling to ID and archive materials provided by lay persons, at least not free of charge. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with adding sources to the file description on Commons. That way people using the image on the various Wikipedias or elsewhere have access to sourced descriptions. The caption in the article(s) should be accurate per any WP text and I think those who take and insert the pictures should help there, but ultimately that text is the responsibility of the collective editors of the article and shouldn't get in the way of a successful FP nomination. It may be impossible/difficult for some highly technical identification issues, but we should try our best. Signpost wants background text on the photograph as well as encyclopaedic text on the subject, but ensuring that it accurate and interesting is also their responsibility. Colin°Talk08:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
In a recent nom that highlights a strong example of systemic bias, Crisco posed the question of whether he had promoted systemic bias with his recent nominations of repeated materials from da Vinci and Goya. I replied that he has been over-nominating Goya and Whistler. This is not simply problematic in terms of overall due weight, but also makes the task of balancing the PotD queue more complex, as we try not to have run-on weeks of one kind of material. I'm opening this thread in case there is any further discussion to be had on this point, to avoid crowding the nom concerned with general and hence off-topic discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
@PLW2: I've noticed that HowCheng balances it rather well, and generally spaces them out. I've tried to add some variety (note that there are posters and photographs up there too), but to be honest I have a backlog of things I'd like to nominate.
@Mathew: It's also rather interesting (or suspicious, depending on your mindset) since I am one of that section's writers... yourself being the other, of course. Most other processes impose a limit on the number of nominations one is allowed to have open at the same time. On EN Wikipedia, I think only GA and FPC don't. Such a limitation would be possible, but I don't think it's necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that because you are an editor of "Featured content" that you are "loading" it in your favor, if that is what you mean.(?) But I do think it's a problem that over half of the nominations are yours. I have consulted with Skomorokh, as I do see it as a problem. One way to solve this problem is to interest a wider array of nominators which would also remedy the problem of "recent systemic bias at FPC" and include more of the community. Another solution perhaps would be to limit the number of "Featured pictures" displayed on the "Featured content" page to one or two. As it is, they get disproportionate display because the images in articles are usually not very good and so it's tempting to fall back on the Featured pictures. I don't think you would deny that getting an image to "Featured picture" status is no way near to effort required to achieve FA or Fl. Do you agree? MathewTownsend (talk)
Depends on how you do it. If it's like Goya's The Dog, no it just requires finding a good scan, downloading it, and uploading it (on a slow connection like mine, annoying but doable). On a poster which requires retouching, like the crucifixion poster which started this discussion, it takes a couple hours to do it right; roughly equivalent to a GA in terms of effort. For works where you have to find the subject and shoot it yourself, it can be just as challenging as FA. Remember, for many of these you only get one shot (you may not see the species again... ever); you also need good (usually expensive) equipment, which is not a requirement for FA or FL. Trust me, my single featured picture that I took myself was nowhere near easy, and I'm sure some of our photographers would sharpen their Crocodile Dundee knives if they thought their work was being downplayed.
Photographs are different, but the average FP will take me over 6 hours, including travel and post processing time, and cost at least $65 in travel and equipment. Time wise, I'd guess that the partial order on the average times is probably DYK ≤ FP ≤ GA ≤ FA without a massive gap between FP and GA. But GAs are highly variable - there are plenty of subjects where it isn't much more work than a DYK. No one notices when I go out for the day and produce nothing :). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If we had a shortage of reviewers, then the only sensible reason to limit the number of nominations would problems with under reviewed images. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, that doesn't include the effort that goes into writing an article for a picture (it happens, and unless there is a decent article attached then an image will not go to the front page). I've written articles for several, including The Princess from the Land of Porcelain and Extermination of Evil, to give good-quality images a place where they'd have high enough EV to pass FPC. There's more work here than it seems. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't actually care how many works Crisco puts forward for FP so long as they are quality works that meet the guidelines. WRT the Signpost I don't know enough about it to make a comment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it might not make sense to start separating nominations – and possibly the featured pictures themselves – into Featured Reproductions and Featured Original Images. (I know, I know—easier said than done.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. :D From a process standpoint, it would move all the scans of artwork into a separate, possibly streamlined process. It's a different evaluation process for these images compared to editor-created photographs and diagrams. We don't have EV questions for notable works of art, nor can we suggest that the image creator adjust the composition; if a painting has its own article (or is worthy of its own article) then it will get FP status as long as the technical quality of the scan is sufficient. Someone critiquing File:Goya Dog.jpg is never going to say, Oppose, too much space around subject, dog obscured by indistinct foreground object; description of dog breed missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Argh, I'd be against the creation of a process like that. The current process seems less active than it used to be, and having two processes would end up dividing the active editors, resulting in fewer images even reaching 5S. As for the main page, that would require an RFC if featured picture and featured restoration/grab were to be kept completely separate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I would oppose that too. Dividing a small community in half isn't a good idea, and the processes are similar, though not the same. