This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Don't forget about VPC!
VPC always appreciates your comments! Please don't forget us! :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't know whether this is the right place to post this.... Download size options on featured pictures seem to be either small (the size it appears on the page) or whoppingly large (17MB on today's FP). It would be useful if one could choose from a range of download sizes after right-clicking. ciao Rotational (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it would be handy if Wikipedia offered this on the image page, but regarding right-clicking, this is a browser function and Wikipedia could not control the options you get when you right-click. Just being pedantic, but wasn't sure if you were aware of that. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thing is there are no standardly generated sizes, the smaller versions for thumbnails on pages are dynamically generated by the Mediawiki software when the pages are rendered. The only one that is vaguely consistent is the large thumbnail used on image pages. That's not to say that its not possible to have a page with for example 1024, 1600 and 1900 wide versions of the picture of the day for people to easily drag onto their desktop, just that no one has done it. Mfield (Oi!) 07:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You could add [[File:Example.png|2000px]] to a random page, preview and download the resulting picture but that's rather awkward. MER-C 08:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I seem to vaguely remember having commented on this issue before, and how the absurdly massive filesizes favoured by some FP regulars actually make FPs of limited use to general users, which all seems rather nonsensical to me. But then, what do I know? --jjron (talk) 07:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I only vaguely recall this too, but if I remember correctly, it was in relation to a discussion about uploading more compressed/downsampled images, rather than providing resizing facilities, which is a different kettle of fish. Best to upload at highest res but have the option of downloading smaller files, I say. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was being a little sarcastic - I comment about it regularly in a variety of contexts. And I still contend that as long as a resize facility is not available, these huge FPs are essentially unusable to a lot of Wikipedia users, which makes you wonder. And incidentally, perhaps if people didn't upload so big, there'd be less whining about licensing. ;-) --jjron (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I really don't find it very hard to right click on an image, get the thumbnail url, paste it into the address bar then change the size to the one I want. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I do think that the majority of people using Wikipedia (particularly using the media like FPs) are going to have broadband. I know not everybody does, but these days, they're in the minority (in the english speaking world, that is). Sounds like we're all in agreement though - a resize function (just below the image on the image page sounds about right to me) would be useful. Does anyone want to raise it with the powers that be? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
People may or may not have broadband, but even if they do, their computer might not be able to handle such a large file size - my laptop routinely crashes trying to open anything larger than about 8-9mb, so I rarely vote on these, for example. I look forward to replacing my computer sometime soon, of course! I do appreciate if people are providing smaller versions; it is another step to go through for an FP nom, so extra work. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an option in the Preferences under the files tab which allows one to alter the file preview size of the image page. --Muhammad(talk) 07:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
True, but that isn't ideal, as the largest size that you can choose is1280x1024 (or 10000x10000 which defeats the purpose). What people have been arguing is that there needs to be a way of still viewing images in high(ish) res, but with higher compression and slightly lower resolution. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
So since the option to increase the preview size is available, all that is now required is for wiki to add options of say, 2000px width and 3000px width as well. Right? --Muhammad(talk) 11:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, although I think the option should be available on the actual image page itself, rather than having to go to the preferences to set the default size, because many people would want to download the image as a file by right-clicking the link (as you can currently do with the full sized image), rather than display it in their browser. Different images would be best viewed at different sizes, anyway, so I don't think the 'one-size-fits-all' default preview size is really the best answer to the problem. Ideally it would also tell you the file size of the image at each resolution, although that would probably require the images to be downsampled at each res beforehand, which would significantly slow down the servers or drastically increase the storage requirements... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above, I don't think the preferences option is the ideal solution - any idea who 'the powers that be' are that could possibly do something like this? Incidentally, I don't think it's just a matter of people having broadband or not, there's other reasons (such as what Mostlyharmless says) why I don't like these supersized-files that perhaps I should comment on at another time. --jjron (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, coming to this a bit late. Since receiving feedback on very large images I've been providing a smaller 'courtesy copy' to go along with the larger submissions (over 10MB). Is that working for people? DurovaCharge! 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I provided feedback on that somewhere above, but never got a reply. As I said there, they are appreciated, but I generally feel I can't comment in terms of FPC largely as resolution is so reduced (I would trust you on 'quality' itself), and also feel that most users will never see the links provided (I suggested to display the images themselves in the "Other versions" section rather than just using text links). Also suggested upping the compression, moreso than dropping the size so significantly for reasons just stated. --jjron (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain more fully? What I've settled upon doing for these courtesy copies is to downsample the long axis to 1500 pixels (which is more than enough for FP consideration, although not intended for that purpose). We can be confident that in the long run, as technology improves, that larger images will become the standard. So the largest files we have the capacity to provide today will serve the longest term of encyclopedic/FP usefulness. If there's a different standard of courtesy copy you'd prefer, please articulate it. I'd gladly accommodate a reasonable request. DurovaCharge! 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Refer to the bottom of this discussion. I'll elaborate if it's not clear, but perhaps you didn't see those comments. --jjron (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been working on a 70%-75%-ish expectation. I've searched, but nowhere I've looked does it explicitly say what percentage it must be (please do provide me a link if it does exist). Plus this isn't explicitly a numbers game; Alvesgaspar had some very convincing reasons for his oppose and it looks to me like the focus of this image is actually on the foreground (bottom left and center, consequently including the right, center leg) rather than on much of the insect itself. If anyone else also sees a problem with this closing, please feel free to comment. This will be a learning experience for me. :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend you Wadester and I appreciate the work you are doing in closing the nominations. Some time ago, the FPC page did mention the 2/3 requirement. Its been removed now but I am not aware of any changes made to that. Alvesgaspar's reasons were rebutted with some of my own, and I think I addressed all of his concerns. Might be a learning expression for me too ;) --Muhammad(talk) 06:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Going just by the numbers, Wadester made the right call. Candidates with four supports and two valid opposes are generally not promoted. Wronkiew (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Outcome seems to be correct for the time being. It has enough legs maybe for a renom here or at VP once the WB issues are sorted. P.S. VP needs your attention Wadester. MER-C 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious to why steroidogenesis (Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Steroidogenesis) is now found in "nominations older than 7 days", when there are 4 support for the .svg-version (excluding the nominator) and 0 oppose. Do we need something more? Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
These nominations just need to be closed. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Please vote!
The FPC urgents template is getting rather full - it might be a good idea if everyone went through it and helped to clear it out. This has been a pretty slow week for FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
FP is suffering an economic crisis hehe. I'll get to vote... ZooFari 16:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing a group presentation on online media and copyright for a class. I chose the topic of photography and images. I was wondering if FPC regulars wouldn't mind indicating which license they prefer and why. The main three would be GFDL, Creative Commons, and Public domain. Any input would be appreciated. I won't quote you, I just want to hear what some of the arguments for each are from people that use them on a regular basis. Thank you in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the least that I like is the Public domain. It cans sometimes be problematic by the fact that anyone may relicense the image to their preferences. Creative Commons and GFDL are somewhat neutral for me, with CC leaning to my best preferred. GFDL allows images to be sold commercially without the requirement of giving the source (if 100 copies or less). CC is known to have criticism, but it allows Attribution. I usually just use both. I don't have much of a problem with my images being used anywhere, as long as the license stays out of harm in the Wikimedia Foundation. ZooFari 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be a bit easier to review, now: I've managed to shave 18 megabytes off the file, and uploaded a convenience file (Which is probably still of ample size for any review) for those that don't want to wait. =) I don't have an A3 scanner at home, so I did it at the university, and didn't have access to my usual programs, having to use Photoshop instead, which... well, I'm not going to say it's bad, but it's not at all what I'm used to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Older nominations requiring additional input from users
I quote: "These (delist) nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting."
So since when did this section become a dumping ground for nominations that haven't gotten enough 'votes' in the 7+ days they've already had on the page? --jjron (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Aren't these for delisting only? I have been noticing that nominations that have weak consensus are placed here. I thought that "no consensus" equaled to no promotion. ZooFari 01:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not for delisting, and not for weak consensus, it's mainly for when there's edits on an image which is clearly going to be promoted and voters haven't clarified which one they're supporting. It's not meant to be for noms that no one has been interested enough to look at during their seven days to sit indefinitely until they collect enough votes to be promoted. We've always worked on the principle lack of votes = lack of interest = not promoted (and for the record that quite rightly has applied to some of my own images). Wondering when that may have changed? --jjron (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it has changed. As recently as yesterday, one of my nominations suffered the same fate --Muhammad(talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Which then becomes an issue of consistency and fairness. If you look at the current archive there's at least two images (and at least one more to come still on the page) that got promoted only because of the process I described above. Nothing personal against those images, but it creates issues. It's not like they were just dumped in the "Nominations older than 7 days - decision time!" section, they specifically had a request for more votes in the "additional input" section just to get them over the line. Perhaps this has just been an aberration that won't continue given your experience above. There's valid reasons for using this section, but just drumming up more supports isn't one of them. --jjron (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's not fair. The only reason I infer these images are there is because some nominators are desperate to obtain supports. Like Jjron said, there is nothing wrong with the images. It simply means that there has been lack of interest for promotion. If you haven't noticed, more than half the images in that section were placed by their nominators (in one archive itself). ZooFari 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There are only 2 in there at the moment so I don't know what you mean by 'more than half', but I don't think the typical reason for them being there is that the nominator moved it in the hope of getting more supports, anyway... Do you have any diffs to support that claim? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I very much understand your points here. My rationale (though not necessarily defense) is that the term "no consensus", unfortunately, can have a couple meanings. It's like saying, "that doesn't impress me." It could either mean, "I don't care either way," or, "I dislike that." For the example from Muhammad, that was clearly a negative consensus (call it a -1). This, this, and this all have (or had, when moved) no consensus (call it a 0). I'm not looking only for the overtopping support !vote. I'm looking for one more !vote, in either direction, that will make consensus more clear (i.e. -1 or +1, but not 0). As long as I've been here, this section has been used this way, whether it was fair or not (and whether the section was used the way it was intended or not; never actually read the "(delisted)" part). I will not do this in the future if it's that much of a problem. I apologize for any issues that have arisen because of this, but I legitimately thought this was more fair, actually. MER-C, care to comment? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I use the section for the usual fare and for instances where there is a consensus but it isn't accurate (e.g. concerns may be addressed or a failable technical/enc problem). I leave the ones with three support/no oppose floating around a little longer. As for Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mrs. Bedonebyasyoudid, it strictly meets the criteria for promotion but didn't quite make it on scrutiny terms. Given the amount of bad reviews nowadays, you can probably expect that to happen more often (I need a way to prevent such nominations from being closed in the meantime). MER-C 02:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's used for images that have sufficient input and clear support, which a closer doesn't want to promote. And kept open until the closer has an excuse to close without promotion.[1] Images which don't have enough input and the closer doesn't want to promote are closed as non-promotes immediately.[2] Fwiw, I have never placed a nomination into that section. DurovaCharge! 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
"Consensus by MER-C" has been going too far recently imo. However there have also been larger numbers of less rigorous votes of late. Not sure what the solution is. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Nor am I sure what the solution should be. One thing is certain: it is not a legitimate option for closers to demonstrate such widely varying uses of the 'additional input' section that the instances call their own objectivity into serious doubt. Additional input may have its place, if properly used. But if things carry on much longer with this eminent appearance of a mechanism to game the system, I would support an end to the subsection. If this reads as a veiled suggestion to reevaluate recent closures, then remove the veil: I do urge indepent reevaluation and reopening/reclosure as appropriate, in order to preserve the integrity of the FPC process. DurovaCharge! 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
With either of those nominations you did have the option to bitch after closing if you felt it unfair. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough: I will no longer use that section. Though just to be clear, I never made an effort to game the system. I was doing what I thought (maybe naïvely) was more fair, especially when there were not enough !votes. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, most of our volunteers have used it in good faith. It only takes a small percentage of bad outcomes to erode trust. Would welcome clarification if the posited interpretation is mistaken. It really appears too blatant, though, to pass without comment. DurovaCharge! 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion. I'm sure you remember last month's problems, where clear support does not imply picture meets WP:FP?. This would be FPC's main weakness. One example: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keplers supernova.jpg - 4 delist and 8 keep, but the replacement picture is significantly upsampled. Upsampled pictures fail WP:FP? #1, #2 and #8.
The determination for nominations with not enough support goes as follows: Less than three supports gets closed immediately, three gets left around for a bit if there are no scuttling opposes and four - length depends on who the four are. If I am not sure about the outcome of a debate, I do roughly the same thing as Wadester before closing as no consensus.
And finally, an example of what can go wrong if standards are too low: our compatriots over at FL have a rather large problem - more than 250 lists don't meet standards. Many lists can be edited to bring them up to scratch, but pictures generally can't. If we had a similar problem, it would mean 250 delist noms and over 200 delistings in a few months. I think much more long term harm would be done to FP if we let standards slip too far. MER-C 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Our standards are too low is not an appropriate argument in a discussion of consensus closures. Closers are supposed to rise above such considerations. It's not even factual: the quality of our historic nominations has risen enormously in the last year and a half. If you think standards should be higher, propose raising them. FPC criteria aren't written in stone. That's a different discussion though, and until you erect and maintain a clear separation between the two I suggest you consider a break from closing candidacies. DurovaCharge! 13:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with standards is not caused by the criteria being too lenient but the loads of non-rigourous reviewers distorting consensus, turning a failing nomination into a passing one. MER-C 14:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I just closed this with this discussion in mind. It had been waiting for a while. Again, I would have preferred one more vote to sway either way, but I will steer away from that in the future. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I expect a certain percentage of nominations to fail for that type of reason: people criticize photochroms (an artificial color process) for the artificiality of the color, and albumen prints (a primitive process that uses egg whites to bind light sensitive chemicals to paper) for graininess. An increasing number of really important potential restorations I forego altogether, because reviewers who praise the encyclopedic value of a middling-good piece of graphic art about a minor war financing method, entirely miss the revolving gun turret on the first ever Naval warship to carry that major invention. It feels like people who don't understand the history or the media (despite links) are imposing arbitrary criteria, and sometimes the closures feel like they're getting rigged to impose an equally arbitrary notion of quality that's out of touch with reality. It would fortify my morale quite a bit to see anyone here (other than Muhammad who counters a lot of systemic bias already) spend two hours looking for potential historic FPs about any African country other than Egypt. DurovaCharge! 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really start this discussion as an attack on our closers - there were I believe three nominations incorrectly placed in the 'further input' section by a user newly attempting to help out with the arduous closing task (sorry Wadester, but I didn't want this to become common practice, and just wanted the section to be used appropriately).
Unfortunately Durova I find the line of attack that you've branched into here quite upsetting. You have attacked MER-C outright, and have also taken aim at most of our reviewers along the way. You regularly claim how you want people to vote on your nominations, but it seems you only want them to vote if they are going to support, because when they oppose you stomp around saying how ignorant they are or how they are destroying Wikipedia because the only way we will get organisations holding these old works to give us greater access is to promote them all to FP.
If you wonder why there's concern about the quality of reviews in a lot of nominations, with people electing not to oppose, and why closers are feeling that they need to take on more and more 'closer discretion', well, this bullying of opposers by a few regular nominators is a good starting point for you. I have seen this trend increase for quite a while, and feel it has at the very least contributed to the death of a number of our old good reviewers (Janke being just the most overt of them (hi Janke if you happen to still read the page)). For my own part I have taken it upon myself for some time now to try to avoid commenting at all on any of my own nominations, except when answering a direct question or concern from a voter. Perhaps others would like to take on this approach as well? --jjron (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense taken; constructive criticism is a good thing and there's no way of knowing if you're doing something wrong if no one tells you. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It would skip any actions that had already been done by another user. The rest of the steps either require or benefit from a human touch. DustyBot would run this task every 10 minutes, but leave recent closures alone for at least 15 minutes to give other editors a chance to process them manually. Comments? Wronkiew (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I just wonder how your bot will create a name for the image when posting at those various locations. The nomination page won't do it for you and sometimes it's a judgement call depending on what articles an image is in. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear, I hadn't thought of that. I do remember having to edit the image names when I was doing closes. Could we add an optional field to {{FPCresult}} for a promotion title? Or, would that increase the difficulty of manual closes over the current method? Wronkiew (talk) 04:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, some people use the file name as the nomination title so you can't depend on that. What if we add an additional field to the nomination page (Template:FPCnom/init) asking for the caption they want for the image if promoted: ie. manually fill in Daguerrotype of Cornelius Vanderbilt, by Mathew Brady (edited by Mvuijlst) - (example nom). But then you have Wikipedia:Goings-on and Template:Announcements/New featured content where you only need the title. Maybe you can parse it in some way? And you also have to worry about user error; somebody will screw it up eventually. I don't know; if you can make it work, more power to you. If not, nbd. Once you start doing it, it goes pretty quickly. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized that your {{FPCresult}} comment is a good point. If you added variables for title and author, you could get away with what I indicated above. Good thinking. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 05:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Making it easy for anyone to close is a good move imo. A variety of closers counters concerns of bias. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Every 10 minutes seems like overkill. I don't see the need to do this more than once a day, honestly. howcheng {chat} 07:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't do the above with string manipulations in a comprehensible manner - I suggest you start simple and add formatting manually. What happens in the wizard is I put in an unformatted short caption (e.g. "Daguerrotype of Cornelius Vanderbilt"). The wizard spits out the form I paste into the FP galleries. I add the author/edit attribution and the formatting myself. Here is exactly what the wizard does.
