Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Animated horse

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animated horse, which didn't look FP quality, yet surpirisingly it was promoted with a +10/-6 vote. Surely that is not a high enough score. ed g2s • talk 13:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I assume it had to be with the way the closing person determined consensus, and it isn't all about numbers since Wikipedia is not a consensus. I agree with you that it probably shouldn't be a featured picture though and suggest that you put it up for delisting. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured Diagrams

I know this subject has been discussed already, but I don't think it has been done to a stage at which a resolution has been made. I for one am strongly for splitting off diagrams from Featured Picture Candidates. Personally I can't understand (and I don't mean any offence this is just an example) how Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Blank map of India can be getting so much support. I mean it's a nice effort, and it probably took an hour or two, but it's just so ordinary! I mean I could make a pretty much identical one of Australia. Then France, then Poland, then Africa. See what I mean? There is nothing stopping someone from submitting unlimited amounts of these maps. And after promoting and image of India you can't really oppose and image of China can you? I mean you let one through then you've opened the door. You won't be able to discriminate against a country, and then you'll have to choose which country gets to be it.
And then there are diagrams of streets. You could feasibly promote an entire Melways! (for those who don't live in Victoria that's a street directory :-)
So I strongly propose that there should be a seperate Featured Diagram Section, so that a criteria can be made specifically for diagrams and they can be battled out on equal terms. Coz really a photo and an illustration are so different it's not really fair t judge them on the same discussion board with the same expectations. --Fir0002 www 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with having a featured map of every country? Isn't that what we want? Wouldn't that be great? I could phrase this suggestion the exact opposite way...If we promote one macro-shot of an insect then we can't just reject equally good macro-shots of other insects and we'll be forced to promote thousands of similar images (I mean there are more insects than countries). I think we have done a good job adjusting our expectations to different kinds images and we don't need a separate page to make that distinction clear. I mean, why do you oppose adding such pictures to FP, but not FD? Why does it matter how we categorize them? FPs (and FDs) simply represent really good content. I would, however, support renaming the whole page to featured media or featured files to make this page more inclusive (as I have suggested before). Broken Segue 13:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can say that any two macro shots are alike. You can however say that two maps are a like. They would have the same color scheme etc to each other and be virtually the same (albeit different country). That isn't the case with a photograph. There are so many variations (even excluding subject). Background, focus, resolution, noise, color, lighting, DOF, angle, quality of specimen, overall composition and aesthetic value. But a map? They're basically all the same. Clearly diagrams can not be judged in the same manner as photos. They're just too different. It also makes it hard to tell someone (and I'm speaking basically for myself just now) that you are going to oppose their nominations just because you don't thing diagrams demonstrate the best images Wikipedia has to offer. I'm sure that there are varying degrees of brilliance in diagrams, and I think a seperate set of criteria and a seperate page should be erected for them. I just don't think that diagrams are compatible with the idea of a Featured Picture. --Fir0002 www 10:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what you're saying is that there isn't much art involved in making a map. I agree. But there's nothing in the criteria which requires artistry, nor should there be. Unlike Commons, this is project is to write an encyclopedia, and, while artistic images are definitely a plus, encyclopedic value comes first. I think we can measure photos, maps, diagrams, and animations by that same fundamental standard. (I also think renaming to "Featured media" is a good idea, too.) bcasterline t 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. We are looking for useful and informative content here, just not pretty pictures. Your suggestion for a featured diagram process would actually make more sense at commons since they just want nice looking pictures (try suggesting it there). By the way this short discussion dealt with the same issues last year. I basically agree with Raul on this one. Broken Segue 03:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

My thought about the subject of these is that they can be FP, if they are somehow unique. I mean just a map like that is bland and how can you argue against a similar map of any other country, then historical maps, or regions or states, provinces teritories etc...etc... But if you brought a map or other diagram or chart that has something unique and special about it, while remaining encyclopaedic I dont see how I could oppose it. I would put this on par with featured picture of staight flat diagrams of national flags.say1988 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I proposed something very similar just a month ago, so I'll just state that I'd support this here. -- grm_wnr Esc 02:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

FP Visible reform

I've just requested comments on the future of WP:FPV at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures visible#Gallery or split the page?. The last time the topic was discussed (July 05) the discussion fizzled out without conclusion, so I'd be grateful if contributors from this busier talk page would give their opinion. The basic premise of the discussion is that FPV is getting too large and unwieldy, and was partially (but not completely) converted to a gallery format last summer as a result. It shouldn't stay as its current hybrid, and I am volunteering to fix it once the community decides what format we want the page in. Thanks all ~ Veledan • Talk 09:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hall of fame

For anyone who's interested: Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of featured pictures. ed g2s • talk 16:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Are these images found, nominated or created? It should be made clearer. I have 5 successful candidates myself. Circeus 16:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Created, although I assumed that was obvious. Finding a good pic isn't half as noteworthy as making one, IMHO. ed g2s • talk 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Aka's page says "32 of my images has been voted as featured pictures" and on the hall of fame only five is listed. I'm not sure if all 32 of his pictures are still FP's, some may have been delisted so I'm not going to change anything just yet. --Mad Max 01:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is circlestrafing still in the suspended section?

Can anyone remember? Whoever put it in the suspended section didn't put an explanation on top, and there has been no activity for over a week. Does anyone object to me closing it? ~ Veledan • Talk 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was suspended because we were waiting for someone to make an animated/svg version. Both have been made but there isn't a clear consensus about which to promote. I'd say, promote the svg demote the png and suggest that people renominate the animation. Broken Segue 01:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Stevage 13:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Closing of nominations.