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there'd be a problem with so Crisco nominating so often if he generally or often nominated pictures that weren't of featured quality. A more signficant problem for Crisco is that he risks reviewer fatigue -- folk may just get tired of judging scanned film posters. So finding some variation would be useful. I don't think comparing FP with GA or FA is helpful. They have different qualities. I disagree with Matthew about limiting the FPs on Signpost. The section is on featured content and none of the FAs got there because of their pictures. If the FA has a great picture that makes someone more likely to read it then that's a bonus. I find it very odd that the FP's are listed without even small thumbnails of the pictures. The FP section is a really weird read: reading about a picture you can't see. Colin°Talk09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point on the Signpost. The old style was to have a gallery with all of them, but I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather have several larger resolution images, perhaps historically significant. For the nominations, I've been mixing it up. Two One animal photographs, a piece of hardware, several artistic works, a sports picture, a film poster, and a propaganda poster are up there right now. I think that's decent variety. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
We need only be concerned with systemic bias at POTD. Howcheng does a good job of balancing the POTD, spreading similar images out. So we don't need to worry about short periods of systemic bias. Crisco's recent nominations won't really matter in the long run. Trying to limit the content in any particular area to preserve balance is like imprisoning the rich to create income equality. I'm personally happy to see the additional activity that Crisco has brought to FPC recently - we were sitting around in the doldrums for a bit, with less than one image passing per day, and more images to judge means people tend to stick around. The solution to systemic bias is more nominators, not less nominations. As far as the Signpost goes, I believe that they will choose an interesting FA image if it is there, or otherwise ask someone to pick a FP for the week. That is an issue to talk to the editors about though. That said, a few more FPs over FA images isn't a bad thing in my view - it might encourage editors to improve the relevant article. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't address one of the recent cases, namely of complete absence of Central Power propaganda. You talk of "spreading out", but he's got nothing to spread. There are no Central Power FPs available for him to work with. Secondly, just because he does a good job doesn't mean we can arbitrarily increase the complexity of his work. The less spacing we do, the more he has to. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Amen to that. As one of the writers at the Signpost, I can happily assure you that we are doing our best to balance the images as well. What do we have so far? Here's a hint: none of my nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Any reason why this is still in limbo? One week. I count 3 supports which don't state a preference (one of which also explicitly supports the edit) and 2 for the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Project and talk page notifications
Are Wikiproject and article talk page notifications helpful or harmful? It is done for other featured areas, but there the hope is that subject-experts can contribute to the review and possibly spot/fix errors and omissions. This seems less likely to be the case for pictures. Possibly an expert can add helpful comments on the historical value of a picture/subject. Or a highly specialised type of picture might have aspects only someone familiar with that field would appreciate. But generally, it seems like project or article-talk-page notifications of an FPC are highly likely to attract support that doesn't evaluate fully the FP criteria. The recent Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg is an example of a FPC with four project and two article talk page advertisements. I'm sure I could get my own FPC past the threshold by rounding up some train enthusiasts at the appropriate project, but I don't think that is fair play. Should we make this explicitly disallowed. Colin°Talk07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It's generally thought of as canvassing, which is not allowed. However, its discovery does depend on people checking - there is no bot or anything like that, currently. Recent practice has been to close heavily canvassed noms as "not promoted, without prejudice, due to canvassing". However, this should always be based on clear evidence rather than WP:IDONTLIKE. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The equivalent notifications, if done neutrally, aren't considered canvassing for the other featured processes. So editors may not be aware that we consider it unacceptable for FP. Therefore I think the nomination instructions should make it clear that FP is different from FA/FL, etc. Colin°Talk09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Though this wasn't the case until very recently, neutral notices have been left on a number of talk pages. It's telling that no one felt the need to leave these notices until the nom started to fail, but there you go, that's not the worst crime in the world. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there has been some off-enwp canvassing to bring in some of the editors; this is an Iranian image, the nominator is Iranian, and right at the start of the discussion, two Iranian editors (Alborzagros (talk·contribs) and P0lyzoarium (talk·contribs)) popped up at FPC for the very first time in order to support this image. It's possible a message was left on the Farsi Wikipeida, but I haven't a chance of finding it, personally. J Milburn (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Guys if I can offer you a big picture view, you need to decide if you actually want help or not. In the section above this one, I note it discusses trying to find additional reviewers to assist with the work. You can either choose to have a club of exclusive editor reviewers and keep everyone else out by not making it easy for people to help you, and then go on to speculate amongst yourselves for example if the image has symmetry, rather than have experts pop in and spit out jems like this in a second flat
This image illustrate a rotational symmetry of order 32 (if my count is correct). This should be added in Symmetry#Rotational symmetry. This image also illustrate another kind of symmetry, not explicitly described in the article, namely the product of a rotation of angle 2π/64 by a homothety. In other words, this image is an excellent but poorly used illustration for the article symmetry.