Some source code
// UNDERSTANDING THIS CODE: closedNoms is a two dimensional array of the form:// Debate name | Image promoted | Creator (null if not Wikipedian) | Short caption// --------------------------------------------------------------------// Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example | File:718smiley.svg | East718 | Awesome smiley face// // The index i corresponds to rows, j to columns.// textarea is UI related, format is a DateFormat, blurb is an advertising string// String nominator = enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNoms[i][0]);//// This code is licensed under GPL v3.// For each of the promoted pictures...for(inti=0;i<closedNoms.length;i++){// ... notify the creator... (TESTED)Stringnominator=enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNoms[i][0]);textarea.append("Notifying creator/nominator of [["+closedNoms[i][1]+"]]... ");if(closedNoms[i][2]!=null)enWiki.newSection("User talk:"+closedNoms[i][2],"[["+closedNoms[i][0]+"]]","{{subst:uploadedFP|"+closedNoms[i][1]+"}}",false);// ... and the nominator (but only if they weren't the creator)...if(!nominator.equals(closedNoms[i][2]))enWiki.newSection("User talk:"+nominator,"[["+closedNoms[i][0]+"]]","{{subst:promotedFPC|"+closedNoms[i][1]+"}}",false);textarea.append("done.\n");//... tag it as featured... (TESTED)textarea.append("Tagging [["+closedNoms[i][1]+"]] as featured... ");Stringdescription="";try{description=enWiki.getPageText(closedNoms[i][1]);}catch(FileNotFoundExceptionex){// Page doesn't exist. Set description to some dummy string.description="{{FPC}}";}Stringdescription2=description.toUpperCase().toLowerCase();StringtrimmedDebateName=closedNoms[i][0].substring(38);// enough to lop off the prefixif(description2.contains("{{fpc")){// replace {{fpc|...}} with {{FeaturedPicture|...}}inta=description2.indexOf("{{fpc");intb=description2.indexOf("}}",a)+2;enWiki.edit(closedNoms[i][1],description.substring(0,a)+"{{FeaturedPicture|"+trimmedDebateName+"}}\n"+description.substring(b),"Featured"+blurb,false);}elseenWiki.edit(closedNoms[i][1],"{{FeaturedPicture|"+trimmedDebateName+"}}\n"+description,"Featured"+blurb,false);textarea.append("done.\n");}// update [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]] (TESTED)textarea.append("Updating [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]]... ");Stringnfc=enWiki.getPageText("Template:Announcements/New featured content");inta=nfc.indexOf("<!-- Pictures (15, most recent first) -->\n")+42;intb=nfc.indexOf("\n\n",a);String[]list=nfc.substring(a,b).split("\n");StringBuildernewNFC=newStringBuilder(nfc.substring(0,a));for(inti=0;i<15;i++){if(i<closedNoms.length){// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]]newNFC.append("* [[:");newNFC.append(closedNoms[i][1]);newNFC.append("|");newNFC.append(closedNoms[i][3]);newNFC.append("]]");newNFC.append("\n");}// add the rest, barring those on the bottomelse{newNFC.append(list[i-closedNoms.length]);if(i!=14)newNFC.append("\n");}}newNFC.append(nfc.substring(b));enWiki.edit("Template:Announcements/New featured content",newNFC.toString(),"Rotating new FPs"+blurb,false);textarea.append("done.\n");// update [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]] (TESTED)textarea.append("Updating [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]]... ");StringgoingsOn=enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Goings-on");a=goingsOn.indexOf("'''[[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|Pictures]] that gained featured status'''")+75;StringBuildernewGoings=newStringBuilder(goingsOn.substring(0,a));format.applyPattern("MMMM d");// reuse old date formatfor(inti=0;i<closedNoms.length;i++){// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]] (April 1)newGoings.append("* [[:");newGoings.append(closedNoms[i][1]);newGoings.append("|");newGoings.append(closedNoms[i][3]);newGoings.append("]] (");newGoings.append(format.format(newDate()));newGoings.append(")\n");}newGoings.append(goingsOn.substring(a));enWiki.edit("Wikipedia:Goings-on",newGoings.toString(),"+"+closedNoms.length+blurb,false);textarea.append("done.\n");// update [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]] (TESTED)// resolve fpt redirecttextarea.append("Adding pics to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]]... ");Stringfpt=enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs");a=fpt.indexOf("[[")+2;b=fpt.indexOf("]]");StringgalleryName=fpt.substring(a,b);// perform additionfpt=enWiki.getPageText(galleryName);a=fpt.indexOf("<gallery>\n")+10;StringBuilderfptNewText=newStringBuilder(fpt.substring(0,a));for(inti=0;i<closedNoms.length;i++){// list format: File:Example.png|Example imagefptNewText.append(closedNoms[i][1]);fptNewText.append("|");fptNewText.append(closedNoms[i][3]);fptNewText.append("\n");}fptNewText.append(fpt.substring(a));enWiki.edit(galleryName,fptNewText.toString(),"+"+closedNoms.length+blurb,false);
I'd be very careful about letting anybody use the bot because one typo on the image name would cause a lot of breakage. (I've also inadvertently left out the short caption on a number of images and had to go back to fix them. It'd be nice if whoever closes nominations knows how to fix up errors.) MER-C 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I could add a check for typos in the image name, to make sure it points to an existing file. If it fails the check, I can just notify the closer and leave the FP alone. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your comment. Are you saying that the image title is impossible to determine from the nomination page, or that automated editing of the featured content announcement pages is impossible? Wronkiew (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that if you have the user input a short caption (there's no other way to automatically deduce this!) including all the formatting and attribution information, then the resulting manipulations to get it into a WP:GO friendly form are going to be hard and full of bugs. MER-C 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I don't need the formatting or the attribution, just a reasonable title that can go to WP:GO. I wasn't planning on messing with the WP:FP pages. I think that an extra title parameter would be unnecessary in most cases, as the FPC subpages often contain a reasonable title in the section header. This is what DustyBot uses for maintaining the urgents template. Wronkiew (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Then you have the key ingredient in the collapsed box. Now you need to figure out how to populate closedNoms. More importantly, people have to know what the bot can't do. MER-C 12:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
On another, somewhat related note, the section Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! seems redundant per the discussion about closing above. Could DustyBot be charged with moving nominations to that section the moment the nomination has been open for 7 days? If I get here to close and an image has been open for 8 days, it belonged in that section for a day, but there's no point in putting it in that section only to delay closing. What do you think? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I can add that to the task. Wronkiew (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah. There's no hard and fast rule that FPCs MUST ABSOLUTELY be closed after EXACTLY seven days. Let's not encourage this. MER-C 09:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Right I agree, but what about those that are there longer? I only say it because that section now seems to be redundant based on the discussion above where closings are being requested to be a bit more... Draconian? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 11:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we do it like the pain in the ass way of renaming images at commons (admins can just press a button there)? Basically we just need a list of trusted users on a protected page (admins are the only ones that can edit it). The bot just needs to check the last editor of the page against the list and act accordingly. This would make it more accessible for everyone that might close something. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggested addition to closing instructions
Why not add going to Wikimedia Commons and marking the files with the Commons template saying they're an FP on English wikipedia {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} (or adding an enwiki=1 to an existing assessments template) there to the closing procedure? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Because AFAIK a bot has been doing it for a while. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion just above, this discussion from about a month ago, and MER-C’s comments in particular in this discussion I feel he raises valid points about quite a bit of the current reviewing.
While I strongly value MER-C’s work here, I must however agree with Diliff when he says in the earlier discussion from March ”...when you go against the consensus then you are treading on dangerous ground.” Others have expressed similar concerns in others ways, for example Noodle Snacks just above, and in a slightly different tone perhaps, Durova. These are hardly FPC noobs.
If it’s relatively close with arguments either way then it’s fair enough to use ‘closer discretion’, even if simple ‘vote counting’ looks like they’re going against consensus. But when an image clearly has a significant consensus of support, for the closer to simply trump that with the closing decision is a bit presumptuous. There may be reasons that people have overlooked or ignored certain flaws – few images are perfect – but by simply overruling clear majorities the closer is making themself a one man jury based on their own preferences. It undermines the whole process of forming consensus.
Let me reiterate that, probably more so than most others, I value MER-C’s work here in being the main closer for (correct me if I’m wrong) the last two years. What I’m really looking for is a method to help protect him, and any other closers, from flak when he (usually quite rightly) feels an image with what appears consensus support doesn’t really meet the mark. MER-C himself says above "I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion...", so I will float another option.
Perhaps a better approach would be to put images the closer doesn’t feel should be promoted in another section before closing. They could use the existing Older nominations requiring additional input from users or the Suspended nominations sections, but I often find they don’t draw much attention, and I think we’ve established above that they really serve a different purpose.
So maybe we need a new section for these anomalous images that regulars would know then required proper careful reviews; call it Nominations requiring more thorough review or Did anyone actually look at this fullsize? or Closer doesn’t think this bucket of slop should be promoted, or whatever. But regulars would know anything in there was in serious doubt and that new input and close review was required.
I suspect that, like me, most people here value some voter’s input more than others – whether support or oppose – and I’d say most closers would as well. Some time back when I first proposed the VP project I raised the concept of approved reviewers. While I’m not quite heading down that path, what I would suggest is that this hypothetical new section would include a by-line that stated that further input from established reviewers only was requested, just to try to keep down unnecessary background noise from elsewhere.
The closer placing it in that section would say why they thought the image shouldn’t be promoted when they put it in there, so that people would know what they’re working with. Give it say an extra three days, by which time some reputable reviewers would hopefully have added some valid input, then the closer that put it in that section would be the one that HAD to close it (per MER-C’s comments in one of the earlier discussions).
If new opinions supported the closer’s thoughts that it had been poorly reviewed and shouldn’t be promoted then they’d have a good case for not promoting, with more weight being placed on the respected later opinions, even if consensus from the original votes or votes overall clearly supported promotion. But if some reputable voters felt the issues raised weren’t significant or were ameliorated for some reason that perhaps the closer hadn’t recognised, then it would suggest the image should be promoted even against the closer’s feelings.
Please discuss... --jjron (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I agree with you. Rather than the closer making an executive decision based on the image itself, which could be construed as impartiality, I think it would be best to simply raise the issue and prompt all relevant contributors to consider and respond to the issue. Ideally the prompt should limited to the opposers when a 'positive' issue was unaddressed, or limited to the supporters when a 'negative' issue was unaddressed, so as to target only those whose reconsideration was needed. If they could justify their original vote even in light of a new edit or new evidence that there is a problem with the image, then I think we'd need to respect that opinion, even if they were not an established editor. We don't want FPC to become any more elitist than it already seems to some, do we? The key to being a respected voter has always been an understanding of imaging in all its various forms (digital photography vs diagrams vs scans, lossy vs lossless compression, colour balance, JPG vs PNG/TIFF, dynamic range etc etc) and of course the ability to justify your vote based on your understanding of the criteria... The former takes quite a lot of time to absorb which cannot be helped, but the latter has been designed to be fairly easy to interpret for a newbie.
The next question would be of what to do about the votes of those who failed to respond to the prompt. Should their opinion be disregarded as being based on an incomplete understanding? I completely support the closer's obligation to use discretion and evaluate the merits of the arguments, but it is often difficult to guage correctly - particularly when many people are vague with their votes in responding to the criteria.
Anyway, whether it is deferred to it's own section, or just Older nominations requiring additional input from users, I don't really mind. I don't think we should complicate the process more than we need to though. The existing section seems to cover this since in the scenario discussed above, the nomination does indeed need additional input. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately those sections outside the main FPC workflow are a backwater which attract little attention (see e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keplers supernova.jpg). Good idea as I need to flag somehow poorly reviewed nominations, but doesn't quite work. MER-C 13:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not just use some bold text or something and place a comment on the nomination? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing has been rather slow for the last couple days. Is there a holiday I'm not aware of? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a few more !votes on my noms, be it opposes. If the nominations do not get comments, then I don't see the point of spending time creating and nominating images. --Muhammad(talk) 07:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This is the cause of Not promoted: Lack of votes. I don't like it. ZooFari 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not expect it to be left open, with MER-C complaining on his talk page about how difficult sets were, right under my clear link to the nomination, while it gets left open so that it could act as a lightning rod for opposes by people who read MER-C's page.
Just in case you're wondering, in my case the "lightening-rod" was the complaints at Thomas Cranmer, following St. Bartholomew's Day massacre on my own watch-list. Given the way in which several of these images were placed, I would not be suprised if others came by similar routes. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "complaints" at Cranmer - more of a discussion. In any case, it really doesn't look good to take the set, complain about it, then wait until such time as the problem goes away, after I had offered to do anything I could to help MER-C, and when the set came about because I searched out images of saints specifically because I thought our image coverage was poor, and spent about 12 hours or so preparing all the images. It rather feels like I did a lot of work, only to have it be complained that I did some work. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to discourage anyone from adding or improving pictures, but the fact is these were not well-chosen, as has been shown in the event. Most good history editors rightly place a premium on authenticity in images, & at 300+ years after the event these had none of that, nor were they of high artistic quality. Many were on subjects we had much better pics of. There are a lot fewer Victorian images of much older historical subjects on WP than when I started editing, though still too many portraits, & that trend is likely to continue. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that FPC is not suited to dealing with sets > 2 images in all aspects due to their impracticality. If there were eight nominations for eight pictures, then it wouldn't take a block of some hours to review the whole lot to FPC standards (challenging attention spans) and my wizard could chew through them all in one go (as opposed to the wizard doing one and doing the rest manually). You would also receive more detailed feedback => better pictures. Yes, you did a lot of work but you shot yourself in the foot when nominating as a set. MER-C 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you seriously telling me I should spam the page with 8 different nominations? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Not in one go. At 3/week, there should be no problems. MER-C 10:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I had also nominate these on Commons (here). Commons is normally much more against lithographs and other historic media, and conservative when it comes to unusual nominations. It seems at least a little odd that en-wiki found it being a set too much of a difficulty to surmount, but Commons came out so firmly for it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I really, really think we should stop insisting on the use of this template. HEre's the code in full:
'''{{{1}}} {{{2}}}'''
That means it takes whatever's put into it, and bolds it. Who on earth thought this was a good idea? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
This can be important. What is the main source, or where does it come from? Is it implemented in one of the FPC promoted templates? I searched "what links here" but can't seem to find its use. Do you know? ZooFari 02:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
It is very important - it's what I (or someone else) add to a debate to close it. MER-C 03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see how this works. It comes from the template {{FPCresult|Promoted|File:FILENAME.JPG}}. Yeah, this is very important. {{{1}}}} bolds the word "Promoted" and {{{2}}} bolds the file name. I don't know why there is a template for this, as you can just bold them yourself. But of course, it may be easier for those who close them. ZooFari 04:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to add Category:Ended featured picture nominations to it in order to simplify things a bit (in fact I never add the category to closed nominations for this reason), but it's protected. MER-C 12:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have requested it at the template's talk page. ZooFari 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to do something sensible with it, that's fine, but the whole "make sure to copy this exactly" and so on seemed at least a bit prescriptive given the actual result. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The changes have now been done. Nothing changed, just a category added for the closed nomination. ZooFari 22:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
CC-BY-SA migration
Just a quick message to encourage users to vote in the CC-BY-SA migration (you may or may not be aware of what the info bar currently displayed is for) --Fir0002 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Already did, and in favor. :-) though to note, I was able to vote 3 separate times, and was looking for who to tell that to... maybe there's a glitch in the system? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Assuming you used the same account then only the most recent vote is actually counted. We really ought to have an automatic message explaining that. Dragons flight (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I was testing out my new socks. Mighty comfy! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Final of the Commons Picture of the Year competition 2008. Voting is now open
The finalists have been selected! Vote in the 2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition. The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).
What is done with restorations?