I don't think the closing of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Prothonotary Warbler was done correctly. The tally as I make it is 5 for Edit 1 and 3 for Edit 2. Therefore I think Edit 1 should have been promoted.
On a completely different candidate (and I realize how out of date this is) I think Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jonquil flowers should have been promoted (3 votes in favour (including nominator) and only 1 oppose) --Fir0002 www 08:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the second one was failed purely through lack of votes. I don't even remember it being up. I think you should re-nominate it, and ask specifically that people vote for it this time. --liquidGhoul 08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree that Edit 1 received more votes, but I can't help but look at that image and see the JPEG compression artifacts. I'd be happiest to see a re-edit using the techniques used in Edit 1, but with a better quality JPEG save. Personally, I don't think my edit removed any significant detail. While we're on the topic of saving though, I get the impression you use the 'save for web' option in PS? Why use that when it strips EXIF data from the image? (at least, it appears to). Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There's more to closing nominations than just counting the votes. ~~Veledan~~ Ravedave may have agreed with Diliff, that edit 2 clearly had less noise, in which case it doesn't make much sense to promote edit 1 even if the vote is slightly in favor. -- bcasterline • talk 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me! I'm at work right now but I'll have a look at home later and throw in my 2c worth. When it comes to multi-edit FPCs I always draw a table and start making notes re versions. I'll say in advance though, that I don't always use my count of votes for an edit to make the decision. If an edit appears to address concerns that were raised earlier in the FPC, and nothing about it is specifically opposed, I will often promote the edit even if not enough people have come back to change their vote ~ Veledan • Talk 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Jonquil flowers was a fair non-promotion. At least four support votes are required to establish consensus at WP:FPC (see the 2nd paragraph of the intro) ~ Veledan • Talk 14:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my slip-up I thought that edit-2 was the supported one. I was focusing on making sure Veledans tool worked correctly. If someone wants they can move Edit-1 over the top of edit-2. -Ravedave 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

OK if no-one objects I'll do that tommorrow --Fir0002 www 09:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review

I have noticed there are not many reviewers on Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review and wanted to remind everyone to stop by there occasionally, or put to add it to thier watchlist. -Ravedave 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I do have it on my watchlist, but I must admit I haven't stopped off there as often as I ought to recently. I found that I was always telling people what was wrong with their picture, and I don't enjoy leaving negative messages all the time. Call me a wimp ~ Veledan • Talk 13:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Its probably better to have someone help you along on the Peer review than to have your picture torn apart by 20 people on FPC. Think of it as though Judo instructor vs street gang, which one would you rather be schooled by? :) -Ravedave 16:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pixels

On Wikipedia:What is a featured picture? it lists 1000 Pixels as a minimum, however it doesn't give an easy way for someone to tell if a picture is 1000 pixels big. What would be the easiest way? At what size does MediaWiki start making the picture a thumbnail and provide image dimensions? -Ravedave 05:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly it also says it should be 1000px wide *or* high. So technically a 1000x100 image could qualify? Could we have a minimum requirement as well? So, must be at least 750x1000 or 1000x750, for example. Stevage 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, in answer to your question, that's a user setting - by default it's 800x600 I think. Stevage 13:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the minimum width would be in both directions, unless it was a picture of... a column or film strip? I'm sure there will be exceptions. THEPROMENADER 16:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no minimum width. That's judge a rule of thumb. The picture odd to be big enough. People can determine for themselves if its big enough. Broken Segue 18:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

images

Could someone have a look through my images and see if any are worthy? Cheers, --Midnight tonight 03:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, and I don't belive any would survive FPC. It looks like most have cut off subjects, or blown out highlights. I seem to always have the same problems as well... -Ravedave 06:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Animated horse

This discussion is huge and not going anywhere. Someone may wish to launch another delisting attempt some time, but for the moment this one seems to have gotten stuck in some sort of bureaucratic wormhole. Linking to it here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Animated horse (removed from main page, haven't copied it to an archive) Stevage 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

nom

I can't be bothered nominating this properly, but this image is nice:

Stevage 15:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad at all. --Mad Max 01:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Clicking on the edit links of the most recent noms, I get to completely different noms, even the delisting section... --Janke | Talk 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Same. It seems to start with the West Coast Coastline New Zealand nomination. I wonder if it has something to do with the number of sections on the page, which, including the delisting nominations and post-7 days nominations, is extremely high. Have their ever been this many before? -- bcasterline • talk 14:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The only way to add votes to the misbehaving noms is to click on the title, and edit the appearing page. The edit links mess it all up. Can someone fix this before it substantially skews the voting process? --Janke | Talk 07:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it, check out this diff to see what I did. I have no idea why this stuffed everything up, or why three of the noms were like this, but it is fixed :). --liquidGhoul 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-nominations?

Is it bad form to nominate one's own images? I uploaded a few today to support articles that either didn't have any images (Horseshoe Bend, Arizona) or to support new sections I added to an existing article (Antelope Canyon). The images I uploaded can be seen on my user page. -- moondigger 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not bad form. I would reccomend uploading higher resoultions before submitting for FPC though. -Ravedave 19:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would probably support a couple of those as they are, but they only just meet the minimum size criterion. Bigger is almost always better. -- bcasterline • talk 19:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate my photos. First, because doing so looks complicated; I don't want to screw up the other candidates somehow with poor formatting. Second, because if there's a de facto requirement for featured pictures to have resolutions higher than the stated 1000 pixels, the nomination will be voted down anyway. Thanks -- moondigger 20:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

We seem to have a couple of anon. sockpuppets on FPC (211.30.199.85 and 220.239.253.3), both referring to a "Brad" in personal messages and in edit summaries. Can an admin do the appropriate things, thanks. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Second that --Fir0002 www 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that both of those IPs voted on a single pic, so how is it sock puppetry? People are allowed to edit from more than one IP (work/home/school). Also I don't belive there are any criteria that say that newbies votes are worth less vs old hands, so I don't understand the whole "this users edits are all to FPC" thing.-Ravedave 16:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, you might mean that the IP is a sockpuppet of a registered user, which is indeed a bad thing. Also we should try and keep an eye on new USERS that only have edits to FPC. I think having an admin do some auditing of recent FPCs would be a good thing. -Ravedave 16:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly why anonymous votes are not counted, BTW. --Janke | Talk 17:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that anon votes are not counted? I can't find that anywhere. -Ravedave 17:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've understood so, from previous discussions - but if it isn't mentioned anywhere, I really think it should be. Ballot-stuffing would be all too easy otherwise, especially for someone with an IP that changes for every web access. --Janke | Talk 17:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Change removal procedure