— D.Lazard
Help like this what builds an encyclopedia. make such assistance unwelcome and what are you here for ?
It's not rocket science, just make the docs clearer, the concept of what it is you are looking for does not take 3 hours to understand, if it does, you're lost right now. The docs just need clarity and then anyone can assist properly. I can't possibly see how a few Iranians or whoever, can't be a great resource on the subject as you say yourselves you can't read is it farsi ? So if you want someone who you can ask questions about the mosque who can do a fast search for you, and they are right there, what part of this is a problem. Ask them are there other ceilings in the mosque like that one, or is there a religious purpose to the ceiling and so on. they can go and use their native language skills in searching for you, or their own general knowledge straight off the top of their heads. As I mentioned I think on my talkpage, I didn't know what an editor meant when he repeatedly asked was the image advertised, and language like that is often used in ANI where a fundamental prerequisite step has been omitted. So I popped a note on all the relevant talkpages, and the result was the little gem of a quote above. If there is a problem, speak clearly rather than vaguely. Decide what you want, do you want help or not ?
If you can sum up what points it is that people are missing, I can help you update the docs in precise clear conceptual language. I don't have time to take up the offer to help judge pics though, I have too many things that grab at my time like pigs into a trough of food at the moment. Penyulap ☏
Penyulap, the point of the various featured review processes is to judge what pictures/articles/lists look like right now, not what they could look like if some effort was made. Now perhaps this mosque ceiling is a great example of rotational symmetry and some experts could write lots of impenetrable text about it. But currently the article(s) don't refer to the image and don't make use of it to help explain features of the mosque or aspects of symmetry. There are, of course, an infinity of images one could choose to illustrate symmetry. The above quote only adds evidence to the fact that the article-picture combination is unsatisfactory. Now, if you want to post a request at the Maths or Islam wikiprojects for folk to help enhance the articles then the encyclopaedia gets improved and this FP might stand a chance. After all, if folk write encyclopaedic information in a review but not in the articles, how does that help? Colin°Talk15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
What about a bot notification that you can subscribe too that will automatically publish links to discussions that are ending or something? That would be neutral and not canvasing and something thats opt-in. Don't know how many people would opt-in for that so it may not be worth the effort, but otherwise just talk page notifying people on select nominations is probably not a good idea. — raekyt16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Raeky that is a great idea, as editors won't need to struggle to determine if canvassing is going on. I am actually working on my bot at the moment, adding a new task. The bot works in space station articles actually, but I have mentioned it to the programmer, who is too busy to respond to me on that subject right now. So you'd be looking for a bot to spam you with every last discussion that is about to end, wait that doesn't come out quite right when i say it like that, but it might turn out that way do you think, or maybe do you think you want it for select discussions, the ones you as a user want to know about ? or just all ? Sorry to talk strange, but I think that way when evaluating new ideas, taking into account downsides, i think it is a good idea, but can notes be left on the pages of articles that have a picture under discussion, as was done by me in this case, or is that meant to be considered unhelpful, as it's something more like a club because of strange docs ? So as I understand it, featured pics here are only featured pics where they suit the current writing of the article ? which actually makes me think there is no job going on here as the author of the article often does a good job of choosing a pic to go with his or her text, i know i do. why is it needed to have a category that says this picture goes with this section of that article ? shouldn't this be obvious ? I mean, isn't it just easier to go out there and edit the articles yourself, as it's a lot of discussion and hype, where just editing is faster. Penyulap ☏