Quick question: So many excellent restorations of old photographs and other image media come through here and I wonder where they go after (or where they have the potential to go). Many of them come from the Library of Congress. Would it make sense to offer these restorations back to the LOC so they may offer them alongside the original versions? I would expect few people searching the LOC archives to consider coming here to look for a restored version. I'm just wondering. We must have a few hundred great restorations that somebody at the LOC or other group would appreciate having. Just thinking out loud really... ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If it could be arranged, I'd be happy, and would also donate the unrestored and restored versions of files the LoC lacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have contacted the Library of Congress in the past. Their reference staff has been very helpful about confirming copyright questions and related issues, but unfortunately I haven't gotten far at all with communication beyond that level. Although I've made overtures to their public relations office it hasn't led to anything. Periodically the LoC site puts together special presentations regarding highlights from their collections and I've offered to do courtesy restorations in conjunction with planned special presentations. It's fallen on deaf ears, though. One would think they'd be eager to collaborate with us, since every time an image from LoC reaches the main page a piece of their collection gets about 7 million page views and 20,000 direct clicks to our hosting page where LoC is credited as the source. In all likelihood, our efforts are bringing at least as much attention to LoC as Flickr is, but the meaning of all this hasn't sunk in with the people who work at LoC. Of course, Flickr has paid staff to nurture an existing relationship with LoC; we're a network of volunteers. Even though we represent an educational charity, we don't knock on the door in a suit and tie--and that's probably what they're used to expecting. Any ideas? DurovaCharge! 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
As you know, I do a lot of stuff from my own collection. I'd be willing to donate it to the LoC, if it would help matters, and could try and arrange donations of the physical copies of things I care less about. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming we should use Public Domain for our restorations, as the LoC is composed of free images by the government? ZooFari 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. DurovaCharge! 05:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If Durova will forgive me clarifying: The LoC contains several types of images. In order to make sure that they remain a useful archive into the future, some of them are still in copyright and may not be used as anything but fair use here. Obviously, we're not restoring those. A second class is things that would be in copyright, but were donated to them, and are now available freely or with certain conditions (usually something along the lines of CC-by). The Bain News archive is a major subset of these, Durova has restored some. I believe these are not PD, but only require attribution. Then, of course, are Public domain works, some of which are PD-US only, such as Nazi works, others PD worldwide.
However, then there's another issue: I restore works as well, but I live in Britain, and thus can gain a sweat-of-brow copyright on my restorations if I wanted. So I have the right to insist on, say, CC-by, or Attribution. I generally don't, though I probably should.
As you can see, it's not quite so simple as you've made it out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well there's the by the government part too. When the Library of Congress owns a copy of an image that isn't any guarantee that it purchased the intellectual property rights to it, or that it was produced by the United States government. DurovaCharge! 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate more feedback on this, good or ill. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Image maintenance
This FP which was removed from the articles had me thinking. Would it be possible to have a bot which would regularly check the FPs archive and see that they be used in the articles? --Muhammad(talk) 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That is a good idea. Occasionally I check my FPs and find that they have been removed randomly from articles in which I would maintain that they are still useful. Usually it's been done by a random editor without any justification, often replacing it with one of their inferior images... Removal from articles doesn't always imply it is redundant! Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
/** * extracted from FPMaintenance.java 0.01 05/11/2008 * Copyright (C) 2008 MER-C * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 * of the License, or (at your option) any later version. * * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the * GNU General Public License for more details. * * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License * along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, * Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA. *//** * Checks FP usage in articles. Requires [[User:MER-C/Wiki.java]]. */publicclassFPArticleCheck{publicstaticvoidmain(String[]args)throwsIOException{ArrayList<String>fps=newArrayList<String>(4000);// determine FPT numberStringtext=enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs").substring(47,49);intgallery=Integer.parseInt(text);// fetch the listfor(inti=1;i<=gallery;i++){Stringnumber=i<10?"0"+i:""+i;fps.addAll(Arrays.asList(enWiki.getImagesOnPage("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs "+number)));}for(inti=0;i<fps.size();i++){Stringtemp=fps[i].substring(5);if(enWiki.imageUsage(temp,Wiki.MAIN_NAMESPACE).length==0)// not used in any articlesSystem.out.println("*[[:"+fps[i]+"]]");}System.exit(0);}}
Just under 3%. Not bad. MER-C 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Spose we ought to figure out which should be delisted on enc grounds and which ones were random removals. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This still misses any that have become ineligible because their only place is now in (the) gallery/ies of (an) article(s). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe MER-C could add if appears between gallery tags and nowhere else then show. --Muhammad(talk) 13:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's asking a bit too much. MER-C 14:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
How is the script run though? --Muhammad(talk) 13:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It also seems to highlight the fact that two of my FPs which have been through a delist and replace nomination (to improve an existing FP) haven't been updated on the FPs page. Namely:
When it gets right down to it, a lot of Wikipedians haven't the slightest idea what to do with images and make random(ish) choices when handling them. DurovaCharge! 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I asked Wronkiew to consider using his bot to upkeep a category of "orphan FPs" so we can keep an eye out. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 17:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've watchlisted many (but not all) of the articles for my FPs. It turned out that the FP for Red Jacket had been removed from the article by a very well-meaning and experienced non-media editor who made the alteration with the rationale that she was replacing a derivative lithograph with an image of the original painting, which would have been a fairly good reason to remove a featured picture--if the replacement had been a bit larger than 35K. Similar replacement rationales often occur, or sometimes outright vandalism removes featured pictures. We ought to keep a better eye on the status of FPs. And if a bot is going to monitor this, it could be useful to have it send an alert whenever an FP gets removed from an article: many FPs are encyclopedic in more than one location. That's not to say the FP is always the best image to have, but it'd be useful to keep informed about the changes. DurovaCharge! 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added some info for many of them. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, agreed. And just to seal it, I think I'd support the latter two separately, after giving it a second thought. Still not that enthusiastic about the idea of them being a set though as they're not really directly related. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If noone objects in 3 days, I'll do it. Diliff, please edit your vote to that effect, if you would. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind either. It has to be done sometime. I was waiting to see what the reaction would be. I'll come back and do it tomorrow. P.S. if you disagree with something, my talk page is the first port of call. MER-C 11:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a pain, but it's rather disenheartening when an FPC gets no reaction at all for days and days. I'm quite happy to try and fix any problems, or accept criticism, but the silence is rather awkward to deal with. The Childe Harold's Pilgrimage nom had a similar fate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on: This is ridiculous,. The arrangement is typical of Victorian art, Grant is Victorian, and yet it's being opposed because it uses the Victorian arrangement. How are we supposed to present history honestly when people are saying things like "to the extent that the secondary images are important they should be cropped and individually inserted"? So, we should apply a hacksaw to historical works now? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
They are judging the image on it's encyclopaedic value at Ulysses S. Grant and 12 Pound cannon. I think it'd certainly be a different matter if you were trying to illustrate Victorian Art intended for mass consumption. That said, I occasionally get annoyed greatly when one of my images is cropped stupidly to appease voters. I would crop out Ulysses S. Grant out for his article, and leave the image as is for the cannon article. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with NS. I don't think that it was opposed because of the era it was painted in - just the usefulness and EV. By the way NS, are your last two sentences in reverse order? It makes more sense when they're reversed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The era it was created is contemporaneous to Grant himself. It was created the year he died, just as his memoirs came out of his time in the Civil War. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I give up
I have two completely unreviewed FPCs. One 16th century one that only one person looked at. And the nonsense about Grant. I think I'm going to take a long break from FPC. I'm tired of having to constantly beg if I'm going to get reviews for subjects I consider important. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Might I suggest you continue your restoration work, but only nominate those images that are less obscure. I, and I suspect many other viewers find many of your nominations difficult to review since they aren't familiar with what is being illustrated. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of my restorations cost me quite a bit of money. The recent Childe Harold's Pilgrimage nom which noone reviewed was the result of me sinking £10 into a very early edition of the work, then 4 hours' cleanup, specifically so that we could have a Byron FPC.
Then noone deemed it worth commenting on.
I don't care about the recognition, but FPC is the only route to getting images onto the mainpage, and if people are going to refuse to review things if they take the slightest bit of research, then there's no bloody point in me doing anything, as it'll just languish in obscurity forever. I want these images to be used widely by people they can benefit. Restoration is a huge timesink, and I don't think it's ridiculous to ask that we make it known that these quality images exist, or at least that people spend five minutes saying why they don't like things. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...I just recently came back to FPC, after one of my frequent wikibreak, and i read some of the archived discussions. Your message is part of a broader problem which seems to have plagued FPC for some months. I think FPC is a really tricky project, because being a good reviewer requires quite a bit of knowledge. To review a picture, you obviously have to judge the overall picture (composition, angle, blur, "wow factor"...), but also need to :
Being able to spot technical flaws. I learned a lot (about CA, JPG artefacts, etc...) by reading your reviews and i can spot obvious flaws or understand when someone say there is a flaw, but I'm still unable to find minor flaws by myself whereas you guys seem to jump straight at them.
Being able to assert EV. About your 16th century picture, I'm not from English culture, so I have absolutely no way to understand the significance of Tristam Shandy.
So even though i could put a "Support" vote, it would mean a lot less than someone who is knowledgeable about theses things. I wouldn't want a picture to be promoted on my (or similar) votes alone. And last month, MER-C complained about pictures with technical flaws being promoted without anyone noticing. Therefore, I refrain from voting in this case.
I think we need to promote the project to others wikipedians. We could find people who can assert EV, get more votes, and maybe even some people with technical knowledge.
For example, I made this userbox
some time ago, only one person picked up beside me. I'm not trying to promote my work (don't care at all about it, since I'm a wikisloth), but it would be a small step. Another idea would be to find wikiprojects related to photography and promote FPC there. If you have others ideas to promote FPC to others wikipedians we could start a campaign to find new reviewers. If we stay civil (instead of acting like bored old-timers), many beginners will stay because there are really wonderful pictures which are a joy to watch.Ksempac (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Tristram Shandy is 18th century. The Tiburtine Sibyl is 16th. There's links to the articles, which are reasonably accurate.
Look, I see FPC as a chance to try and expand knowledge through time on the mainpage. If literature, one of my main interests in life, is going to be completely banned from the mainpage because readers won't take five bloody minutes to look at the linked articles, then I don't see any point in participating here. It's just going to be a major source of frustration.
I'm not allowed to canvass, so I cannot contact the literature, or opera, or whatever Wikiprojects and ask them to vote and review. That leaves an onus on the reviewers here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I've pointed out exactly where the material was missing, and you seem to be in the best situation to supply us with that text. People can contribute to more than one aspect of WP. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
That particular one is from the Library of Congress. I'm not an expert on that. There are two other ones being discussed that I know a great deal about, and provided detailed information, plus the Ulysses S. Grant one under discussion as well. Please don't treat this as if I was only complaining about a single one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I am only an occasional participant here at FPC, in the last year or so I have noticed a rapid and large-scale proliferation of older images meticulously restored using digital techniques (some subtle, some less so). The people working hard on these have done a great service in introducing important older images to a wider audience, and if the cleanup is necessary to achieve that wide audience through featured picture status, so be it. But I sometimes wonder if there isn't too much emphasis on a certain, well, polish (one sometimes lacking from the original image). I'd like to call your attention to a slideshow that's currently up at the New York Times website. It shows scanned and inverted images of negatives taken by Robert Capa and others (sadly not in the public domain, so not eligible here). The negatives are shown in full, with perforations, and without any attempt to obscure damage (though they have been physically cleaned, they have not been digitally edited). I think this documentary method — showing the images in the condition in which they have come down to us — has a lot going for it, both educationally and aesthetically. If an image in such a condition were nominated here, would it pass? Should it? I would be interested in your thoughts. Chick Bowen 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
All unrestored versions are uploaded and linked from both the nominations and cross linked between hosting files, with careful notes documenting which changes were made. Physical restoration has long been a controversial undertaking due to the risks of creating additional and irreversible damage to original historic documents and artwork. Digital restoration is nondamaging. DurovaCharge! 02:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't restore images. I think that the appropriateness really depends on the situation. Images which are used to illustrate articles, such as File:1891 Telegraph Lines.jpg in Telegraph, benefit from restoration as the ultimate goal is clear presentation of information, not to display the work. A restoration of the Mono Lisa on the other hand would be misleading and therefore inappropriate. Exceptions may also be made in the case of prints and so on that are derived from an original. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the file history for File:Mona Lisa.jpg is pretty scary (scroll downward toward the bottom of the file hosting page and click in to see the green growing stem that was coming out of her head for several months until I reverted). A lot of people who don't do FPs have been damaging serious artwork. In the same vein, Botticelli's self-portrait and Raphael's Sistine Madonna. Of course discretion and care is important with great artworks by major artists. I've done a few restorations that I don't upload to WMF because it seems inappropriate to present a radical alteration of that material within a wiki setting even if the restoration is performed very carefully at high resolution. But that is a very small portion of the overall material available. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it makes a difference whether the artwork is mass-produced or not. There are hundreds of copies of engravings made, so if we clean up said engraving, we're just trying to turn one sample of the work into the best sample possible. On the other hand, there is a single copy of a painting, so we should be much more careful there, though there are some actions that are always appropriate if done well, such as levels adjustment to make the colours better match the original, and removing things not in the original, such as reflections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoration is a double edged sword while it can achieve great results and yeild unexpected finds aka File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg FP should be able to promote either an historic original or restored image. IMHO FP/WP has been blessed by so many exceptional restorations that its just expected that the historical digital image should be restored for it to be considered. The basic elements of composition, focus, lighting, encyclopeadic value etc are already there thats why these images have been retained by institutions and made avaiable digitally in the first place. These photographs shouldnt be confused with works of art which shouldnt be restored but photographed as a faithful reproduction of the actual painting. Gnangarra 10:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker's point about mass-production is a very good one, and I agree that restoration is very useful with engravings, both for the reason he says and because with an engraving it's fairly easy to tell what is ink and what isn't. I also want to emphasize that for the most part the restorers at FPC have shown admirable restraint. It's photographs I want to raise questions about--a photographic print is somewhere between a unique work of art and a mechanical reproduction. Chick Bowen 15:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
If you'll forgive me, I do very little work with photographs, so shall largely pass on the question. However, I will say is that time was not particularly kind to many forms of early photographs, and at least some restoration may be necessary in some cases to get a useful end product that clearly shows the subject. More modern photographs generally lack these sorts of problems. Over to others. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this over at Commons and it looks like a good idea here too. Established nominators already do this, but it should be done automatically.
Demonstrations:
Original - Some caption
Reason
Some reason
Articles this image appears in
Some articles
Creator
Diliff
Support as nominator --Sockpuppet
Original - Another caption
Reason
Another reason
Articles this image appears in
Another set of articles
Creator
Richard Bartz
Support as nominator --Meta sockpuppet
Original - Some other caption
Reason
Some other reason
Articles this image appears in
Some other articles
Creator
Noodle snacks
Support as nominator --NotARealSockpuppet
Original - A square caption
Reason
A square reason
Articles this image appears in
Squarish articles
Creator
Luc Viatour
Support as nominator --Banhammer time
Code to substitute in Template:FPCnom: [[File:{{{image}}}|thumb|{{#switch:{{{format}}}|pano=center{{!}}100000x200px|portrait=right{{!}}250px|landscape=right{{!}}100000x250px|square=right{{!}}300px|#default=right{{!}}250px}}| '''Original''' - Caption]]
What it does is add a parameter to Template:FPCnom and friends: format={pano, portrait, landscape, square}. If format is not specified, default to the old convention. Would appreciate feedback on image sizes (height=200, height=250, width=250, height=width=300 respectively) and whatever. (I note that in the future we can automatically use Template:Wide image, but let's take little steps first). MER-C 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there has been no response, I have done this. MER-C 02:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just came across this while doing a nom. Whacked in 'landscape' (ala printing naming conventions, that seemed the best option) assuming you had to put in something; it's come out a bit biggish, I assume it's sized it to the height, but is that what you're looking for? --jjron (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me - I'm way overcommitted with things I myself have purchased, and at the same time, have very little motivation to work on FPs at the moment, as I mentioned above.
However, I found this image - which is pretty much a cleanup of the bled-through text away from a fairly easy FP - had been uploaded with a blurry, bad version in 2006 - I can only presume the LoC has improved matters in the interim.
If someone wanted to restore it, go to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c05555 , click on the thumbnail at the top, and download the tiff. It shouldn't be too difficult, though it will be time consuming.
I'd suggest uploading under a more appropriate name. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoration documentation
There's been a disturbing trend lately at FPC with historic nominations. Perhaps because I haven't been as active the last couple of weeks I didn't notice this sooner: documentation on restored material is getting woefully inadequate. Many nominators are failing to state whether a historic image has been restored. Among those who do, hardly anyone other than myself links to the original version from the nomination. Most disturbing of all, we are seeing a few restorations at FPC that are wholly undocumented: no upload of the original version, no notes at all about what edits were performed. There's a team of volunteers right now who are negotiating with museums and libraries and archives to gain access to more media. Each time one of these institutions agrees WMF gains access to thousands of images--often tens and hundreds of thousands. If we fail to take documentation seriously we lose out on these deals; we may have lost out on one museum already. It takes one minute to type out what edits have been made and three minutes to upload an unedited version for reference: that makes the difference between putting forward a responsible presentation versus looking--to be blunt about it--like a bunch of jokers. We're working with encyclopedic history, not just pretty pictures. Let's remember that. DurovaCharge! 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, with a lot of the things I'm working with, three tries over the course of an hour before it successfully uploads is more accurate than "three minutes". This is why I've been tending to just upload a PNG of the original scan if the changes are minor (a lot of the things I've been doing lately I'm scanning and preparing myself), not a JPEG. The JPEGs, being smaller, aren't quite so bad, but uploading is a huge pain at anything more than a couple megs for me, so...