I think the deletion procedure should be the same as nomination, i.e have a subpage. That would make it easier to keep an archive, and hopefully prevent re-nominations. I would guess the naming convention would be: {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName_Delist}} -Ravedave 16:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How about using the same subpage? Then all discussion on the image is centralized in the same location. For older images promoted without a subpage, one could be created. -- bcasterline • talk 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Featured pictures to Featured media

Since discussion always dies quickly here, I've started a topic at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to discuss the inclusion of maps, diagrams, and possibly other media in WP:FPC (which would be renamed Featured media). If you have an opinion on the matter, please take a look. Thanks. -- bcasterline • talk 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA

Hi,
I'm a little unsure that this nomination should have been closed at this stage. I've counted the votes as the following:

12 for the original including (excluding User:Nimakha - users only edit)

2 for edit 1

13 for edit 2

0 for edit 3

0 for edit 4 - assuming wolfmankurd didn't vote for his own edit

A lot of votes do not specify the version they like, and some of the earlier ones (before the edits) mentioned they would prefer some cropping. I have notified some of this users asking if they could specify their preferences. However if they do not respond, I think edit two should be promoted as it has the highest number of votes and addresses the cropping issues raised by some of the people who haven't specified their vote. --Fir0002 12:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that several people have come back since the verdict was added and specified your edit as their preferred option Fir, I'd say go ahead and move the FP designation to edit 2. It's never easy to close multi-edit promotions and I've resorted to leaving "unless you have more to add..." messages on people's talk pages when closing close ones in the past as well ~ Veledan • Talk 07:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've recounted the votes and yes, your edit Fir turned out to be the more supported version. Feel free to swap the FP status to your edit, I have no objections. --Mad Max 01:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

JPEG compression - When less is more

Hi all. There was a brief discussion about what the appropriate compression for JPEGs is over at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hippo pod. I had made an edit of the image and saved it without any JPEG compression, resulting in a larger original file. Fir0002 made another edit, which he recompressed to a much smaller filesize, with the intent of making the image more accessible for dialup users.

While Fir's edit was certainly an improvement for the full size image, he overlooked the compression's impact on the thumbnails ImageMagick generates. Gmaxwell made the insightful point that while the original was smaller, the thumbnails generated from it were actually larger. Since users view many more thumbnails on a typical visit to Wikipedia, Fir's use of compression would actually have a negative impact. Compare the filesizes of the generated thumbnails above.

I post this here because I had overlooked this point as well. Just another thing to consider when editing images here! ~MDD 46 96 14:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know the devs have been working on the image thumbnail generation recently... now it seems that the two edited thumbnails are roughly equivalent. Well, anyways... keep thumbnail size in mind. ~MDD 46 96 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainpage caption as part of candidate nomination

I would like to propose that a specially-written mainpage caption be included as part of every nomination for FPC. Too often the caption on the mainpage is just the regurgitation of the first few sentences of an article the image appears in, and has little relevance to the actual image. Instead, I would propose that a couple of sentences be prepared on the actual subject which the image illustrates, as well as on the source and means of production, if significant. Please see Talk:Main Page#Featured picture is just a second featured article for the discussion that prompted this proposal.--Pharos 05:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

As part of a nomination? Nah. It should be written as-and-when the picture actually becomes FPC and is going to appear on the main page. Otherwise it's just a lot of wasted effort, and really has nothing to do with whether the image gets promoted or not. However, the point about the caption just being a second FA is right - it just means we need people to write image-specific captions before they appear on the main page. Stevage 07:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but unless it is part of the FPC process there is just no incentive for volunteers to take up the significant effort to write a decent, appropriate caption for every day's FP. All FPs will eventually make it to the mainpage, so there will be no wasted efforts, and I think how an FP will be presented to the world should be a fair criterion to judge it on. I am not saying we need the strictest standards on this little prose, but an initial decent effort and a little exposure to review will help with the presentation of the final product immensely.--Pharos 07:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can write decent captions.-GangstaEB 12:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but are you going to write decent captions every day, on images and topics with which you are unfamiliar? It is clear that the persons involved in the orignial nomination process are best placed to write the mainpage caption.--Pharos 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have very little to do with FPC, so won't pretend to know what would be the most appopriate move here, but I definately welcome an attempt to fix this problem. violet/riga (t) 15:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and a decent caption of two to four sentences isn't even just needed on the mainpage. Clicking on the image page for today's FP, we get the singularly unstatisfying "An aerial view of housing developments near Markham, Ontario. Photo by IDuke, November 2005." Considering that Wikipedia has decided this is one of its finest images, putting a little bit of decent explanatory prose on ther image page (the same as on the mainpage) couldn't hurt either. A decent extended caption is really integral to the whole purpose of FPs.--Pharos 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good proposal. violet/riga (t) 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll write them every other Saturday. G a n g staEB & friends 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And do we have 13 other such equally dedicated Wikipedians? Noone is writing decent captions now, and it does not seem likely that such an allotment system could ever find the volunteers. Meanwhile, completely irrelevant captions on the Main Page are detracting from our FPs every day, and neither on the image pages is their any decent background info on the FPs. I would like to ask that others please give their input on this proposal. Thanks.--Pharos 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The ideal situation would be for the creator of the image to write a couple of sentences about how they took the image, *after* the nomination succeeds. "This image of a cane toad was taken in the suburbs of Brisbane in 2003. It was taken using a Nikon D50 with slave flash..." etc. Then, the description is about the *image* rather than the *subject* of the image. Stevage 23:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Or what if I wrote 7 captions in advance every Saturday? I need caption writing help anyway, and I'm not paying $300+ for it. Gang sta E B EA 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, I don't see why captions added after the nomination process would be superior to those addes before/during it. As to content, IMO the descripttion should integrate the image into the general subject. GangstaEB, I would have little problem with you writing all the captions for every day, but this just hasn't happened yet (and I don't quite understand what you mean by "paying $300+"). I still think this has to be a distributed process, open to some kind of review.--Pharos 21:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Payign $300 means going to some kind of class on writing captions for newpapers. I was told to improve my caption writing... or else. :-( :-( :-(Gang sta E B EA 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanations of changes in image edits