Penyulap You are being entirely too dismissive of those who contribute the images the article writers pick. FP is not here to pat you on the back for picking a good picture. It is here to highlight works of excellence that enhance the content of articles because they are reflective of those very articles. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ideally the bot should filter out nominations that are clearly going to pass or clearly going to fail and only notify on nominations that are marginal, or nominations with a lot of traffic. Could be just as simple as a list of all the nominations that are going to close within 24h and post that to people's talk pages at like midnight every day. That way you won't get repeates and not A LOT close daily, so you may go a couple days without a notice... — raekyt09:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense as a filter, the bot determining if things are close and closing. Makes a lot of sense. Opt-in, I wonder how many might want it, how would we find out that sort of info? Just to see if it is useful, to enough people, to make programming worthwhile. Penyulap ☏
That's probably fine, there isn't really any rules I don't think about renominations. It is generally frowned upon (and probably a speedy close) if a nomination that clearly failed from opposes is quickly renominated, but ones that just fail to get enough votes in the time like that one, probably isn't a big deal to renominate. — raekyt09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly common for a map to get initial negative comments, fix some stuff, and then be trending positive after that but still fail. In those cases (your's is one), it's pretty much the norm to run the final version of the map through another nom so that it doesn't have to carry the original's baggage. Usually it passes the second nom easily. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 10:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Clarification of some particular issues
One recent FPC has raised a few questions in my mind about what criteria we apply:
Thumbnails: do FPs need to impart their information at thumbnail size? Is there a minimum utility?
Maps: if criterion five is Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article but we appear to apply something more like the top of the FPC page, Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles (my emphasis), where does one draw the line on a map which imparts useful information but not all information that it might? If it can be said to add significantly, is that sufficient, or does "Wikipedia's best work" require it to be close to what it could be (assuming there are no similar maps on the 'pedia)?
In the past I think with maps and diagrams that are too large to really be represented large enough on the page that everything is readable it is just assumed the reader will be intelligent enough to know to click the image to make it larger if they want the additional information or details. Most readers are smart enough to do that I think, and it's unrealistic to assume every diagram or map can be represented well enough in a thumbnail. So to answer your question, votes that are opposing on those grounds, where it's not possible to make all the information of the picture come across in a thumbnail but still are opposing on those grounds, could be safely ignored by the closing party, imho. We do ignore votes if they're unsound or unreasonable or based on faulty logic or improperly applied rules. Also as a side note, almost every image we promote is not adequately convaing all the information of the picture in thumbnail form. Thats why we have minimum size requirements because we EXPECT people to click our featured images so they can get ALL the information contained in them in their larger form. As for the EV criteria an accurate map that contains all the necessary details of what it's supposed to contain, even if it's not thumbnailable, is absolutely of the highest EV for it's article. So.. no we have no rule about all FP's have to have thumbnails that convey all the information in the larger picture in thumbnail format, that would be a silly rule. — raekyt01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Suspended nominations
There are two nominations currently suspended to resolve copyright questions:
The deletion request for the JFK image has gone nowhere in the past month, although it looks like the agreement is currently that it is acceptably free.
For the Grant photograph, there are two bits of circumstantial evidence which suggest that the image is PD, although PD status has not been decisively proven.