Anyway, this is a bit off-topic, because I am doing it: If I can do it with the horrible problems I'm having, everyone else can as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Delisting nominations
Can we get a bit more feedback on the outstanding delist nominations? In particular,
I've done another of these, though I'm rather pessimistic. Would it be alright to put up a polite notice of these FPCs on the relevant Wikiprojects? Because last time I was told that people weren't rerviewing because they felt they didn't know enough about the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've never liked Wikiproject notifications because they cause bad review problems (which you should remember from March). You've got three in support already, so it shouldn't be necessary. MER-C 09:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough (and this is why I asked first). Just I really like literature, but was recently told that people didn't like to review things they hadn't read... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Heavens preserve us! We can't have contemporary art of someone in his articles! Won't someone save us from this horror?!
And yes, there's seriously people saying that.
Have we just decided to throw out common sense, the historical method (which encourages use of contemporaneous images) and encyclopedic merit and instead judge all artworks by how much they fit into the status quo of a painting, never mind differing aesthetics for different forms of art, contemporaneousness, or anything else? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Literature FPCs
May I again ask that people attempt to consider these: Our coverage of literature is poor, but if I can't even get people to look at them, it's very hard to get motivation to carry on working my way through often difficult restorations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Look, I respect the work you're doing on your restorations but FPs should NOT be your only reason for doing them. Plenty of people will find your images simply through browsing to the article(s) that they are in, and they will be the ones that are most likely to appreciate the images, anyway. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I was thinking much the same thing. Obviously you love this genre, but the passion is not shared by all - isn't sharing the work on WP the primary goal, with the people that browse those pages being the ones that will really appreciate the work? And if you're worried about the time they take, do they all need to be so painstakingly restored to be of value to the articles? I think a lot of people find these images quite hard to evaluate against the criteria, and frankly may not see a lot of 'wow' in them. That anyone that posts an opposing vote finds themselves being effusively rebutted undoubtedly doesn't help out either (I know it's not a Lit FPC, but consider the reactions in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grant from West Point to Appomattox for what I mean) - I commented a little while ago on the damage this type of behaviour is doing to FPC by driving off contributors. And looking through the page atm, you seem to have several noms doing quite well regardless. --jjron (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
FP reviewers like variety. Sometimes that gets frustrating, but it can also become motivation to branch out into new subject matter and media. DurovaCharge! 14:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My point was that I wanted literature to appear on the main page, in all its forms, and that FPs make sure that literature does that. Also that you get more of what gets appreciated. I'll also point out that I spend money on acquiring things for Wikipedia: If certain classes of work never pass, or require humiliating begging, I really don't see why I should continue to spend large amounts of money trying to improve coverage, when they'll only sit on (relatively) obscure pages, and never once get a chance to be seen by the wider Wikipedia audience. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you have noticed, I have never voted on a drawing, historical, or literature image, as I find it difficult to evaluate based on EV over technical quality. However, please continue restoring images whether or not they make it to the main page. It is such an improvement, and I believe there are people who see your valued work. Think about Google Images. Images from commons eventually gets searched by engines, and by far more, spread to websites and on. ZooFari 02:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No one suggests that you stop nominating literature illustrations. I love them! And I do hope we get FPs for all of Shakespeare's plays (wouldn't that be wonderful?) There have been times when I've also gotten very excited about a particular topic or genre and the first nomination meets an enthusiastic reception. But keep submitting similar material and the reviewers get fickle: they either stop reviewing or start opposing. Yet after a photochrom and a militrary map and a colloidon glass portrait and a silent film poster and Islamic calligraphy, Shakespeare feels fresh again. It keeps one's skills sharp to work on a variety of materials. And after all, variety is the spice of life. DurovaCharge! 03:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I would really like to get through some of the things I have: I have so many half-done projects open at the moment... =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
So continue working on them. Add them to articles. But perhaps just spread the nominations more thinly so that, as Durova says, the reviewers don't get fickle and jaded. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, maybe I'll switch to the colour images from the N.C. Wyeth treasure Island: There is half-toning, but I have the first edition, so any other attempt at it would have the same issues. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Important new addition
{{PD-US-1923-abroad}} can now automatically ask for an image to be moved to commons once its copyright does expire. The format is {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=YEAR}} where year must be just the year, e.g. 2012, not January 1, 2012.
There were some technical issues with this and this which have now been fixed. Prompt feedback would be appreciated as they are approaching deadline. --Muhammad(talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
delist and replacement - link original nom
Folks,
If you're going to de-list and replace an image (such as this) please link to the original nom. I can't find the discussion to nom the image that was ultimately removed.
It can be found when looking at the File links on the image page. ZooFari 16:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
And it stays archived, it never gets removed. Perhaps you were looking at the file page at Commons, when it is only visible on the Wikipedia file page. It's there, you just need to look closer. ZooFari 16:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a valid complaint though. Linking to previous noms (including the original) has been part of the delist template and expectations since mid-2008. --jjron (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more reviews: This is one of my favourites, and if I messed something up, I'd like to know what, so I can fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I could understand leaving it open a day or two more, but insta-close against the majority? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
There have been many nominations that were closed as no promotion when it should have been promoted. Don't know, ask MER-C or Wadester16, whoever closed the nom. ZooFari 04:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
If he's going to overrule, it would be nice if he said his intended reasons, and left it open a day or two so that people can deal with them. I talked with him on his talk page, and he just said that he decided it wasn't encyclopedic because it showed their backs - I don't think he even read the quote at the bottom of the image that does a pretty decent job of explaining why that choice was made: It shows a he mysterious, unseen figure who afterwards cannot be found, confronting the main character.
At the very least, it's exceptionally rude not to give an explanation, and the way that FPC is set up, it's very hard to renom works and get them supported. People just complain it's a renom, they saw it before. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It was no different with my nomination 2 months ago. Sure, it had CA that I wasn't aware of, but I would have appreciated a review. I got a little concerned after looking back at the archives. Unfortunately, his issue isn't uncommon and it seems like some are closed based on his opinions, not the tally votes. I thought FP was determined by consensus, but I guess it is up to the closer. ZooFari 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense ZooFari, but MER-C had a really good point there. Either nobody looked at the image full-size or they didn't look closely enough. It's not the CA that was the issue, but the artifacts. The entire thing was riddled with it. Plus it's now a VP. Again, no offense meant, I just wanted to point those issues out. wadester16 | Talk→ 06:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
No offense taken, and I understand his point. It was actually my fault for not looking close enough and modifying it. I was doing some business with it over at Commons and was just too stupid to forget about it here. Yeah, it is now VP and don't mind, but I just used it as an example for unawareness. ZooFari 06:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, I am kinda losing my patience with renom complains. Is there a criteria about renoms that I'm not aware of? ZooFari 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
People have an unfortunate tendency to presume competence, for instance, in the people who voted on the original nom. It's rarely justified, in my more cynical view. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about "Speedy close", but good point. ZooFari 06:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is simple: it is the closer's function to evaluate consensus, not to reshape it. That's the way it is at AfD and every other featured process. Anyone who closes discussions occasionally feels deep in their heart that the consensus is wrong. When personal preference gets in the way of impartial closure, it's time to recuse or step down. The last time this came up I suggested to MER-C that he take a wikibreak from closures; he hasn't. Maybe it's time to elect a featured picture director? DurovaCharge! 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense. But as mentioned before, a review from the closer before closing seems more appropriate than automatically closing by personal opinion. And the only closers I see is MER-C, Wadester16, and in some occasions, Shoemaker's Holiday. ZooFari 06:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually if the closer is that tempted to review, they should just do so and refrain from closing. DurovaCharge! 06:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
He's lecturing me on his talk page about how he's better suited to deciding encylopedic value than voters. He just wrote "If a picture doesn't help someone who is unfamiliar with the subject understand the subject matter, then it shouldn't be featured. This was the case." So this was him overruling consensus because he didn't like the image. However he "helpfully" said he'd change it from "Not promoted" to "No consensus" (in a case where a supermajority voted "Support").
Rob Roy is a novel full of conspiracies and intrigues. But, no, because he knows nothing about the novel and thus can't see how it's applicable, he's overruling. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
For the record, if someone had voted in my place, and I was closing it then I'd probably close it as no consensus as well in this case. There has been talk of 4 to 1 nominations being a bit hard to close before today, so 4:2 is really fairly clear cut imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
[N.B. We edit conflcited, I've slightly changed the message Noodlesnacks responded to] For the record, Noodle, the actual rules, when set out, were said a couple times to be 66% in support, with a bit of wiggle from weak, strong, and so on. If there were technical problems or something, that would be one thing, but MER-C here seems to be making a value judgement, which is highly problematic. Works out to hoim voting, then closing the vote, but without actually stating his vote. And it's not the first time: there was a recent set nom I had where I posted on his talk page, offering to help out if it being a set nom caused any problems, starting off with a header linking to the vote.
He instead complained at length about how awful set noms were, and let it set with well poisoned until enough opposes came in to sink it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Durova, the role of the closer is to register and, if necessary, interpret the concensus, not to supervise it. It would be so much simpler with clear rules! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Although long standing consensus dictates 67% supermajority, it's always done with some discretion. An excellent example is the shot by ZooFari - had a bot closed it we would have had an image with very poor technical quality as an FP. It's pretty simple really. In this case there was no justifications to address concerns of EV. Also "Works out to hoim voting" is not really a bad thing - MER-C is just as entitled to vote as the rest of us --Fir0002 12:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The closer is welcome to nominate for delisting a month later (we've got older FPs that are far worse), but closure itself ought not to be affected. DurovaCharge! 16:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I’m really amazed how this kind of arbitrary decision is accepted. Better say in the guidelines that the closer is the judge (or wise-man) and all reviewers just counselors with non-binding opinions. This example is incredible! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that MER-C is pushing the boundaries of impartiality there, but look, all these problems could be avoided if process dictated that the closer stated their concern about the current supermajority consensus, requested further comments that addressed this concern and waited say 3 days. Ultimately, the closer would still have to make a call on the validity of the further comments, but at least it attempts to avoid dictatorship. ;-) Maybe this, combined with a more strictly adhered to supermajority, would avoid many such controversies over impartiality...? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Closer should not vote and has no veto. My 2 cents. Are we making this into a motion that we can then approve so that the gods of consensusism shall be placated from hence forth? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Another possible alternative is that the closer could vote, but has no veto. That would work better for borderline cases. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Just like at WP:AFD and elsewhere, consensus is not a numbers game and the closer does not have a vote; the closer is there to interpret consensus. Sometimes when closing, it's not so obvious that the nom is so contentious. I typically give a reason as to why I close a nom as unsuccessful, but sometimes not, when I don't feel it's that big a deal. Consensus, by definition, is a judgement call and an unhappy nominator always has the right to leave a message on the closer's talk page regarding their concerns with the closing. I agree, though, that if something like the previously cited nom happens again, it should stay open a few more days (if not just for people to rescind their !votes). wadester16 | Talk→ 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
A nomination is open for 7 days. I am pretty sure a closer can vote before the deadline is met. Why wait until the last minute??? ZooFari 23:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't look closely enough until that 7th day. Plus I don't vote if I close. wadester16 | Talk→ 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Why all these detours around the problem when the main reason for the mess is the absence of the supermajority rule in the guidelines? Was there any concensus supporting its removal? None that I know of. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have the diff handy for that change? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think supermajority, with Weak supports/opposes counting as half, has been stated by MER-C as the method a few times, but it doesn't appear to have ever been explicit, instead going with the weaker "consensus in its favour". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The rule of the 2/1 majority was in force in 2006, when I came here for the first time. I've no idea when it was removed. There are thousand of changes in the FPC page since then! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps MERC would be able to point out where these changes were discussed at the time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I dislikedespise detest the 2/3 supermajority. For one, I don't think it's stringent enough (70%, or even—yes—75% would be better). But mainly it comes down to the case of 4S, 2O, which meets the 2/3 requirement, but definitely doesn't deserve to be an FP. Sometimes the raw numbers need to be given more weight than the percentages. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain why this is "definitely" the case? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Question - What is the precise meaning of "sometimes the raw numbers need to be given more weight than the percentages"? That there are votes (oops, I mean "opinions") to which more weight should be given? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to both posts above, I'll point to this example, where two valid opposes outweighed the four supports (the "definitely" was an expression of my opinion, but only if the Os are valid). While I'm a proponent of (or at least have no problem with) using "Support per nom", 2 valid and legitimate opposes in a 4S-2O case will lead to no promotion. What I mean by sometimes the raw numbers... is that in this case where there are few votes (4S-2O)—and assuming the O's are valid and legitimate—one more vote is a big percentage (i.e. one more oppose and the ratio is 57%/43% or one more support is 71%/29%—much more definite numbers). This is what I mean by saying that the raw numbers require more weight than the percentages. wadester16 | Talk→ 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The truth is that some closers used to operate a numerical system where an oppose was a -2 and a support a +1. A nomination needed a positive score to pass, i.e. a more than 2/3 majority in favor. The example given above fits within that system. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't any reasonable room for doubt that MER-C is shaping outcomes. See his responses to the thread the last time this was discussed. He defended his actions as a pursuit of quality, and that was the point at which I asked him to recuse. Although I don't like the alternative of appointing a director, we could learn from the mistakes of other featured processes and establish the roll for a set term with a recall process in place. DurovaCharge! 17:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
<advocatus diaboli>Maybe all that's required is to have the closures that people don't agree with, overturned and relisted. Anybody can do that, so long as they haven't given their opinion previously. Maybe we should have a new "rule" where you can withdraw a previously given opinion in order to overturn something. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It is worth pointing out to all that 67% and 66% fall on either side of 2/3rds, so each would have a different result in the nomination in question. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Not really; looking at it as closely as a decimal of a percent is not the right move in most cases (strong/weak votes, well thought-out and argued opposes, etc). Besides, the only time this is really relevant is with the dreaded 4S-2O, which = 2/3 (=0.6666666, i.e. the devil's number :-) ). wadester16 | Talk→ 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If it's sitting right on the fence, it's "no consensus", right? I mean, what "no consensus" result could be clearer? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What is so sacred with the number 4? Why not raise the minimum to 5, keeping the 2/3 majority? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
While i agree that MER-C shouldn't take uninvited initiatives, I can't help being grateful that he does, and would support the nomination of an official "Closure Director". As I stated many times, I'm not a photographer, and usually refrain from voting when there are technical issues I don't understand, or when there are too few votes. I can judge EV, i can even spot obvious technical flaws and learned quite a lot about it by reading FPC, but I wouldn't want my vote (or someone else's vote with no more technical background than me) to be the definite factor than lead a nomination to succeed. There are many noms that don't get many votes for a lot of reasons, and there are clearly reviewers with different technical knowledge and/or understanding of what should or shouldn't be FP. At least with MER-C or wadester16 closing all nominations, I know that at least ONE person with knowledge of both photography and previous FP nom has reviewed the picture. So if this need to be made official with one or two nominated directors that close all noms and can refuse some of them (provided they add a good reason for that), so be it. I'm not in favor of a recall process because we can see that already the delist process doesn't work well (not many vote, picture get stuck in limbo for ages, etc...) and the whole thing would slow down FPC even more (first nom -> close + refuse -> someone notice by chance that the nom wasn't approved -> start a recall process...) Ksempac (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised that I'm unable to agree with almost anything you just wrote. First of all, you seem to think that our priority is to get from the camera to FP as quickly as possible. I don't see that being the case at all - many images linger for two years before they get nominated, and very often those are better than the average FP from our "regular" photographers. Also, there are many photographers here far more experienced than MER-C, unless we're going to go with the unwarranted and perhaps not particularly flattering assumption that someone is holding back. I remain absolutely opposed to creating an oligarchy. It's bad enough as it is, we should be trying to fix the situation rather than create a worse precedent. In that respect, I stand entirely behind Durova's assessment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with Ksempac, as this interpretation implicitly accepts the minority of the reviewers' opinions and reserves the final wise decision to someone above them. The fact is most regular reviewers could as well be competent closers and know probably a lot more about photography than the present closers. I see only one good reason for electing one or more directors, which is the implict need of establishing a coherent set of rules to define their duties and powers. However I'm quite pessimistic on this, as many previous discussions failed to produce any useful result. Most probably, this one will die by natural causes in a couple of days, and the specific question raised here (the closure of a nomination) will be left unsolved (I can't even see here any kind of justification from the closer). That means, of course, that most people like to talk but are not really interested in solving the problem. For many times now, I have proposed the clarification of criteria concerning promotions and terms. With nul results. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Many here definitely have more experience and technical know-how of photography than me. The difference is that I choose to spend the time to close. Closing, say, 6 noms can take a sizable chunk of time. I have no opinion really on the idea for a "director", but that person has to be willing to put in the time. I only just recently noticed a couple noms closed by users other than MER-C and myself. That's the first time in almost two months if I remember correctly. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I had the same experience in Commons for more than a couple of months, where the load is much heavier, and I know it takes a lot of work. Are you trying to say that no one wants the job? Well, if that is the case then this place may be slowly passing out and there is no need to worry about it... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I know I've been trying to do as many closures as I possibly can of late. Can't do ones I nominate or vote on, though. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I would be willing to perform closures, but as well as being "unacceptable" because I don't know "enough" about photography (however that may be quanitified!), this whole conversation scares me away. Just to begin with, I refuse to throw myself into a pit of drama that exists simply because no one is willing to make the supermajority explicit. Alvesgaspar is absolutely right—this whole issue is in danger of dying a natural death as people lose interest, and nothing will be changed, until a furore the next time an out of process closure occurs, like this one or this one. I don't care what the supermajority is, there just has to be one. Without it, almost every closure is asking for trouble. Secondly, setting up a "closer" as some sort of god or director is a sure way of pushing away those who could be helpful. Frankly, those who know a lot about photography or restorations and therefore are considered by some to be suitable to "judge consensus" are busy actually contributing their featured pictures and restorations—not performing administrative closures. If it's so important to the contributors here that we don't promote pictures with jpeg artefacts, then they should be taking their role as a !voter more seriously and doing something about it, not thinking that the closer should spot it and put it all right for them. If it isn't spotted and the image is promoted, it can be nominated for delisting. This is in danger of being another WP:TLDR when it was only supposed to be a couple of sentences, but suffice to say that there will be a dearth of closers and further liberties taken until we can define a set of rules, and clear limits, and ask for the willing (not just the super-knowledgeable) to help out. I propose setting up a subpage for this specific purpose with a few possible ideas and ask for input on their adoption. Maedin\talk 09:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I strongly agree, and have overruled MER-C, relisting those two. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