I know this is a minor issue in the scheme of things, but I've recently been frustrated by edits to FPC images that don't explain the changes made. I feel it is important to aid in determining the benefits of the edits. Sometimes I look at them and find it quite hard to see any real difference between them and the original. If the editor could justify and explain the changes made, it would help all concerned.. I'm not the type to want to burden the process with arbitrary rules and regulations, but we should probably create guidelines for presenting edits. Perhaps we could add to the FPC template a format for displaying edits. Eg a caption that starts with "Edit 1 - Changes made: ....". Any thoughts? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll try always to remember to tell what I've done to an image. --Janke | Talk 17:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Fir, you listening? ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am, but in utter disdain of the suggestion. What value does that information provide? It just makes unnecessary hassle for the editor. An edit either looks better or it doesn't. Pretty straight forward, and you don't need to be told what's happened to it to judge wether it's an improvement or not. If the difference is so small that it is not immediately apparent, then the edit is pointless. --Fir0002 04:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is much of a hassle to explain changes made. I firmly believe that explaining and justifying the changes that have been made is very important, especially when the change is more than a slight colour/luminosity/curves edit. FPC is a collaborative process and good collaboration means good communication. I do agree that generally an edit without immediately apparent benefits is often a pointless edit, but it is also quite easy to miss subtle but important differences such as cleaning up noise. The benefits of disclosure to the collaboration far outweigh the burden on the editor IMHO. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, and there is {{RetouchedPicture}} for the editors to use. --Dschwen 17:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All digital images are retouched in one form or another, a bit of a pointless template, isn't it? Stevage 23:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, retouched usually means manipulation of the content of the image (Eg removing an unwanted object from the image), not just the qualities (brightness/saturation etc) of it. This is already a contentious thing in FPC and disclosure is generally considered a requirement here as many feel that any deviation from 'the image that was captured' is a good reason to oppose the edit. If this is not disclosed, are we not right to feel a bit annoyed? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Stevage, I suggest you read the template description before you deem it pointless. --Dschwen 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nomiantion procedure

I made a new subpage for the nomination procedure. I did this for two reason, one its easier to link when explaining to people, also there is no restriction on space so the page can be much more detailed. I would appreciate any help you guys can give in cleaning up the page as much as possible. Thanks! -Ravedave 04:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some clarifications - hope they're OK and not too verbose... --Janke | Talk 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work Ravedave. --Mad Max 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Sock Puppet Votes" Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GarrettRock

I think that sockpuppets are being used for some of the current nominations.

See this page: 1 See this page: 2

Anonymous__Anonymous 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. It looks like User:Daniellebercier, User:Tiger35, User:Cd78, User:67.33.193.152 and User:Polarqueen (who signed herself as "Christine" on the daffodil promotion) are all the same person. None have more than 3 edits except 67.33.193.152 (who has 9) and Polarqueen (who has <20), all edits are directly related to two particular FPC's, and the comments made sound very similar to each other (and are mostly unsigned). --NoahElhardt 15:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If this escalates, we may have to start requiring a minimum time and/or minimum number of edits from voters? That would be a chore for the nom's closer, though. Thoughts? --Janke | Talk 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we didn't have to but I agree, if this gets worse then we gotta do what we gotta do.--Mad Max 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we're almost at that point. It's getting pretty bad :-( --Fir0002 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of suspected sockpuppets

Here's a list; I added a couple, in addition to the ones NoahElhardt listed above. Please add to the list. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniellebercier (talk · contribs)
Tiger35 (talk · contribs)
Cd78 (talk · contribs)
67.33.193.152 (talk · contribs)
Polarqueen (talk · contribs)
ButterLips (talk · contribs)
70.179.197.52 (talk · contribs)
Philby_power (talk · contribs) - 1st edit was an FPC support

The fact that ButterLips second edit [1] was adding a whole bunch of userboxes (claiming to be a "teenager") to their page, is a sort of edit I don't think a newbie makes. And a few edits later, the user is now a great-grandmother. [2] I don't think we need to establish a minimum time and/or minimum number of edits for voting, but just need to sort out this situation. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its funny that some of those user boxes were obviously picked semi-random. Lets see here: This user is a vegan, yet likes to each chocolate and horse meat. hmmm... :) --NoahElhardt 00:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Which would explain the user box: "This user is confused." SteveHopson 00:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I looked more at Philby power (talk · contribs) and don't think this is a sockpuppet with the others. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are all the same person. User 67.33.193.152 (talk · contribs) says she's "Danielle" and is studying to be a botanist (which explains her obsession with flowers) in her user page, so she's probably Daniellebercier (talk · contribs) as well.

