No, nominations do not count as support. However, in this case, it is a zero sum game if we switch the nominator and owner, but the optics are off when the owner's vote is actually counted towards promotion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The support in "Support as nominator" certainly does count for self-noms just as much as for any other nom. The prevalence of self-noms however was one of the reasons why we changed the minimum supports from four to five a couple of years ago. Therefore supporting your own photo as nommed by someone else definitely is allowed; no conflict of interest - it happens regularly. --jjron (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then please amend the details in the project page where it says: "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list.Saffron Blaze (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four or more excluding the nominator, five or more including it. In any case, that says nothing about the photographer, only the nominator; so, while Crisco's vote would not count towards the four mentioned, there's nothing, as written, that says that JJ's should not be. (Of course, it would be unfair if there was- that would mean it was to JJ's advantage to self-nominate, as he would be losing Crisco's vote if he did not). No details need amending. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get it... the "excluding the nom" wording was added to bump the count from 4 to 5. I got that early on, but was just boggled by the wording choice given the nominator is presented as a counted supporter. Internally it may be coherent to the Birds and Bugs OBC but newcomers will wonder why the nominator is displayed as a support vote but the words say the vote is excluded.Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco nominating and me supporting isn't different from me nominating and crisco supporting. I don't think the use of "zero sum game" makes any sense here to be honest. Five including nominator would be a better way to write the project page. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may be a bit of lingering history here. Early on, IIRC (and before even I was involved here) the "Support as nominator" vote never existed. It was simply taken as granted that by nominating you were automatically registering your support, whether a self-nom or not, thus the "xxxx reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s))" wording. I recall once I nominated an image from Picture Peer Review which I was not wholly convinced by, and thus changed the default "Support as nominator" to "Neutral as nominator", and I was met with a bit of criticism for doing so. I seem to remember having discussions in the past about this wording, and it ultimately being left as is; personally I'd say the nominator could be excluded completely: "five or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor", that way it's not taken for granted that the nominator automatically supports (as long as we do take for granted that the nominator is also a reviewer and thus their vote counts). --jjron (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that certainly works. I'd say just change it, but we all know how outraged some people get about making common sense fixes. Perhaps suggest it on the main talk page? J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm outraged! (I hope you didn't mean me) I like "...with five or more reviewers in support and the consensus in its favor", but I think the next sentence needs changed too. How about we remove "including the nominator and/or creator of the image" from "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets."? Mentioning them only adds to the confusion that they might somehow be different than anyone else who comments or votes. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ZSG is exactly what it says. The sum of the utility (which is just an abstraction of value) is zero, i.e for one person to get ahead, others must fall behind. Many multiplayer gambling games make good examples - whatever one player wins others must loose. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