People are getting very confused about what is consensus. It's not about counting numbers - that's a democracy. A simple rule of 66% in favour would never work. It's all about evaluating the discussion to see what the consensus is. That means taking into account the merits of each !vote. So if someone opposes a Diliff pano because it's too small, that !vote gets disregarded. It is vital to have someone relatively experienced to be closing the nominations. Counting votes is simply not good enough. --Fir0002 10:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This is is all very true, but what would you suggest the closer did if a nomination had 10 supports and no opposes. Everyone involved had valid reasons for supporting (so nobody could disregard them as invalid reasons) but failed to address a fundamental issue with the image (say jpeg artifacts). Should the closer disregard consensus (because it is consensus, even if misguided), or should the closer take the nomination into their own hands and close it due to the artifacts? That's the fundamental issue here, as far as I can see. The debate over consensus vs strict supermajority is only a side-issue IMO. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)
I'd certainly hope it's the side issue, but skim reading left me with the impression that we were on the brink of dumbing down the system to bot level. It's obviously a subjective thing which has to be decided on a case by case basis but in the circumstances you describe I'd tend to say the closer does have the right to go against consensus. A good example would be the Wikipe-tan delists where we got a boatload of meatpuppets from Project:Anime who were ignoring significant aliasing in the image. I suppose what might be a better way to approach it is if the closer brought the issue up - i.e said "has anyone looked at this at full res and seen the enormous jpegs artefacts?" --Fir0002 14:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
@ Fir: this isn't a dictatorship or a monarchy either. Evaluating the discussion [...] means taking into account the merits of each vote. Well, this is supervising the result of the concensus, which is absolutely unacceptable. As it is considering first and second class contributions and opinions, depending on its authorship. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Um no it's not unacceptable - it is in fact completely necessary and valid in determining consensus. It would only create a "second class contributor" situation where the contributor consistently failed to apply the settled criteria of WIAFP? In those circumstances it's essential to have a safety net to weed out those !votes. In order to maintain a certain standard (and hence maintain a certain degree of consistency and fairness) every vote must be based on solid grounds - ie it must take into account WIAFP and the standards established by our current collection of FPs --Fir0002 14:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In particular, the Nantes Cathedral discussion - which I have reopened and relisted - was failed due to perspective distortion 24 hour after the problem was first mentioned. Perspective distortion - particularly as minor as it is in that shot - is by far the easiest of all problems to fix in an FPC, and had it been left open, I'm sure that we'd have a fixed version by now. Another - also relisted - was failed because of artefacting, which most of the support votes discussed and said wasn't major enough to fail it, and which could probably have been fixed with a little selective blur. WP:Featured picture candidates/Rob Roy was failed because MER-C felt that if you didn't see the faces of one of the fictional characters - when the scene illustrated was one where the character was told not to turn around and look, and so didn't see the person's face - then it wasn't encyclopedic. If someone wants to reopen and relist that one, I'd appreciate that as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just relisted those two also. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Weel, and now we just have to wait and see how this plays out, I suppose. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I doubt either will pass, but I guess this is just to make a point, no? wadester16 | Talk→ 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It's what should have been done the first time. If they fail because of votes, so be it. I think the Nantes Cathedral has a decent chance of passing in an edit, if nothing else. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some more discussion here: If, in the end, we decide it's not good enough, that's fine, but it's be nice if we could discuss it enough that we can at least work out some general principles for future noms, such as my edition of the N.C. WyethTreasure Island. And, you know, come to decision on the Guy Mannering image itself as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, should I venture the Guy Mannering illustration's twin, Waverley? (I only have Guy Mannering and Waverley in the edition with the half-toned colour frontplates, though). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. I just discovered that there seems to be a bit of a muddle created by a move bot some time ago, relating to FPC standardization. This lovely picture is not of Frederic Chopin, and there seem to have been various odd redirects created at the same time (apparently the page was moved several times in a row?). I suspect there may be more of these; the place to look is here. Would someone mind pawing through and looking for obvious problems? Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I recently had to fix one where three were nominated as a set, and it was moved to the name of the single one that was (somewhat arbitrarily) passed. Very misleading! As I recall, thi s was an arbitrary standardisation effort related to a template on Commons where the user had simply not bothered to code around arbitrary naming schemes of candidates, instead wanting everything to follow Commons' scheme. Then Image: became File:, and you can't do cross-namespace #ifexist functions. Heh. That was not the sanest of ideas. Why they didn't just do what we do now: Use a bot to copy over the information in the {{FP}} or {{FeaturedPicture}} template, I dunno. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think my proposal for how to handle the problems caused by Wikipedia's thumbnailer probably deserves at least a little review: Noone has commented since I made the proposal. As can be seen, the throwaway image gives much more accurate thumbnailing, but at the cost of having to use imagemap to link to the correct one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Dickens
I propose to do a few Featured picture sets of illustrations to Dickens. Please discuss how you want to run it now, because if this gets caught up in drama over how the original illustrations aren't encyclopedic, or that it's a featured set, and so should fail on principle, or any of the other annoyances here, I swear... Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Pop through 2 or so per week with some other stuff and you will maximise the chance of success. MER-C 05:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've restored the 2/3 majority guideline that was removed in 2007. However, we still need to decide where to go from here, especially as doubts have been raised over the 2/3 supermajority, if we even have one at all. There are also, as we know, other problems with FPC participation and closures, so I'd like to invite everyone to help at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process. I've made a start and hope to receive some input on the format, and please comment if you don't think it will be suitable for the purpose. If we're in favour of a change, perhaps we can start hashing out there some ideas on what should come and what should go: whether that be guidelines, bots, supermajorities, puppies, or people. Whatever happens, remember the golden rules, or we will achieve nothing: be civil, this is not a blame game, and nothing is black and white. Thank you! Maedin\talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if we can believe the stats this provides, traffic hasn't dropped at all. What has dropped is the number of people voting, and the number of good votes. And I can provide a few reasons why, but I'm sure most of the people endlessly complaining up above won't want to hear them. Not sure what the Commons FPC stuff has got to do with this, but as suggested that has many problems. --jjron (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/c) I want to hear them: here, and at the review page. This has got to be open and frank (even if some don't like it) and we have to all be willing to be flexible, accept change if it's needed, and work to get there. To Jjron and Noodle snacks, feel free to reword or remove the part about Commons. It was meant to provide a comparison—it has its problems, but at least the closures are clear and there is little argument. Noodle snacks' example of a failed nom, btw, is not a comment on Commons FPC process, but on the way downsampling is (perhaps erroneously) viewed . . . the same opposes could well be brought up here. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish, :-) Also, I take the point about traffic . . . it should be re-worded to participation. Maedin\talk 09:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess the voting issues aren't really relevant to this closing discussion. Will probably dump a new section on this page about it, but expect it won't have much effect as despite the evidence most will deny them as issues. FWIW I am quite certain the closing issues being discussed are almost entirely irrelevant to why we've seen such a decline in voters. --jjron (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you think it might be, Jjron? I'm genuinely curious, I like exploring and understanding causative relationships. Maedin\talk 18:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll put something up for discussion in the next few days. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The decline is not only in voters but also in nominations. If Durova, Noodle Snacks and Muhammad stopped their nominations now the place would almost die. What I think, from my own experience, is that FPC is not friendly. I'm around for almost three years and had more than 30 pictures promoted, still never felt entirely at home. Why is that? I once used the metaphor of a gentleman's club to caricature this forum (it wasn't appreciated, of course) and still think it applies. The fact that a significant number of regulars, which include the most experienced and influent contributors, share the same language and culture (and country, by the way) is a possible reason for all the others to feel somehow foreign. An important reason is because it's hard to use a foreign language for expressing precise arguments. Another is that we are usually not able to fully understand all subtleties of other's arguments. Notice that I'm not blaming anyone, only the situation. One possible way out of this impasse is to make the guidelines clear and the procedures transparent. That is my motivation in the present initiative. (didn't say even a third of what I intended to say, but it is really hard for me to say all this in English) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the volume and variety of nominations has slowed a little, but I think it's as much because we've come close to exhausting all the images currently in use in articles and so only new images have the EV and technical qualities necessary for FP. I have thought about this in the past and wondered when it might begin to impact the FPC page. Given that there is still a backlog of images for the POTD (and I believe at one stage a year or two ago, we were faced with the possibility of recycling old images in order to keep POTD going - something that I don't feel is the end of the world, as it would have been at least 4-5 years since they were last used!), it seems that we've been able to maintain at least 1 successful nomination per day on average. Still, welcoming more photographers to Wikipedia would help us with our goal, but that's another significant issue unrelated to this one. I definitely agree that it could be hard for many non-English speakers, but I don't think you, or anyone else, should be or are treated as 'second class citizens' of FPC as a result of this. I also don't find it to be any hindrance to the discussion - your English is very good and aside from very occasional minor grammatical flaws and inconsistencies, I wouldn't even notice that English was not your first language. Certainly that isn't the case for all contributors, but I just wanted to make that clear. If there is a Gentleman's Club, I still maintain that it is not on the basis of common language/culture/nationality, but mainly just the fact that perhaps some of us are a little stuck in our ways because it's tended to work okay for FPC in the past. I'd like to think that I don't subscribe to that, but I accept that it may influence opinion among some regulars and that they may be unreceptive to change. I also agree that there is some elitism and lack of friendliness here, and that is a shame, but it is sometimes difficult to separate blunt but fair critiques of images from rudeness. The former is sometimes necessary, but the latter we can do without. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 21:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that I've never found Alves English any impediment, didn't really realise you weren't a native speaker, or a least had it as a natural second language. Having said which, I guess it's inevitable that en:Wiki will be biased to English speakers, which is not a comment on the desirability or not of this, just a statement of fact. In the same way I wouldn't expect to be able to go to Italian Wikipedia (a language of which I have a weak knowledge) and feel I could participate properly in this type of forum. Getting back to nominations, I don't think the volume has declined, but variety, yes. I think we've got something like a 6-9 month backlog atm of promoted images before they will be POTD, when as you say there was a concern of recycling FPs a couple of year's ago, and in the early days recycling was a regular occurrence. I will comment on a number of factors impacting FPC shortly as I suggested above, but in what I have considered so far I haven't addressed concerns with attracting new nominators. That is a valid issue we have discussed before, and I'm not sure anyone has come up with a feasible solution (e.g., lowered standards) that could help counter the elitism. For example I would say that photos not taken with a DSLR are almost impossible to get promoted these days, and I'm not sure that's the best thing. As an added elitism we're almost at the point where a 'standard' photo will struggle to get promoted - it has to be a stitched image, focus stack, etc. For my part, attracting new participants is one of the main reasons that I continue to support the PPR page, and have had some limited success with helping to encourage some new people onto FPC. I will discuss some other aspects of the elitism and 'friendliness' though in my later post, but as Diliff says honest opinions don't always correlate well with being friendly. --jjron (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
When I say that FPC is not friendly I'm not referring to the bluntness of the evaluations (which I use too) or to the height of the present bar. On the contrary, on the deBivort survey that was proposed at the end of last year, I expressed the opinion that the process was too liberal, meaning that a significant number of promoted images do not deserve the FP status. Also, I always had the opinion that all images should be evaluated in close connection with the articles they are supposedly illustrating and not only as decorative elements. The lack of friendliness of FPC is mainly related with something that Diliff said above about some of us being a little stuck in our ways because it's tended to work okay for FPC in the past. Most conflicts I had here were related with the lack of transparency of the process and the refusal of many regulars to admit the fact and recognize that something was wrong. Very often, I was answered that there was no cabal going on, as a way to depreciate my concerns. In a (very effective) way, that worked as a refusal to accept the cooperation of outsiders and thus keep the status quo. I think it is not elegant to say "I told you!" but this time I can’t help. Anyway that belongs to the past and I believe we are now on the right track. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Invalid strikethroughs
While listing a new nomination it came as a very unpleasant surprise to see several listings renewed with invalid strikethroughs performed. There are several ways to address biased closures, but one way not to remedy the situation is to strikethrough other people's reviews without their permission or notification, as was done in several instances. This creates a false and misleading impression of massive withdrawal of support. And by doing so, invalidates the renomination. Please revert all unauthorized strikethroughs and take down those relistings immediately. DurovaCharge! 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This was done, not during the relisting, but by Wadester. I have no idea why he did that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is fixed now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. :) DurovaCharge! 23:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this was vandalism, I don't intend to take my relistings down, unless you have other objections. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, that seems to come off a little rude, but I literally just woke up after a nap because of the flu, and can't seem to get it fixed quite right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
While the nominations may have closed improperly, I cannot speak to that as I am not really an FPC regular. However, for cases like these in the future where the nomination is restarted, I encourage the process coordinators (if they exist) to use {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} to close the previous discussion and then notify the !voters, no matter how many of them there are. Does that sound reasonable? NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, the responsibility of notifying previous voters is on the users that relisted the noms. Alvesgaspar and Shoemaker's Holiday, you really should do that. wadester16 | Talk→ 15:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree about {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}. This has to be addressed though; my striking was not arbitrary. Striking may have "tainted" the nom, but so does leaving it looking like those votes are still valid during the renom. I would say both situations are equally bad. But again, I did this thinking it was a good idea, but accept that consensus doesn't currently agree. In fact, I think it would be a better idea to start a completely new nom for each image and just include the link to the previous nom; granted this can't be done now, but we should have it on the books for next time. All-in-all, I think this was done a bit hastily, and most likely should have been discussed before they were relisted, so we could have ironed out these issues first. I'm not crying foul on anybody (it was all done in good faith), but in hindsight, this wasn't dealt with in the best manner, IMHO. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This is not a renom, this is a reopening of invalidly closed noms. Screw FPC, I'm out of here. Leave me a PM if this process ever pulls its head out of its damn ass. Nominators should be able to have some idea what's going to happen to their images based on their votes, we shouldn't be constantly faced with "Surprise! I've decided to screw you over! I have no need to give any reason!" Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't disagree with the last part of your comment, but you're making these into 14-day noms. How is that fair? wadester16 | Talk→ 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
How is it fair that they were closed improperly in the first place? Your attitude comes off a little hard-line, Wadester, considering that this is only an attempt to put right a perceived foul, not make the images run a gauntlet all over again. In any case, if they truly should be not promoted, then that will become clear, no matter how long they are open for, so . . . I suppose I don't see what the problem is? What's a 14-day nom; plenty of the candidates here hang around for 14 days+ in order to gain further input, with nary a strikethrough in sight. Maedin\talk 06:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Please don't take my comments as criticism, Wadester. It looks a little hard-line to me, but so do a lot of others and it isn't necessarily a negative . . . maybe just not the best approach in the current "climate", :-) Maedin\talk 09:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Since this discussion, no nom that I'm aware of has gone over 8 days; I've done my best to make sure of that. I honestly can't remember a nom that was legitimately open for 14+ days (granted I've only been active here since Aug 2008). I think I would have said something if it were the case. But even if they hypothetically existed, a strikethru wouldn't be necessary because the votes would have been valid for the one (uninterrupted) run at FPC. The goal here is to be fair to the image and nominator. It wasn't fair for them to be closed, but it's not fair to host them with previous votes valid. The only way to be fair is to offer a clean, new, 7-day nom, not a continuation of a nom that was closed and counting the original votes. Yes, it seems none will pass, but what if they did? This is a bad precedent to be setting. If I end up closing any of these noms, I will not count the original votes. And not to be a true PITA, but it seems MER-C was correct in his assessments of these noms. Complaints of tainting are seen in this thread, but the real "taint" is MER-C's closing rationales, which have led to many new "Oppose per MER-C" comments coming up; these noms were destined to fail because of the closing rationale that stirred this discussion. So as much as ppl seem to hate what happened, there seems to be an implicit agreement with what happened. Catch 22? wadester16 | Talk→ 15:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Being fair to Wadester here, it appears that the relistings including the strikethroughs were done in good faith. Machiavelli isn't lurking behind the curtain; it's more like a good intention that misfired. Still, I don't give two hoots whether a closer is 'correct' or not: closers who can't resist the temptation to override consensus ought not to be closing. This used to be the least drama-laden featured process; that's getting poisoned over a handful of nominations that could be resolved legitimately:
The would-be closer could recuse and post a review instead.