(Comment inserted inside Mad Max's) 67.33.193.152 (talk · contribs)'s user page was actually created by Daniellebercier (talk · contribs). --ais523 10:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Polarqueen (talk · contribs) has done nothing but support the latter two accounts. User 67.33.193.152 says she lives in Louisiana, but so does GarrettRock (talk · contribs) who also takes a lot of pictures of flowers. This proves nothing but is mighty suspicious. The more I look at the other accounts (Butterqueen (talk · contribs) Tiger35 (talk · contribs) Cd78 (talk · contribs)) the more I'm sure it's this Danielle user. Also, user 70.179.197.52 (talk · contribs) for some reason also edited GarrettRock's user page at one point.--Mad Max 21:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Might as well add N3RUS (talk · contribs) to the list as well.--Mad Max 22:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How do we get someone to see if those users share an IP? -Ravedave 23:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That probbaly won't help much since if this person is on dialup his/her IP will change everytime she goes online, or he/she could be behind a proxy or have multiple computers. --Mad Max 23:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/GarrettRock. I think the evidence is conclusive enough that I don't think anyone would bother with checkuser. I think the sockpuppets can just be blocked, as disruptive and evading policy on voting. Though, I'd like to first notify GarrettRock and have a word with the user. It may be that this is a newbie who is unaware that their behavior is against policy. Some of the pictures are nice, though maybe not FP quality. We should WP:AGF, and try to education the user. --Aude (talk | contribs) 00:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a note on GarrettRock's talk page. I won't block yet, but will keep watch on the FPC page. Hopefully the user will just learn and not continue the problematic behavior. If they do, then I will block. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to block the users who you are accusing of sockpuppets because they are in no relation to me, Garrett Rock. Furthermore, I have left evidence on my Talk Page that shows my lack of involvement in the allegation put against me. Garrett Rock 03:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly both User:GarrettRock and User:Polarqueen made a bunch of edits in the same time frame this morning in the 10:30-10:50 time range. -Ravedave 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For new users, they frequently use Edit Summaries (Especially Polarqueen). The "Userbox case" is ok because newbies usually look at other people's user pages. New users don't use edit summaries unless they were one of those experienced IP users or people who used Wikipedia in the past. Anonymous__Anonymous 16:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to make any assumptions, but User:Fpwannabe looks suspicious as well. First and only edits are related to FP's, the user name is one only someone with Wikipedia experience would create, and wannabe is not a word usually known by most "South Americans". Just though I'd add the name to the considerations. --NoahElhardt 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice, however, that "fpwannabe" votes for other pictures that are not being accused of sockpuppetry!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.179.197.52 (talk • contribs) .

Hmmm... One suspected sockpuppet defends another suspected sockpuppet. Not a very good defense either. --NoahElhardt 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tewy (talk · contribs) also looks suspicious. I checked this users' edits. For a new user he uses edit summaries frequently. Anonymous__Anonymous 21:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tewy (talk · contribs) looks legit. This user has been around for a while a week, and most of their edit have not been related to FPC. (The only ones that have are directly related to a single picture which they nominated. They didn't support other candidates of questionable validity). --NoahElhardt 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tewy is ok. I just checked his contributions again. Anonymous__Anonymous 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced that 70.179.197.52 (talk · contribs) is the same as GarrettRock (talk · contribs), but not 100% convinced that either of these two match the others. Evidence [3] [4] [5]. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that there is any connection between GarrettRock/70.179.197.52 and the others, other than their support of each others' pictures and Garrett's statement that Polarqueen is his cousin. It seems pretty clear that most of the list above (

Daniellebercier (talk · contribs), Tiger35 (talk · contribs), Cd78 (talk · contribs), 67.33.193.152 (talk · contribs), Polarqueen (talk · contribs), ButterLips (talk · contribs)) are related/sockpuppets, so we could have two+ cases of sockpuppetry going on here. GarrettRock: are you aware that you are using the Sockpuppet 70.179.197.52, whether intentionally or not? --NoahElhardt 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently "70.179.197.52" is my computer when I am logged off. When my cousin (also known as Polarqueen/Christine) came to my house she wrote some nasty comments and changed a few things. Besides my familiarity with this user, the other sockpuppets are unrelated to me and are certainly NOT ME! -- GarrettRock 23:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty sus to me. Initially you said that the sockpuppets had "no relation" to you. Changing your story isn't very convincing. --Fir0002 07:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Two cases of sockpuppetry? Anonymous__Anonymous 10:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Having been an administrator and participant on other discussion forums in the past, I can say with some authority that claims that a sockpuppet account are actually a relative (brother, wife, cousin) using the primary's computer are almost always false. It's like the standard model or something. (1) Sockpuppets arrive out of nowhere to support the primary's POV. (2) Somebody points out that all input is coming from the same IP address. (3) Primary then claims to have a relative at his/her house who used his computer to chime in on the very same topic that the primary is involved with. I realize my cynicism on this matter conflicts with WP:AGF, but long experience tells me that my cynicism is almost always correct. -- moondigger 13:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above view that it's that uncommon, but I hold an alternative view which leads to the same results... Wikipedia is a big place and it's not unreasonable to ask two people sharing an IP on wikipedia to lead mostly seperate lives. --Gmaxwell 13:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I very much wish to assume good faith, but have also heard the "cousin" story many times before. Even if that is indeed the case, it is reasonable to ask GarrettRock and Polarqueen to stay away from FPC voting. The other accounts should be blocked. What they have been doing is very disruptive to the FPC process. --Aude (talk | contribs) 13:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Polarqueen has vandalised FPC 2x, can someone please block her and her sockpuppets? -Ravedave 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The above users have been confirmed as sockpuppets, and blocked indefinitely. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Closing procedure questions

Yesterday I moved a bunch of the older nominations into the "decision time" section, since they had all been up for more than 7 days (some quite a bit longer). Today there are even more nominations that have aged past 7 days. I would be willing to close them but have some questions.

The "how to close" instructions give the technical information necessary but don't explain how to count votes. I read about concensus and looked at some previously-closed noms in the archives, but it's not clear what the accepted procedure here on wp:fpc entails.

1. Though it's obvious a simple majority is not adequate for promotion, it's not clear what would constitute an acceptable majority when attempting to translate votes into concensus. Is there some basic guideline? Something like +16/-2 would seem to be an obvious 'yes,' where as +10/-5 is not obvious.

2. Sometimes "weak" supports and "weak" opposes are counted as a half vote for or against; sometimes they are counted as full votes. I would tend to count them as half votes, but then I haven't seen "strong" supports or "strong" votes counted as anything other than a single vote. To me it seems logical to count "weak" votes as half-votes for or against, since the voter doesn't have strong enough feelings to fully support or oppose a nomination. But I don't think it makes sense to count "strong" votes any differently than normal "support" or "oppose" votes, as the result would likely be that most people would add "strong" to their votes in an attempt to avoid having others' votes count more than theirs do.

3. I don't know if it's bad form to close a nomination for my own image. (Mine is one of those in the "decision time" group.)