I was wondering if anyone could take a further look at these two nominations, which have been suspended for a month already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've looked at them periodically. JFK needs to wait until the Commons deletion is resolved. For Cary Grant, you might ask Calliopejen if she's satisfied with the copyright since she's the one that raised the issue. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Our consensus for this picture seemed to be that it was worth keeping if we could get it to stick in the article. Unfortunately, User:Stemonitis is very antagonistic to adding anything else to the article, and has removed the picture four times after it was insterted by four different editors. I have been trying to discuss with him that consensus is the picture adds value to the article. He replied vehemently, both on my talk and the article talk, that it was merely "Local Consensus" from a group of "weak, misinformed", and "biased" editors (his words), and that he is pursuing the greater consensus of excellence in WP and the picture adds nothing so he's not going to let it in the article He also insists it's not an edit war or WP:OWN: he's just trying to make sure WP has the best content possible; he also accuses us of WP:POINT. Sounds like edit warring and WP:OWN to me. What's the next step? AN/I? Never had to deal with this before. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 09:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
He may have something of a point. The last thing we need are "FPC people" dictating content of articles to the people who actually work on those kinds of articles, and he is certainly right about the localised consensus- if there's to be a discussion about it, a FPC page is not the place to have it. As such, we should not be citing an FPC page as demonstrating that there is consensus for a particular action. In fact, "we" should be using Stemontis's expertise to help make decisions about the featured pictures- for instance, he observes that "all the important details are ventral". We need to have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page, and call for further opinions from the relevant WikiProjects/start a RfC if necessary, and then, if it is concluded that the image is not needed, the delist discussion should be opened up again, and it should be a pretty much forgone conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
My intention of restoring the image was to restore it the way 4 other editors had had it and 1 editor didn't wish to have it, then I requested temporary page protection until it was fully discussed in the talk page, which I tried to initiate. ;-\ I do agree that he probably has a point, and definitely belives hes in the right with policy at this point. But from my biology background I think showing both the sexual differences in both dorsal and ventral sides is probably ideal, and that can be accomplished with a collage image of all 4 images showing clearly, probably with arrows or other markings the differences. This might not allow the FP status of the image to be preserved, but that really isn't a big concern of mine, and it might be overillustrating a small article but historically that really isn't a big concern of mine either, lol. I think finding the appropriate images to illustrate a species is important, and it may need more pictures than would normally be necessary for a non-biology species article. Stacking images showing sexual dimorphism is fairly common for species pages, although not part of the MOS so editors not normally visiting these pages may not know that thats generally how it's done in these articles may not no that... — raekyt11:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate someone with more knowledge of legalese weighing in here (I've received an email from the bank) and giving feedback if the image is free or not. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Currency#Belgium, says they still hold copyright, and links too [8] in footnote, which says see the PDF, which I think says for digital reproductions it must be 72 dpi, i.e. web graphic size, small, and have SPECIMEN printed across it in Arial font. My best guess is that we can't host these images here, there's a couple in commons:Category:Banknotes_of_Belgium that probably would need to be deleted. Since I don't know if i'm interpreting this right, might want to have someone on Commons who knows about these weigh in... — raekyt09:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The bank's email is in direct contradiction to Commons on that: "The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters". I would say that that was good enough reason to disregard measures aimed at preventing fraud. Copyright is not so clear. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I've sent the reply from the bank to OTRS. They say they do not enforce copyright on works which are not redeemable for Euros... however that applies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944
Just wondering if there was a specific issue delaying the enactment of the close of this one, or whether it'll be through in good time. I'd feel stupid if there was something I'd missed waiting on me for some reason. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
so that it contains the relevant page history, FP notification, and POTD details.
; see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/December 2010. There are a couple of exceptions, mainly when someone has noticed the missing star and reinstated it since (but usually without POTD notification, and definitely without the page history). If some Admin wants to trawl through that 20 or so POTDs and restore the image pages, it would be nice. --jjron (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC).jpg){kind=small}
. I tried it out here and it worked.Dusty777 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
and 
. Idk, even if the icons aren't a good idea I think the summary box could be useful. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Realio though. I think the way to see if the templates are helpful is to experiment with using them, vice discuss them in the abstract. People who voted against them were probably a bunch of grumpie-grump anti-kitten, anti-Wikilove types. I am going to put the little icons on my page, with the smilie code, but I don't know if I can always be bothered to go back and grab them.TCO (Reviews needed) 18:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. I really don't like them. Yes, as per this discussion, FPC is mainly being treated as vote-counting these days, but I'd like to emphasise that it's not meant to be. We're meant to be evaluating opinions and determining consensus, not counting !votes. These little icons just emphasise the vote-counting aspect though. They're OK on Commons, because AFAIK the way they operate there is supposed to be to just count votes at the end. (Oh, but I support getting rid of those distracting fancy-pants sigs). --jjron (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Like Dude...make them. Wiki needs to try more things versus always talking them to death and not trying them. (and yes, I know they were deleted before, I linked to that discussion before others in thread!) TCO (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, supposedly
.jpg){kind=link}
_-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Eichh%C3%B6rnchen_D%C3%BCsseldorf_Hofgarten_edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Hemerocallis_Lilioasphodelus.jpg){kind=link}