The closer could promote per consensus, then nominate for delisting a month later with the critical rationale.
Either of those solutions would be fine. Otherwise we may need to set up an FPC director. DurovaCharge! 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I wasn't saying that because he was right, it was the right thing to do; I was just pointing that out. This drama is completely unnecessary. I believe most ppl involved in this discussion should step back and see what's fair, which is to relist these noms as new noms. Something bad happened to the nominators; that is understood. But you can't go back in time, and to be fair to all, relisting anew is the right thing to do. This still comes down to bad closings, not my strikes; that was an incidental GF move that didn't work out the way I expected. Again, I apologize for that and accept that consensus isn't my way. But again, the old votes can't count. See this as an example: when I renom'ed, I told everyone that had previously voted, just like the renom-ers here should have done here. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
As almost anyone who's been involved with this process should be well aware, even the mention that a nom has run through the process once before - however flawed the reasoning of the votes - is seen as reason to oppose, no review needed. The more that people edit-war over whether to throw out the votes something got, the worse the nom is tainted. Much more of this, and the only fair thing will be to immediately promote, then allow people to put it up for delisting, because you've just buggered over any chances of fairness by treating trying to right a wrong as suspicious behaviour. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually that does seem like the best solution. DurovaCharge! 15:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I'm doing it for all images but the one I nominated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I strongly disagree with Wadster's last action. As I said before, putting those four nomination back to the forum was a mild and civilized way of dealing with four gross closing mistakes. Those pictures should have been promoted at their proper time and that is precisely what I claim now. If someone does not agree with the promotions please nominate them for delisting. Fair is fair and we will not have FPC running again in peace while the old autocratic methods are still being forced upon the system -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Promotion and nomination for delisting is the right solution, agreeing with Alvesgaspar. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe this issue should have been brought up at the time of the infraction, not weeks later. Then maybe the votes could count; now they cannot. Every nominator has the right to contest a closure. You just have to have the cajones to say something and not give up immediately (which is the case for everyone involved in this discussion). wadester16 | Talk→ 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, you have now screwed the pooch. There is no chance of any of these nom having any sort of a fair run anymore. And yet you seem to think that it is Alvesgaspar's responsibility to deal with this. I find your behaviour both unethical and appalling. You have been on Featured pictures long enough to know that some things will kill nominations. You have actively set out to exceed yourself in making all of them apply to a polite relisting to determine consensus.
I am now going to go lie down, and see if the severe flu and projectile vomiting stop. Maybe they will by tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If anybody screwed the pooch, it was MER-C when closing. Like I said before, it was his closings that are now referenced in the opposes. I think you're in this too deep and taking it too personally. I would also appreciate an assumption of good faith. I explained my actions. Striking votes may not have been the best idea, but I didn't do it for any other reason than to be fair. But NuclearWarfare cleverly mentioned the use of {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}}, which is a good idea. While most didn't agree with my striking, nobody had qualms with archiving, so that's what I did. I have no vested interest in these noms; you do. I worry that you are taking this too personally. Maybe you need to recuse yourself. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I am on my way out the door for a weekend vacation and won't be back until Sunday. I wish you all luck in figuring this situation out, but please look at this in a big picture way, not in a "I feel violated" way. Be fair, considering everyone's rights here at FPC and setting future precedents. I believe these should have gone through another—completely new—nom, but things have now been done so that can't be. This is a precedent that others in the future may reference to make a case, wether positive or negative. FPC has now changed forever. wadester16 | Talk→ 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else find it ironic that after all the edit warring over the noms being relisted because it'd make them run 14 days, Guy Mannering has been up, with 4 supports, no opposes for 10 days? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I'm doing
The following images are considered provisionally promoted, barring the outcome of a delist nomination. Should the delist not have a consensus against them (no consensus = they stay promoted) after 7 days, they are promoted. However, I have not gone through the promotion procedure beyond closing the original nom.
Here are the delists in question, once they close, if any do not have a consensus to delist, the image must be promoted.
I believe Durova should have done this. She seems to be the most fair-minded in this discussion right now. I think you're too intimately involved with the situation for this to have been a good move. But, I guess what is done is done. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
What you did just then is highly inappropriate Shoemaker and you should know better. It's so inappropriate that I've half a mind to revert but I'll just let delist run its course... --Fir0002 10:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't added it to the lists yet, but the nominations clearly should have been closed as promote. After Wadester screwed the pooch so badly on the relistings, edit warring so badly that it would impossible that the relisting could run fairly, this was the only viable option. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The sensible option was to leave them closed as they were closed. If you thought they were good enough you could have renominated them pointing out why (you thought) the original closing was mistaken and why they should be promoted. --jjron (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Got it. injustices should always be left uncorrected. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd suggest that more energy on voting would actually resolve most potential closing issues. Seen barely any votes on anything I've nominated recently. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see below to understand why this is a real pain in the ass, and how SH did things incorrectly. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Settling FPC for good, or atleast let it run well for a few months
So how are we going to get FPC out of the ditch? It has been pretty chaotic around here (not to mention that my Lomatium image has gone bizarre and don't know what to do). So far, we implied the 2/3 rule, and hopefully the closers will follow this. Anything else? ZooFari 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the whole thing is being discussed here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Lomatium complain
Umm, my Lomatium image has been assessed by DustyBot at commons for its FP status. I don't want my image to be biased around Wiki, so I'd like the closing as soon as possible. ZooFari 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Done Closed early at request of photographer. I'd like to point out that when Shoemaker's Holiday "promoted" this image (among others), he did not complete the promotion process: this image, nor the others currently up for delisting, were added to WP:FP. He also did not add the {{FeaturedPicture}} tag to the image. Additionally, he did not demote the image from WP:VP status, as should have been done upon earning FP status. This meant that I had to go back and make sure that these steps weren't completed so the counter at WP:FP is correct, and so no old images linger there. If he feels so strongly about this situation, he should have been complete; do it or don't do it, but don't do it half-assed. ZooFari, I'm sorry that you had to go through this; I've removed the commons Assessment template, and brought the image page back to normal. Of course, you still retain VP status, but the delist nom is now filed away, hopefully to be soon forgotten. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, had you not ruined the noms, I wouldn't have damn well had to do it as a delist. And, furthermore, may I point out that, if you were so damn concerned about images running 14 days as to editwar and destroy nominations, then why is the Guy Mannering nom in its 11th day? I didn't promote them fully because, had I done so, it'd have caused more controversy than simply provisionally promoting, without adding them everywhere. Given your edit warring because leaving them open for foourteen days was such a disaster that you felt justified to edit war until the noms had no chance of a fair treatment, and given that at the same time, your reasons for edit warring are completely at odds with your behaviour in the Guy Mannering nom (evidently, having noms run two weeks is only fine when you're the one responsible), I think you should just shut up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's see: you used the term "edit war" a whole 4 times in one post, even though there was never any edit warring. Maybe you should check up on that definition (namely the "users repeatedly revert each other" part—please show me where that happened). I didn't ruin the noms; the noms were ruined at the time of closing, since they all didn't deserve promotion anyway. You seriously need to understand that. And as I've said, I've lost the interest in closing your noms and will most likely not do so in the future, which is why Guy Manning is now sitting lonely at the bottom of FPC. I'm not paid to do this job and have every right to selectively choose which noms I care to close; yours will no longer be on my list. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
C'mon guys, cool it. Take a deep breath. SpencerT♦Nominate! 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually quite cool in my responses; my main goal here is to clear up the misunderstanding that there seems to be, especially since I've been openly accused of bad-faith editing, gaming the system, and "screwing the pooch" by two users here. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You did it twice each, the second time after being very heavily criticised, and gave as your reason that that would make them run 14 days, and that was unacceptable. I don't care when my nominations get closed, or if they get closed at all. FPC is way too broken at the moment for me to consider it important. However, you were the one who said things running over 7 days was such a major problem that you ignored multiple people criticising your actions of invalidatng votes to do it a second time, and now Guy Mannering is at 11 days; the Conway racetrack, 9, and you are fine with that. If you are so concerned about things running for more than 7 days, why are you allowing this? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Only if I were required, obligated, or paid to close would I be a hypocrite. Like I said, I'm a volunteer and have every right to not close any nom I want for any reason I care to share—or not share. Just because I do close noms does not mean I must close noms. I did not strike twice on any nom; I merely added the archive template after striking didn't work out. That was at the suggestion of an uninvolved, unbiased outsider to FPC, whose opinion I happen to value. It was indeed the right move, to keep the process fair. And it was not the invalidation that was criticized, but the striking (btw, the criticism came solely from you, Durova, and Alvesgaspar: hardly the paragons of WP:NPOV at the moment. Maedin makes mention, but that was before you decided to "promote" the images.). Notice the lack of complaints about me adding the archive templates. This all boils down to ("again and again...") you taking the whole situation way too personally. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
And what, precisely, did Durova do to upset you? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Pasting the following from Wadester's user talk. This is why I have withdrawn the remaining nominations. DurovaCharge! 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently I joined the boycott of FPC and requested that you step down from closing nominations. At the time when I did so I had five open candidates, two of which have since been closed and both of which were closed by you. In good faith I would like to suppose that you are doing this in an attempt to demonstrate fairness, but as our prior discussion concluded you created the distinct impression of rather aggressively disregarding my opinions and reasoning. I have over two hundred featured pictures and have no urgent need for more; it would be more circumspect to extend respect. DurovaCharge! 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
One should extend respect if asking for it. I will still close FPCs; your wild and unfounded rants about my closures have not affected my day-to-day operations here. But what does it matter? You're now boycotting, which means all this will be moot quite soon anyway. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A less hyperbolic reply would be more productive. Note the following:
You closed a nomination that had unanimous support without promotion.
The sole objection was about artificiality of color, from a reviewer who supported without understanding that it was an artificial color process.
The sole weak support was an echo of the misunderstanding.
A second edit with adjusted colors was acceptable to everyone.
Your closure note echoed the color issue as a reason for not promoting.
Upon later discussion, your first response was a qualitative esthetic judgment.
After I pointed out that closer esthetics should never overrule unanimous support, you changed your story.
You allowed one extra week, during the same time when another candidacy was held open four extra weeks.
No credible explanation has been forthcoming for that discrepancy, or for the urgency of rejecting a unanimously supported nomination.
Your decision hinges on counting the sole weak support as a half opinion. If any discretion were warranted, it would be to count that as a full support on the basis that the editor who had first raised the matter had been completely satisfied.
Now I don't very much care about one more FP per se, which was why I didn't raise this at the time although it's disappointing to see the limited supply of African historic material wasted this way: countering systemic bias is difficult even when the process is fair. But the specific thing that lost my trust was to see how you shifted ground. It's doubtful the four examples I provided upon your requests were ever read: your later post miscounted them as three examples. The inconsistencies in closures at that process are blatant to a degree that would not have been tolerated this long anywhere else, and you appear more interested in name calling than in winning back the trust of the two prolific contributors who finally resorted to boycotting. DurovaCharge! 05:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
3.5 supports is less than 4. I would have been happy to promote the edit; but note how nobody ever voted for the edit. I'm no mind reader. I don't care to regain your trust; I lost any inclination when you falsely accused me of gaming the system. Your entire response above is about one nom (as I said before, the greyest of the grey), which others have indicated was closed correctly. And you only gave three examples previously; this first showed up here from what I can tell. You're acting hysterical and are so wrapped up in bias and POV that you can no longer breathe fresh, fair, non-judgmental air. But again, moot point: you will have no more FPCs going in a few days anyway. wadester16 | Talk→ 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is interesting. You still have no answer to why you allowed only one-quarter the extension that a different image was being given, you refuse to acknowledge that your rationales have changed, and you're substituting another ad hominem attack for rational discussion.
If you hadn't noticed, these last few months we have had several new nominators at FPC who were doing similar work to Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. Most of them have left the process; while I was urging them to stay we had offsite discussions about the erratic closures. At that time I tried to make excuses for what was happening at FPC. Enough is enough; per this conversation I am withdrawing all existing FPC nominations. Please reconsider your course of action while people are still willing to return. DurovaCharge! 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I have received 4 emails now of support from various FPC regulars telling me that I need to "stay the course", ignore your "hysterical bantering", and offering me praise for my "thick skin" when it comes to your "unwarranted and untimely attacks". Many are as baffled with you as I am. Granted they would prefer not to get in any altercations, and rightly so; it's just that you outright attacked me, so I had to at least respond. I still can't believe, though, that you're so upset about a nom that had 2.5S at more than 7 days. I was nice enough to leave it open for you another 7 days, in which time you only got one more S. I assume if you got an O after that S you'd be complaining that I only left it open so the closing cabal could win against your nom. You argue the point that suits you best at the time. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Any of those purported emailers are welcome to contact me; none have. MER-C deserves respect for at least standing by his rationales and arguing them on principle. Here the ground has shifted in so many ways that it becomes impossible to rebut all the errata concisely. Here is the post that contained the example whose existence you denied. One wonders why it is I who must provide examples to substantiate the notion that FPC has problems after a process review is already underway. If it is above reproach as you appear to assert, then please address the substance of the ten listed concerns directly (without gratuitous insults). Your words of 22:27, 24 May were "Yea, I can see your points, but the dramatic shift in color (in the original) is, admittedly, a cause for concern. Either the original was done poorly or aged poorly".[3] You wrote this as a personal assessment of a process which employed sixteen colors at the utmost. It simply isn't possible to squeeze any more nuance from the technology of the 1890s, and that was your first rationale for refusing to promote a unanimously supported nomination. Have you nothing more to say about that? I am a patient woman, but have wasted many hours and days upon research and restoration that has been sunk by inappropriate closer discretion, and more importantly have wasted long weeks and months coaching people who departed from this process due to its gross inequities which you still refuse to address. Perhaps these objections ought to have been raised much sooner, before the problems went so far. If that my fault I heartily apologize for it. But I would like a straight answer. And if anyone else thinks I'm going nuts, please say so where I can see it. This boycott exists because we want to set things right. DurovaCharge! 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Pleaes reread this diff. I already acknowledged the heckler. I'm looking for the fourth example, which finally showed up here. I don't deny its existence, I question where you mentioned it; feel free to tell me. But again, burden of proof is on you; you're the one with the complaints about me and so far, you have only used the Tunis one, which is hardly an example to ask me to step down from closing forever. I appreciate your understanding that this shouldn't have been bottled up. You really should have said something if you didn't agree with a closing that I did. That's why I'm so confused by your comments; I had no idea you were dissatisfied, and there's no way for me to know. I'm not a mind reader. WRT the Tunis nomination, you mention how difficult it is to find an African FPC; I respect that, but I don't see special treatment helping us just because examples are rare. Systemic bias is not the fault of the closer. Additionally, my comments came from Kaldari and Dr. Blofeld (though mainly Kaldari); they were simply a reiteration. You yourself just recently asked why I didn't promote the alt, which apparently implies that you agree with the color shift assessment ("A second edit with adjusted colors was acceptable to everyone.", which, notably, is not true: not one voter even mentioned the edit). Now, since the earlier discussion about closing times, I have not let noms go past 7 or 8 days (save for Shoemaker's, because I don't care to close his noms for the time being) and have not requested added votes. Moving a nom to the "older than 7 days" section with a request for more votes was common by many closers, and it didn't necessarily mean I'd actually close it. Just because I put a nom in that section, asking for more votes, didn't mean I'd close it. You're looking at it like I'm obligated to close the nom; that is not the case. I'm not obligated to do anything. Anybody else could have closed these noms and it is more than likely that I could have forgotten about them, or been gone and unable to close them. Essentially, I think you're blaming me for things that are not my fault and/or not under my control. Either way, current closures are fairer than before in that they all close at about the same time and none have requests for more input, which leads to more failures, but a more fair process. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The vanishing example.[4] Wadester, wouldn't it be more gracious to admit just once that your actions were less than ideal? Rather than drive away the people who provide a quarter of the material to this process? DurovaCharge! 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I guess I was on the lookout for a piped link. My mistake. I still stand by my closing of Tunis and it all boils down to 3.5 < 4. I'm sorry, but I'm following the rules here; put it this way: if I had it to do all over again, I'd do the same thing. If you can find better examples, I'd be happy to admit a mistake, once I recognize one. But you aren't offering me anything; you've tossed one closure at me (Tunis) and I've asked againandagain for more—clearer—examples. Maybe it would be more gracious to not try to make yourself seem more important than the rest of FPC community just because you nominate so many FPCs. So, back to burden of proof... wadester16 | Talk→ 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Please address why you allowed this unanimously supported nomination only one extra week, while a non-unanimously supported nomination was held open four times as long. Please address why two of your posts (both in the closing explanation, and as first rationale when questioned afterward) cited personal taste as a reason for overriding unanimous opinion, in contradiction to the limits of existing technology. DurovaCharge! 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Nomination time discrepancy: Addressed in post above. Here is roughly the last half of that post, which is exactly how I feel about the situation. Did you not read this? I have added some emphasis italics Quote: "Now, since the earlier discussion about closing times, I have not let noms go past 7 or 8 days…and have not requested added votes. Moving a nom to the "older than 7 days" section with a request for more votes was common by many closers, and it didn't necessarily mean I'd actually close it. Just because I put a nom in that section, asking for more votes, didn't mean I'd close it. You're looking at it like I'm obligated to close the nom; that is not the case. I'm not obligated to do anything. Anybody else could have closed these noms and it is more than likely that I could have forgotten about them, or been gone and unable to close them. Essentially, I think you're blaming me for things that are not my fault and/or not under my control. Either way, current closures are fairer than before in that they all close at about the same time and none have requests for more input, which leads to more failures, but a more fair process." I didn't do these actions to allow noms to fail or pass; there is no cabal; I'm not conspiring against anyone.