-- moondigger 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no percentage cut off. When I closed nominations awhile back, I never promoted anything under 70%. However, I probably had a higher cut off than most. In close votes, I would start to really take into account the reasoning behind the vote. If someone votes oppose without explaining why, I would give them less weight. I know these aren't clear cut answers, but when trying to come to a consensus, there can be quite a bit of leeway for the closer. As far as closing your own image, I am ok with the nominator closing it if the consensus is clearly one way or the other. If the consensus is a little more contentious, I would suggest just letting someone else close the nomination. I'm not really sure how others feel about this. If you use common sense and can justify your decision, you should be fine. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said PS2 -Ravedave 03:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with that. I would say that maybe we should make a slightly more clear cut guidelins on what constitutes a consensus such as on the Commons. Two thirds, or around 67% majority seems like a good cut off point. --Fir0002 07:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Does this work:

Strong support: 1.5 points
Support: 1 points
Weak support: 0.5 points
Neutral: 0 points
Weak oppose: -1 points
Oppose: -2 points
Strong oppose: -3 points

Add them all up, if the result is >0, and has at least 3 supporters, then promote. Can someone check whether that sounds right? As with any algorithm, discretion should still be applied. Stevage 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good, but I don't like the idea of "strong" votes counting for more than normal votes. Weak votes I can understand, but not "strong". --Fir0002 00:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposed algorithm would work, but in the end it's the same thing as saying a 2/3 majority of support is required -- however it's counted. Also, I agree with Fir0002 that strong votes shouldn't count for any more than 'regular' votes, since doing so would likely result in people always putting "strong" on their votes so as to prevent others' votes from counting more than theirs does. -- moondigger 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Fir & Moondigger, weak votes should be considered having less value, since the voter states so himself, but a strong one would equal an ordinary vote - we don't need three kinds of votes. Also, a 2/3 majority just fits the lower limit criteria for supermajority, however it is counted. I also think that it is important for the closer to take into account the reasons given for the votes when there is a close call, as we've seen with the DNA nom. Really bad images won't pass, in any case, and I don't think we have a problem with too many pictures being promoted, especially since there has been activity in the delisting process. With the higher standards of today, a FP barely passing is still much better than one promoted a year ago. --Janke | Talk 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with all above. Weak votes can be considered to count less, but strong votes shouldn't count more. And reasons should be taken into account, especially for close votes (which doesn't make things any easier). In particular though, reasons for oppose votes need to be taken into account. --jjron 10:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on voting eligibility

I would like to open up discussion on if there should be voting criteria in place, and what requirement there would be. This recent sockpuppetry has been exteremly annoying to me as we should be focused on the pics not trying to track down some bored 13yr old. IF we were to go to a voting requirement, what would you require for sufferage? -Ravedave 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the FPC page closely, except for the recent case (see above) that came to my attention. When you say "recent sockpuppetry", are you referring to anything more than the above case with GarrettRock, Polarqueen, et al? If it's just this case, then maybe we need keep looking into it (checkuser?) and deal accordingly. If the problem goes beyond this case, then I would consider some voting criteria. --Aude (talk | contribs) 04:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following the FPC page either until quite recently, so I don't know how prevalent this kind of behavior is. Seeing as these users know (presumably) that what they are doing isn't legit, some arbitrary rules aren't going to stop them from posting, and would just make more work for the closers. If, however, such rules were to be put in place, I think a 50 or 100 user contribution minimum should keep away all but the most serious sockpuppeteers. --NoahElhardt 05:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it low - 10. I don't see why a 20-edit voter's contributions shouldn't be considered, but their inexperience should probably be taken into account when closing the vote. Stevage 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with you there Stevage, it's relatively easy to clock up 20 edits. I guess also the quality of the edits should be taken into account. --Fir0002 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

20 edits seems alright to me. We have to take into account how likely users are to go through all the trouble of making a sockpuppet account, making 20 edits, and then finally voting, at which point someone will probably notice that this user's edits are a minimum of 20. Of course, since one sockpuppet probably won't be enough to sway the pictures support (or lack of support) the user will have to then repeat the process, at which point it would be pretty obvious to everyone that something strange is going on. --Mad Max 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vote campaigns

With all the controversy concerning Sockpuppets in voting on images, I checked the photographer's contribution of a recent FPC (Diamond Head Crater) edits and found about 20 requests for votes placed on other user pages, see [here]. Is this kind of active campaigning for nominations acceptable on FPCs? Would condoning this behavior lead to other vote skewing in the future? Are we getting to the point where photos are not judged on their relative merits, but on who can put together the best schemes to sway the vote count? SteveHopson 17:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be discouraged, unless the person has some direction connection to the image (created it, edited it or added it). This advertising will end up skewing discussions. Broken Segue 17:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would think that any campaign, even by somebody who created, edited, or added an image should be discouraged. "Drumming up support" for an image seems counter to the nature of the way WP:FPC works, as it encourages (even if unintentionally) people to vote for or against the person campaigning, rather than the image itself. --moondigger 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there that much kudos associated with an FP that it's even worth it? Why bother gaming a system that doesn't pay you anything? *shrug* Stevage 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly my thought as I watched the Sockpuppet Scandal unfold. Why would anyone create so many multiple identities, lie about them, partially confess, and continue to vandalize pages all for the award of a FP? I'd hate to see the scams such people would pull if any monetary payment was attached. SteveHopson 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When closing a FP debate, I would not give the same weight to votes from anons and newbies that raise any suspicions. So, the sockpuppet votes are a wasted effort anyway, and won't be counted. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, hasn't there been some kind of an unwritten rule not to count anon. votes at all? --Janke | Talk 20:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Just use your judgment when tallying FPC votes. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Old nominations (problems determining consensus)

I closed a bunch of nominations today, as the backlog was getting kind of long. It was a good learning experience for me as well.

However, I was forced to bypass four older nominations because I am unable to determine consensus. In each case, the problem is that there is more than one edit and the majority of the votes either don't specify which edit they support/oppose OR most votes were cast prior to the posting of later, seemingly better or more 'correct' edits.