"Personal taste": Also addressed in post above. My rationale was fueled mainly by Kaldari and Dr. Blofeld (mainly Kaldari). I just reiterated their statements. And—the phrase of the day—this still boils down to 3.5 < 4 supports. I'd like to point out that your use of "unanimous" is misleading. This nom had unanimous support; only caveat is that the number of votes < 4. Sounds familiar. Also, like I said above (I might as well have just copy+pasted that post, as I'm just reiterating myself...), you seem to be on the side of any personal taste that may have gotten through since you agreed with the idea of promoting the alternate, even though not one voter mentioned it in their votes. Based on that assessment, I'm glad you don't close often. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This neither acknowledges the appearance of impropriety in closing a unanimously supported nomination in one-quarter the period allowed a non-unanimously supported nomination which was open at the same time, nor addresses the POV and factual issues. Please refrain from introducing gratuitous side issues: I never close FPCs, and have operated under the naïve assumption that prolific contributorship was a desirable thing. DurovaCharge! 21:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what more you want. I've addressed the two issues (multiple times). And please don't complain about side issues when you're just as guilty. Why don't we just end this? You seem to think that I'm not answering your questions and you aren't answering mine (i.e. lack of evidence of my poor closings—which you've complained extensively about—that I've been requesting for 2 days now). I won't stop closing, sorry. But new rules will come into affect, and I'll follow them, just as I've followed the current ones in the past. Other users below have been tossing me good faith, and seem to think my past closings weren't all that disruptive (in fact, even positive). wadester16 | Talk→ 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have asked you to withdraw, and have done so myself. You have refused to do so, returned insults, and have altered the section header I had posted into something inflammatory. Technically that is blockable; I am not adding it to the current ANI thread about your conduct. Please stop playing at martyrdom. DurovaCharge! 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You withdrew as a boycott, which is meant to make a point. I'm not withdrawing because there is no evidence that I should. If you could actually come up with good evidence for me to do so, I would actually consider it. Thousands of words have been wasted on a situation that boils down to lack of evidence with respect to an unfounded claim. I should place a {{fact}} after each of your claims. But that would take a long time. My goal isn't martyrdom (I'm not that religious); my goal is fairness. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence but demanded much, and when it was supplied demanded more, and when more was forthcoming changed topics to introduce irrelevant elements. Finally you dismiss an outstanding body of unaddressed concerns by deriding the lengths to which people have gone in their attempts to satisfy your demands. These are not the actions of a person whose interest is fairness, so much as self-justification. There are plenty of other venues at this website. FPC used to be the most harmonious featured venue. Fortunately both Shoemaker's Holiday and I have contributed other types of featured content, and we need not tolerate continued abuse to keep the peace. DurovaCharge! 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Please list the "much evidence" that you've offered. The Tunis FPC is one, and not a great piece of evidence at that. That's it. Please explain how I owe you evidence. How many times must I reference burden of proof? You're the one that had issue to begin with. wadester16 | Talk→ 06:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester16
Disclaimer
I considered adding a statement here but thought better and removed it before anyone replied. Wadester restored it. Nor was it put under an inflammatory title, as it was edited to be by Wadester. This is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy: you are not allowed to edit someone else's words or misrepresent them, which presumably includes forcing them to keep up statements that they thought better of moments later, presenting it as if they hadn't decided to remove it. I have thus removed the majority of my supposed "evidence". I have left up one statement which someone else replied to.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't edit your words; I restored an edit that you added then retracted. Anybody could still see you did that; after you press the "Save page" button, what you write exists forever. Once you put it up, it is the right of any user to restore it (GFDL!). Not one letter of content was changed (okay, admittedly, you spelled "for" wrong and I fixed that for you, but I thought that was a favor). wadester16 | Talk→ 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You presented it as me saying it intentionally, not as a quote, then added a section header naming it as "Evidence from Shoemaker's Holiday", further giving the appearance that I had intended for it to remain up. Further, you even fixed some broken formatting (Diff: My version vs. version Wadester claimed was a simple undo of my deletion), to make the quote actually display, and so the text of mine you claim to have restored was actually something I had never gotten to show up correctly in any revision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I admit I removed the quotes, but if you look at the original, the formatting screwed up and only showed the last two lines. I was trying to fix the error; that's why I included the two lines (----). The current way you're showing it works for me. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:TALK. You are not allowed to do what you did here. You edited my post to make it display, and presented it in such a way that it was not at all clear you had restored an unfinished post and edited it into a semblance of completeness. People have been blocked for that sort of thing in the past. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Text Wadester has restored twice, which was originally posted—then removed—by Shoemaker's Holiday
Also pasted from his talk. The background to this was him leaving a somewhat rude message on my talk page [5], criticising me for not putting through the provisional promotions, and saying I should have done them fully.
I specifically said I hadn't done the promotion fully, to try and cut down on the controversy. Given your editwarring forced this move, and given, further, that your treatment of the Guy Mannering nom is at the exact opposite position to your claims that leaving a nom open 14 days was such a disaster that it must be avoided at all costs, I think you don't have a single leg to stand on in your criticism of me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
There was no edit warring. I did something I thought was good in good faith. I apologized and fixed it. That said, fair is fair; you're too biased and should have just allowed for a completely new renom. Please don't blame me for your feelings on renoms being "guaranteed failures"; that is just life. But a promotion is a promotion. If you're going to do it, do it completely so I wouldn't have to waste my time wading through the mess you left. And to be honest, I've completely ignored your Guy Mannering nom because I don't care to close your noms based on the way I've been treated. You boycott FPC, treat me like crap, I boycott your noms. See how productive things get when you burn the bridges with the people that keep the place clean? wadester16 | Talk→ 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't care when the hell it does get promoted. But you struck out votes at least twice, stating it was because noms were running too long, despite every other person on the talk page being very upset at you for doing so, then smugly said it wasn't your problem, that other people should contact the people whose votes you struck out. If you cannot see that, after such behaviour, leaving a nomination open 11 days and counting makes you look like an utter hypocrite, I'm sorry for you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I struck votes out because they were no longer valid, just like here. It had nothing to do with how long the nom ran; it was a renomination and therefore a new nom. The user that renominates a nom is responsible for informing the previous voters that their original vote is no longer valid and that they just need to vote again; therefore it was not my responsibility to inform all the users that voted in four nominations that the nom was up for renom, it was the responsibility of you and Alvesgaspar. You asked Alvesgaspar to perform the same actions you did—which were more than annoying to anyone that closes—and he indicated that he didn't know how. Maybe you shouldn't have asked him? It was a bit irresponsible to ask a user to make their first administrative edits to FPC to make a point. With the Obama example above, I informedthevoting parties to revote (or at least those that were not regulars, and may not stumble upon the nom again)—far from hypocritical; it's not like users are too busy to revote, especially since most agree with the outcomes (not promoted), just not the process (overturning consensus). You should have informed all voters that their votes were invalid and that they needed to revote. I can guarantee that none of them would have been promoted and we wouldn't have gone through this bullshit delist process, which has made a mockery of FPC. I'll say this again and again: you're taking this way too personally; you need to step back and see it from an unbiased viewpoint. I'm also not tooscared to leave valid and reasonable discussion on my talk page; those moves make you look wholly unreasonable. wadester16 | Talk→ 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A supermajority votes to support, but most were against their promotion. Riiiight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You're ignoring the main points. I'd appreciate it if you actually addressed them in your responses. wadester16 | Talk→ 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently not, because you don't address any of the substantive issues; you merely complain about your own noms and are making things way too personal. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You and I disagree often, but here we're two peas in a pod. Is it possible to keep him on topic? DurovaCharge! 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
One to talk. I'm still waiting for you to supply evidence of my mishandling of closings; now that would be on topic. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
No, by all means, leave this here. I think most will agree: if you're going to be WP:BOLD, please make sure you do what you plan on doing fully and correctly. But at the same time, this was an exemplar of WP:POINT. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no requirement to leave up statements I don't want to if noone replied, and Wikipedia policy forbids you from forcing me to make a statement. I have replaced it with a disclaimer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You allowed less than a minute for responses... And I didn't force the statement; you made it yourself. I could have just chosen to copy+paste it from my talk again if I wanted. Maybe you just shouldn't have pressed the "Save page" button; you obviously had something to say. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't get it either. It's really inappropriate to bicker like this here. Take it to a user talk page, please... Or better still, just stop it completely! ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If Wadester's four putative supporters exist, please post or email. Shoemaker's Holiday (whose boycott I have joined) has been articulate and active. We care about this process; we don't want to see it wither. If we are two voices in the wilderness, then other participants--please set us straight. DurovaCharge! 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's really relevant to 'out' who supports who here, and my guess is that those who contacted him privately did so because they didn't want to get involved with this spat. But what I will say is that this diagreement between you and Wadester is getting ridiculous. It's one thing to disagree with the closings that he's done, but another to escalate this and make it so personal and bitter. At this point, it's almost impossible to figure out who started it, but why don't you let it be known who let bygones be bygones and ended it? Clearly you both want FP to succeed or you wouldn't be passionate and involved. That's a pretty obvious place to find common ground. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. All I ask for is stopping the unwarranted and unevidenced (not a word, but I think the point is clear) personal attacks and to, in the future, complain about noms when they close, not let a number of them build up. wadester16 | Talk→ 21:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not interested in getting involved in this mud-slinging whatsoever, but if you've asked seriously for opinion, then it's only fair to give at least a quick view. Honestly, this is just flogging a dead horse. I don't care who admits to what or who may have made mistakes; we're actually trying to lay a groundwork of rules that will make the whole process fairer for everyone, and I am certain that both MER-C and Wadester and any other closers will abide by them, once the community have made them known. Let's be fair here and admit that the previous guidelines weren't clear, that everything was done a bit haphazardly, and that there was a lack of transparency, and some mistakes were made. Why don't we all just move on, and if afterwards Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday have any further issues, then they will be relevant. So far, the bitter arguing going on between you guys has been ridiculously counter-productive. Can't you please drop it now? Maedin\talk 21:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I will point out that I did not want my section on the page, but that Wadester restored it. It's a little annoying to have someone complain about me criticising someone who insisted on being criticised, to the point of restoring criticism I thought better of twice. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(e/cx2!)I realise that, I have read it. Well, most of it, anyway, :-) I suggest a great big {{hat|This is us moving on for the good of the community}}, and I guarantee that almost no one will be bothered to look. Then we really can focus our energies on more productive lines, :-) Maedin\talk 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Concur, disappointed that this started up again. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't move the comments here; they began on my talk page. wadester16 | Talk→ 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Fairy muff, Doesn't matter who started it though, it isn't going to go anywhere good. I call for a cease-fire. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
What's a fairy muff? Is that some sort of Australian slang? :-) wadester16 | Talk→ 06:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, :-) Maedin\talk 06:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I always knew it as furry muff, but I must hang around with a naughtier crowd than Noodle Snacks. ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, Dave . . . cross-species naughtiness wins by my book, ;-) Maedin\talk 07:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Everytime we fight, a FPC kitten dies. Think of the kittens ! All of this is so sad. I won't read any of this stupid argument. I'm well aware there has been some problem/abuse before, and that we're in the middle of a difficult period (especially true for nominators), but let's not forget we're all aiming for the same goal here : promoting the worthy pictures for the enjoyment of everyone. Nominators/Picture editors are vital to FPC, and so are Closers. Without the former ones we wouldn't have anything to vote on (or only crappy pictures). Without the latter ones, nobody would make the dirty work needed in the background. So pls everyone, forget your resentment and keep your head cool (kitten is here to help for that ;) ). We shouldn't be fighting among ourselves but instead focus on trying to change the way things are to improve our ways. Ksempac (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep, wholeheartedly agree. And here I was thinking it was all that masturbation that was killing the kittens. Phew! My conscience rests a little easier now... ;-). Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This is the most reactionary thing I've heard for a long time! A couple of years ago (when I was even younger) they used to say (the priests) that masturbating would prevent your beard from growing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Honestly, the only reason I participate in FPC is to look at pretty pictures. That's it. I've kept out of this discussion because I don't like the confrontational tone. From people who've worked civilly for months or years together. Remember, the focus of this should simply be: how do we identify quality images, and make sure quality images get promoted. De-personalise this and I might participate. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
True, although in order to reach consensus with FPC and indeed discussions about FPC, a certain amount of confrontation is sometimes acceptable as it is necessary to debate and discuss issues. What is unacceptable is attacks and incivility. We do need to ensure that we don't stiffle the former to eliminate the latter, IMO. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Enough already!
Seriously, can we just agree to disagree with what has happened and focus on the future?--Muhammad(talk) 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If no one disagrees, I'd like to have this archived—from the FP section to this one. I think it would just be conducive to more confrontation to leave it hanging around. Maedin\talk 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am joining Shoemaker's Holiday in his boycott of FPC until the promotion and closure problems are resolved. Will defer to any reasonable consensus; this is not an attempt to force a particular outcome.
Will not be responding further to comments, questions, or requests at existing nominations until this is resolved. Ceasing reviewing, and ceasing new nominations until further notice. DurovaCharge! 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Internet: Serious Business
I have been a bit bold and archived the arguments going on above as they have degenerated into non-constructive nonsense. Please don't take things personally and direct your energy towards Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which seems more likely to get somewhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Finally, I don't have to drag down the list. ZooFari 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, probably not a bad move. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, but looked like you messed it up a bit. The dates were wrong and you didn't add Archive 21 to the list. ;-) Fixed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I've brought back Durova's boycott notice (and Shoemaker's, by proxy), as I believe it was inappropriate to create an archive with the effect of removing this notice, at such an early time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What can we do on the quality assurance side?
^^ Essentially, how can we tweak the process and the criteria so that crappy images don't get into passing territory (and hence making discretion calls less necessary)?
FP? 1
Most poor reviews are deficient with respect to WIAFP 1, so here we go. I think this would hopefully reduce the learning curve a bit (from unwritten rules to explicit ones) and help adapt the criteria to other forms of imaging. A crude draft:
b) Post-processing anomalies: The image must not have visible compression, posterization or oversharpening artifacts or other signs of inappropriate/incompetent post processing.
c) Exposure, lighting and tonality: The picture must have an accurate exposure, encyclopedic white balance and appropriate lighting. The image should have good contrast. Portraits should not exhibit the red-eye effect nor should they be taken with strong fill flash (typified by strong shadows and harsh highlights).
d) Composition: The image has good composition. The subject must not be cut off or obscured without good reason. All important aspects of the image should be in focus, while those unimportant should be deemphasized (see depth of field). There are no distracting elements. Consideration is given to macro photography where the depth of field is often constrained by physical limitations and so the entire subject may not be fully in focus.
e) Panoramas should have no stitching errors. The frames must be consistent in exposure, focus and lighting.
f) Historical images should be of professional quality corresponding to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreplaceable images with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is encouraged, but is not required. Reproductions should not exhibit moire.