I was going to create a new section to post these in, as a way to draw attention from the original participants that they may have to clarify their votes. However, I'm concerned that I might screw up formatting of the page and cause automated (bot) operations on the page to fail. So for now, I've simply left them in the "decision time" section. The nominations I'm having trouble with are these:

I hope somebody with more Wiki experience can figure out how to resolve them, or how to draw the attention of the voters to clarify their votes.

-- moondigger 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One other problem I forgot to mention. The Cricket Positions image page seems to be broken; it loads, but the image tab at the top is red, indicating the image doesn't actually exist. (???) I can't add the featured picture template, since I can't edit a non-existent page. -- moondigger 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, further clarification. There is only one edit on the DNA nomination page, but recent posts raising objections to the accuracy of the diagram give me pause. Suggestions for how to deal with it would be appreciated. -- moondigger 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about messing up any bots, there arent any, just a user run script. Dunno what to do about the IP vote on wave cut platform. I have added an oppose to the DNA one if that helps. I would close it as not promoted, let them work on it and come back when its fixed up. Since the pic is not accurate it doesn't matter how many votes it has. As far as the other two... I have already screwed up promoting the wrong edit on another FPC :). -Ravedave 05:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the DNA nomination with comments encouraging the original poster to address the issues and re-nominate. The remaining three have been moved to a new section on the WP:FPC page. If I misformatted the section in some way I would appreciate somebody fixing it for me. Thanks -- moondigger 16:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point moondigger re the edit votes. I have noticed this problem with votes too. Personally I think there needs to some consistent way of naming edits, to encourage clear voting. It ends up with too many people voting for unclear edits (e.g., an unnamed edit2 when it's unclear whether they count the original pic as an edit or not, or say Brian's edit, when this might not even be named as such, or Brian's edit 2, when he's made the second and third edits, so do they mean the second edit or his second edit). To start the ball rolling I suggest that all edits following the original be clearly captioned sequentially Edit1, Edit2, etc. The editor should indicate when in the voting sequence the edit was added with either a comment or vote. If the editor doesn't name their edit according to these guidelines someone else should go in and change the caption ASAP. If pre-edit voters don't change their vote then perhaps we just need to go on whether a majority of supports following the edit support the edit or original; if post-edit voters don't specify, then I guess we assume they support the original. It's not perfect, but it's a start. --jjron 11:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with jjron, it would be a very good idea to have the edits named in sequential order. Also something to consider is whether or not to count oppose votes which an edit has specifically addressed and fixed? --Fir0002 00:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is self-evident such opposes should not be counted, providing they only referred to a specific problem, later fixed. --Janke | Talk 06:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, agree. And if all agree about the naming of edits, perhaps someone (an Admin) could add that info to the FP page under 'editing candidates'? --jjron 11:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I've done that. Is the wording OK? I feel it's a little two brief, but then again you don't want to waffle on. --Fir0002 06:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree you don't want to waffle. The wording is OK ATM, see how it goes (I changed 'named' to 'captioned' to try to make that clearer). Perhaps could also have something about the nominator adding a vote or comment clearly indicating when in the voting process the edit was added? Maybe also something in the 'supporting and opposing' instructions about indicating which edit is supported? Notice that Stevage also added an extra bit about describing the modifications. Re the vote counting, that belongs somewhere else anyway (but where?). --jjron 11:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Worth a nom?

It's such a lot of work to nominate :) If anyone finds this worthy, go ahead. Stevage 11:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would definetly support it, my only problem is the white background near the end of the sequence of shots. Froggydarb 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't, because of the constantly changing framing and thus jerky movement - very annoying. This is a great shot for the article, but not as a FP. --Janke | Talk 06:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I would oppose, as per Janke. --jjron 11:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming Featured pictures to Featured media

This is an archived copy of a debate that was held on VP Proposals. See the archive diff. Broken Segue 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose renaming Featured pictures (WP:FP etc.) and related pages to Featured media (WP:FM etc.) and allowing for the nomination of other media types, such as sound files, video files, or maybe even PDF. I've developed a set of expanded criteria, although I didn't change much. Since Wikipedia aims to construct an encyclopedia, I think the first two criteria are the most important for featured content.

A few potential objections to this idea:

Portals, lists, and articles are featured through different processes. Why should different media types be featured through the same process?
Renaming a number of pages and updating a number of others to reflect the change requires a fair amount of work. Is it really worth the trouble?
Change is inherently bad.

In response to the potential objections above, I think renaming is a good idea for the following reasons.

WP:FSC, an experimental initiative intended to feature sound files, died a quick death (not having nominated a single file) because there aren’t very many sound files (see Wikipedia talk:Featured sound candidates#Not yet).While there aren’t enough sounds for a separate WP:FSC, there might be enough for a few featured sounds via an existing process. And changing to WP:FMC would guarantee that a well-established and frequently-visited apparatus is in place once there are enough sound files to warrant featured sounds. If sounds and other media become prevalent enough at a later date, they can be divorced from WP:FM then.
That maps, diagrams, animations, and other images are eligible for featured picture status is a recurrent cause of confusion, has been questioned at least (one, two, three, four) five times, and has established a weak (but existent) bias against non-pictures. I think eliminating the doubt is worth the trouble of renaming.
Whether change is bad or not, the current process of nominating and promoting pictures will remain unchanged and uninterrupted. This is just an expansion -- except for some sound or video nominations, at this point very little actually changes except the name. In my opinion, the "amount of change to benefit" ratio is very good.

And, finally, WP:FM would be flexible and could easily be expanded for any future media types. Thoughts? -- bcasterline • talk 22:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea. If you want featured types of other media, set up a page for it, go out and find/generate some. Renaming the featured pictures is pointless. Raul654 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. But why are multiple processes better than one? -- bcasterline • talk 22:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for pictures and soundfiles are likely to be very different, and so will be the people interested in the process. Kusma (討論) 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the criteria would differ substantially (see what I have here). I agree the people might be different, but they can choose which nominations to discuss based on their interest (as they must at WP:PR, for example). -- bcasterline • talk 22:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, would people disagree with moving WP:PPR to WP:MPR (media peer review)? I think not. People self select so having a review page for all media would be a logical analogue to WP:PR (where people are free to request peer review for lists, even though it isn't WP:LPR). Broken Segue 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think moving all forms of media under one umbrella page would be a reasonable way to expand our featured categories into different formats. At the moment we don't have a high enough volume for a Featured Video, Featured Sound or any other media type (Are there any others?) page, yet we have lots of good sound and video files that deserve recognition. I remember when I bought an old copy of Encarta that they had a tool to browse the media on the CD (which included videos, sound and pictures). Why didn't they separate them out into pictures, videos and movies [this annoyed me at the time, because I was looking for a video]? Because all of that media serves the same purpose in the encyclopedia, to explain things in ways that words can't and to make the articles more interesting and relevant. This system also helps to alleviate the criticism of some users that too many "diagrams" are being promoted (at one point a "featured diagrams" was proposed, which would unnecessarily fragment the process). I also agree that a unified criteria for promotion could be created. For example, all media must be of high physical quality (with the exception of historical works) which everyone would interpret as "devoid of static, artifacts or other physical/technical blemishes and of a high bitrate and resolution". Anyways, even if all of the types are unified on one page, why must the criterion be the same? It's just more convenient to group them together and to put them all under one category. If we had featured sound, video and pictures running at full speed overhead would quite great. we would inevitably have, FPC, FPV and FPS boxes updated daily and demotion procedures for each...it just gets too complicated. Broken Segue 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea to me. Raul, why do you feel so strongly against it? It would save endless debates on whether maps & diagrams should be included (endless because fresh voters at FPC tend to raise the same objections) and give the scope for other media to be featured. Currently, there isn't a way to get sounds featured because the page just wouldn't have enough traffic to establish consensus, and movies are acceptable only when converted to .gif format which makes for a huge non-optional download for someone viewing the article they are in (example: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was promoted after being converted from a movie to a shorter, less informative gif). The criteria would not be very different — the most important remain (1) candidates must be a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia, and (2) they should represent Wikipedia's best content. The procedure does not depend on specialists for each media type: IMO the impact of any media on the general reader is at least as important as the impression it makes on specialists ~ Veledan • Talk 17:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"featured media" is nonsense, because it is not the medium that is featured. "featured files" maybe. Text is also a medium, btw. dab (ᛏ) 17:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested nom

Nominate Image:Russian_soldiers_stand_over_trench_of_dead_Japanese.jpg (I dont know how to nominate) (Added by User:CamperStrike)

I moved this from the front page, no time to nom right now. -Ravedave 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Any chance?

I was just wondering if this photo had any chance of becoming a FP and I didn't want to clog up the FPC page. Hbdragon88 06:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it would make it - too mundane, doesn't have any "wow-factor". Thanks, though, for putting it here, and not on the FPC page. Keep shooting, and when you capture that real WOW stuff, be sure to let us know! --Janke | Talk 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Janke. Nice quality pic, but doubt it's FP standard. PS, you can put pics like this on the Peer Review page, though it tends not to be that busy, but you will usually get some feedback. --jjron 10:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I think I took that picture at around 3:30 PM, so I'll try again on a sunny day at a better time. Hbdragon88 18:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wave Cut Platform

I think Wave Cut Platform is probably a 'not promoted' anyway (see above discussion). I make it something like 14/9, which is only about 60% support. Can someone with more expertise clarify this? (Personally I voted support, so aren't gunning for it not to be promoted). --jjron 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling all sharp people

I mistakenly posted a message related to images on wikipedia which I intended to here over at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Calling_all_sharp_people.. Since people have replied and it's of interest to everyone, I guess I'll leave it there. Please take a look. --Gmaxwell 12:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

delist?

how do you nominate for delisting? i know it has the heading there, but it doesnt say exactly how to do it --Astrokey44 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

FP and Failed FP description boxes on image pages

I propose that the {{FeaturedPicture}} template on the description page of every featured picture be changed to include a link to the nomination discussion, as is the case with featured articles. It is often useful to re-read these discussions when you find a featured picture, and the current way is not easy-to-use.

I further propose that failed featured pictures have a "failed featured picture" template as per failed feature articles to clearly identify those that have failed the FP nom process so they are not re-nominated.

I'm not exactly sure where this belongs so am posting it here and on the main FP talk page. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 00:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A link to the FP discussion would be useful for both featured pictures and pictures that were nominated but not promoted. I don't like the idea that those not promoted have a "failed featured picture" tag, though. An image can fail to gain support for many reasons, some of which can be addressed. Maybe a "discussions about this image" tag could be added to every featured picture candidate, that links to the FPC discussion/subpage for the image. Then all FPCs would have the same "discussion tag," but only those that are promoted would get the FP tag. -- moondigger 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Another half-hearted nom

Just too lazy to nominate properly, sorry. :) Stevage 08:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Partial loading of page

Hi,
I've got a problem to ask advice about. Sometimes, not all the time a page will say it's finished loading but be only paritially loaded, and then when I go to edit a page I accidentally "delete" all the stuff which didn't load. This happened to me yesterday when I was closing some candidates. Has anyone else been affected by it, and does anyone have anything to suggest to fix the problem? Thanks, --Fir0002 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a bug with firefox & the google toolbar. See here, I expereinced the same problem and we finally tracked it down. bugzilla 5643 -Ravedave 00:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this pic worth nominating?

My first attempt at a FP... Bolte Bridge already has other pictures, but in terms of day-time pictures I think this is better than the existing one in that it is centered, but can also be differentiated because it looks back to the city. However, I'm still not sure its quite FP worthy. It doesn't look so good in thumnail view but looks better when the image page is opened. Opinions? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't make it. The highlights on the pillars are somewhat blown out, and the image is a bit blurry at full resolution. (tip: if you want a critical review of your photo, next time try submitting it to the picture peer review, this talk page getting too long and isn't really meant for asking whether or not you should submit a photo to FPC, that's what peer review is for) --Pharaoh Hound 11:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to be honest - it doesn't look great either full sized or as a thumbnail. The image quality is just a bit low and the scene isn't impressive enough. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)