[1] Quantitatively, typically 0.02% of all pixels each. This comes from experience, in a 5 Mpx image this translates to 1000 px. Images with more (0,0,0) or (255,255,255) pixels than this don't tend to succeed.
[2] This usually deals with the quality of the digital reproduction, not necessarily the analog original. See File:Edward abdication.png for a historical image that would fail 1b and 1c (compression artifacts, uneven lighting) and File:Kalki 03 1948.jpg for one that would fail 1a (tilt). Of course, 1a also applies to historical photos.
Apologies if I've left out any major technical errors. MER-C 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any immediate comments on the above other than to say at a quick glance it looks OK. However seems highly weighted to digital photos (five points on digital images vs one (the last one at that) on historical images, and where do diagrams, maps, animations, etc fit in?). However I'm less optimistic on an actual solution to your lead in question - in short, we can make the criteria as detailed as we like, it doesn't mean they'll be applied. And the more detailed you make them, the more intimidating they are to newbies and the more likely to scare them off before they even start, or that they'll ignore them. I could again raise that horrible spectre of 'approved reviewers', but I don't think many people are interested in that. Just some thoughts. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree there's nothing to object to here in content but nor do I see anything which doesn't basically reiterate or elaborate what's already in the criteria. Worse, as has been said many times before, over-prescriptiveness simply alienates rather than attracts new users; perception of quality is, ultimately, a subjective matter and –ultimately– the quality of submissions won't improve by virtue of more objective criteria. I'd probably agree there's a paucity of real guidance there, and there may be a case for some essay-based spinoff pages, or more elaborate gallery-based ones, like the Examples of Techincal Problems, for those would-be contributors inclined to seek out as much info as possible about image evaluation and the FP process. --mikaultalk 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Also like to add that Jjron's proposal for "expert reviewers", however contrary to the ethos of FP it may have been, is the only one I've ever considered which might actually provide some kind of reliable, authoritative benchmarking in real-world image evaluation. It's just one of those areas which consensus is extremely difficult to establish because there are no real facts, there's no logic to follow, any more than there is in music or other performance arts. Who here would claim to never have been influenced by an informed reviewer's opinion before going to the theatre or buying a CD? Opinions of other reviewers have a similarly huge influence here, without open acknowledgment or formalisation, something which strikes much closer to the heart of the matter than the influence of abstract criteria. Anyway, that's probably more relevant to the debate on nom closing, so I'll drag my heavy soapbox over there... --mikaultalk 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
For restorations, we ought to be including documentation requirements: the image hosting page should provide a detailed summary of what edits were performed and the FPC nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration, with a link to the unrestored version for comparison. DurovaCharge! 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the restoration requirement only allows a full restoration of any historic work to be promoted. This is, frankly, a very, very bad thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The proposed wording specifically applies to restorations, not to all historic works. Basically if one does restore, then it's necessary to document the changes. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The meta data for historic material is essential. It is the proof that it is indeed historic and not just an illustration. In essence it is the equivalent for citations in text. Remember that Stalin had people be removed from photo's? There is little to stop people from altering images. The only way we can ensure the quality and the veracity of our historic pictures is by adding meta data. In short it is essential. GerardM (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I think the non-digital photo requirements would need some fleshing out. I don't think it's always necessary or even desirable to fully restore historical images, especially if being aged is part of their EV. In other words, we shouldn't preclude 'encyclopaedic aging' through the criteria. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
There are several schools of thought when it comes to restoration. There are those who want the "current" original with all the discolouration that make a picture look like it does and there are those who want a picture to look as it used to do. When you say "encyclopaedic ageing" I do not have the foggiest what you are talking about. What I do know is that we have a need for illustrations and in my honest opinion arguments are firmly in favour of making pictures look as pristine as possible. For me "la Giaconda" looks jaundiced, it is also oil paintings where we typically do not restore ... GerardM (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed that it obviously applies mainly to digital photography... I think some of the points are perhaps slightly too strongly worded. Eg "There should be no chromatic aberration and dust spots" should be replaced by "There should be no significant chromatic aberration and dust spots should be removed" as chromatic aberration is something that can occur using even the most expensive pro lenses in some circumstances (more so with ultra-wide angle lenses and areas of strong contrast). Of course the closer should be able to determine if it is within reasonable tolerances (as could a number of us) but I think stating things in absolutes like that may scare off contributors who have an image that isn't quite flawless, but would probably be of sufficient quality to pass.
Other than that, I think it's a good idea but the main problem is that the majority of us would use this criteria already (without it needing to be written down) and the newbies that are not aware of our photographic standards may not necessarily understand it. In short, this criteria may be preaching to the converted, while those that really need the understanding might find it going over their head - if they read it at all. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my thoughts, except I couldn't put it in words :) --Muhammad(talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about I can the details but replace "is of a high technical standard" with "displays professional image quality" or something like that. The idea is to get it into their heads that our standards are roughly equivalent to those of (say) National Geographic. MER-C 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Am trying to think of ways that could be misused, but can't think of much that isn't already done. I guess that could be applied to all images as well - historical, diagrams, animations, etc (although videos?). So in general, I think it works OK for me. --jjron (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Revised per suggestions. I also found this article, it could (with improvement) be a quick primer on this criterion. I disagree on newbies, the extended criteria make them aware of our standards and the criteria are generally self-contained - as opposed to WP:FA?, for instance (since the MOS is incorporated into the criteria), which is at least 100 pages long... MER-C 09:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Criterion F, revisited
Current proposal
f) Restorations, scans and historical images. Images should reproduce the original work faithfully, though correction of deterioration is encouraged. There should be no spots, scratches or other damage.
Revised proposal
f) Historical images. Should be high quality according to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreproducible subjects with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is not required although often preferred. If material is restored, the nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration. A detailed summary of the edits performed should be provided on the image hosting page, and both the hosting page and the nomination should link to the unrestored version for comparison.
It's very important that we document the edits performed in restorations. This is an important factor that museums, libraries, etc. weigh when they decide whether to release their collections to the public via Wikimedia Commons. Very large donations (hundreds of thousands of images) can become available this way. If the curators believe we are lax about edited image documentation, they can (and actually have) withdrawn from negotiations.
On a practical level, proper documentation is already a standard requirement for promotion at FPC, and has been for many months. Putting this in writing makes that clear to everyone. DurovaCharge! 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPPORT - I am talking to two museums and one archive, for them having the documentation with their content is absolutely essential. This and the value we place in historic material as demonstrated in the high quality restorations are important arguments for them to consider providing us with their material. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the bit about documentation of restoration techniques fits in more with FP? 8, if it isn't already there. FP? 1 deals with (in this case) the competence of a restoration, the reproduction and the original image. How's this?
8. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provided it is documented, limited, well-done and not deceptive.
a) Unacceptable manipulation. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
b) Documentation of manipulation and restoration. Any digitally restored image or edit of a nominated image [1] should have a summary of the edits performed on the image description page, with links to the original/unrestored version(s).
[1] Comment: I should note that some of our photographic nominations are already extensively edited when they are uploaded.
The other part of the story is that people should oppose for this reason. Come closing time, any half-decent closer should suspend the nomination if the info is not there and if it isn't forthcoming, fail it regardless of how much support there is. MER-C 06:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be a pretty good solution. DurovaCharge! 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
1g diagrams
This would cover the last major form of images we get here.
I agree. I think what might be useful are some failed noms with the technical problems listed. In all the examples, the problem is extremely bad. More subtle problems might be more useful to prospective reviewers. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed changes to the Featured picture process
This star symbolizes the featured content on Wikipedia.
Please help determine the future of the Featured pictureprocess. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
I was hoping to schedule a Canada-related FP for Canada Day (July 1) POTD but I can't seem to find anything suitable. Does anyone have something they've been sitting on that might be suitable? Thanks. howcheng {chat} 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Mhh, surprised we don't have an FP of a maple leaf. Do these grow in Australia, Noodle snacks? --Muhammad(talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When I started my boycott of FPC, I decided not to pull some images that had nearly hit the seven days, and were likely to pass. I figured they would go through quickly enough, and that'd be the end of it.
One lasted for 12 and a half days, and this one has now been up for sixteen days.
This incredible unprofessionalism is not helping the case of FPC. What on earth going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Who know's where MER-C is and Wadester isn't willing to close it. I would close it, but I am not good at determining consensus, especially since implementation of 2/3 has been going out. Tick-tock tick-tock tick-tock... time's running and it never stops... ZooFari 02:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added support. ZooFari, you're a competent closer, and I think this one had 2/3 support and no objections or apparent faults, so you can go ahead with this one if you want. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, it's a definite pass, even if Mostlyharmless hadn't supported (four supports, no opposes: meets the criteria); I just refuse to touch it based on Shoemaker screwing his own pooch. Even though the issue of clockwise rotation was brought up, old engravings and drawings aren't held to such a high standard because they are older, human artworks, which are inherently not perfect. Maybe this is a good time to train new potential closers...? wadester16 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, let's review your statements in the thread you're making oblique reference to:
“
Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
”
And later
“
I can't disagree with the last part of your comment, but you're making these into 14-day noms. How is that fair? wadester16 | Talk→ 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
”
You later lied about your previous statements.
“
No, I struck votes out because they were no longer valid, just like here. It had nothing to do with how long the nom ran; it was a renomination and therefore a new nom[....] wadester16 | Talk→ 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
”
So, Wadester, do you still deny that you said that 14 days was a problem, but now think that letting noms run 16 days whenever you feel like it isn't an issue?
I think you should be shown the door of the FPC process. Your lying and hypocrisy makes you unfit to hold any sort of power. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is created by volunteers. All of us choose to donate time in one way or another (article editing, image restoration, photography, closing). Any Wikipedian has the right to choose what they do and don't do. You can't both display consistent incivility towards a volunteer and expect them to keep helping you. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Strange. I couldn't persuade Wadester to stop closing my nominations, or even to back off an inch. Now you take Shoemaker's Holiday to task because--for no reason at all--Wadester does the opposite with him? How is that Shoemaker's Holiday's fault? DurovaCharge! 15:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Shoemaker's fault is the way he's handled these issues, and the way he's expressed himself. Besides, I think we're all in agreement that the past is the past and if any mistakes that been made, we hope have them addressed by an improved process. That's a completely separate issue and we still haven't reached a final agreement it yet. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 20:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a binary issue, though, and the other party hasn't admitted the slightest misstep. I don't think all the fingers should be pointing in the same direction. For one thing, Shoemaker's Holiday closes FPCs too. And to his credit, nobody has raised any complaints against his closures. He must be doing something right. DurovaCharge! 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, I honestly think I'm a prettyreasonable guy. Nobody may have complained about SH's closings, but SH has only closed 17 noms since 1 Jan ([6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]), all of which (except this) were clear cut (not counting the three he reopened-[23][24][25]); I also take issue to this, but know Durova will disagree. I've closed more than 150 FPCs and VPCs since 7 March and do take on the more difficult ones. Somebody has to do it, and chances are somebody will be unhappy with the outcome of at least some. After going through the past complaints against me, I've found only one nom that I closed ended up as a complaint, and that was a 3.5 S—0 O nom (i.e. pretty grey). That's <1% "bad closings" at FPC. Are closers expected to be perfect? I don't believe your argument is really compelling, Durova. wadester16 03:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Edit conflict. Indeed. FPC isn't going to get back on track until we get things sorted, and things are not going to get sorted while people are shouting at each other. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. And look, Shoemaker's Holiday, you seem to bring these old chestnut of issues up again and again without any real justification or provocation. I don't see any lies by Wadester. I don't see any denials by Wadester. I don't see him claiming that he's let the nom run 16 days because he didn't "feel it was an issue". He made it quite clear that he refused to involve himself in closures of your nominations because of the way you've handled yourself regarding previous ones recently. I can't fault him for that to be honest - I wouldn't want to have anything to do with you either if I was attacked as he was. Right or wrong, you've made your bed with your actions, and now you have to lie in that bed and wait for someone who IS willing to close it. IMO, the best thing you can do is lie low for a little while, or at least be diplomatic or (again IMO) you run the risk of alienating yourself with your incivility. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated by the three regulars above me, I'm not obligated to do anything. But I think this horse is rather pulp-like; there's no reason to start this all up again. wadester16 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, just shut up with all this mess. I thought it was all over. I went ahead and closed the nomination as promoted, since it was going to stay there for a month. This is a Wiki, so if Wade doesn't want to close it, he won't close it. There is no fault to that. I'm not going to turn into a closer, though. So you might as well create a bot or something before more harm is done then good. ZooFari 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Had Wadester not reopened the subject, I wouldn't have. But he felt he had to attack me ("I just refuse to touch it based on Shoemaker screwing his own pooch."), so I pointed out the evidence against his exceedingly thinly veiled accusation. Seriously, is it impossible for me to ask why noone - not MER-C, not any of the other people - without Wadester thinking he's the only closer, and so me having offended him is the sole cause of the issue, and I am now fair game to attack? If it helps, I'll make it very clear: WADESTER, STOP RESPONDING TO ME, UNLESS I BRING YOU UP. NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU. HOWEVER, IF YOU CONTINUE TO LAUNCH YOUR VEILED ACCUSATIONS, I WILL CONTINUE TO POINT OUT HOW UNJUSTIFIED THEY ARE.
And what happens when he launches his veiled attack and I take it apart? Other people join in his attack, and act as if I started things. Is Wadester so sacrosanct that he can accuse me of anything, and everyone will support him, even if the evidence is on my side? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This issue is covered here. wadester16 03:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
While I'm no councilor, I think the problem with both of you is that you spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them. Not once have I heard you two lean to a discussion where comments are only positive. Don't dwell on what went wrong. Instead, focus on what to do next. Spend your energies on moving forward toward solving the problem. ZooFari 21:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Will another nomination be closed against consensus?
Would you ming closing this? wadester16 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Why would that be? (Just curious). I'll deal with it tomorrow. MER-C 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mainly because it's really close, leaning support, but I don't think it should pass. Should I fail it having garnered support, especially since I reopened it, I will most likely get my head re-bitten off. You're good with the judgement calls. wadester16 15:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I can respond, right? Since you mentioned me? I think this is the right thing to do. Do you disagree with a second opinion? wadester16 22:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching this whole larger situation from a distance and have been keeping out of it as I think it is something you guys clearly need to resolve between yourselves. But, I will at this point say that I find "Mainly because it's really close, leaning support, but I don't think it should pass." to be a somewhat troubling comment. It appears to display a preference for an outcome which is irrelevant and inappropriate on the part of a closer (please correct me if that was not what it was suggesting but choice of words is all important in a text communication project and this is how it reads to me), and I certainly don't think that asking someone else to close something should be accompanied by a recommended outcome. Closing should be a simple matter of determining consensus, exactly as closing an AfD. As far as the whole current situation goes, if the credibility of this FP project is to be maintained then all steps must be taken by everyone to avoid saying and doing things that are likely to inflame the situation. If this doesn't happen then the outcome is bleak, it is either going to make the contributors that are staying away from the project at the moment continue to do so, or it is going to result in the project itself losing its credibility and falling by the wayside. I think that unfortunately if you both can't come to an agreement to not continue to pick faults in each others motives and actions at every turn, which is certainly veering in the direction of WP:POINT, then you should both stay away from the project for a while to cool down. Continuing this battle is doing more harm to the FP project than it is to yourselves and the community should not have to stand by and watch it happen. Mfield (Oi!) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I second Mfield's comment. ZooFari 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, admittedly, that was worded poorly. I believe that this nom falls in the grey zone of closer discretion, though (or at least it did when I made that comment; seems more comments may have been made). Spencer brings up very valid points about distortion and sharpness and it's not even centered. Do you feel that this image is comparable to, say, this, this, or this? Now, that said, I recused from closing purposefully because of the COI of reopening it (see note), especially at this time (point proven about the "will most likely get my head re-bitten off" comment). Just because I asked someone else to close the nom doesn't mean nobody else can close it. If somebody feels compelled to do so, please close it as you see fit (WP:SOFIXIT). It's not like MER-C now has dibs. Nobody can ever have dibs on a closure; anybody can close this, and maybe somebody should. Additionally, I wasn't trying to talk MER-C into closing it either way; I was answering his question of why I didn't want to close it. If you know MER-C, you know that persuading him is not an easy task (which is a good thing). It would have taken a lot more lobbying to try to get him to do something, especially if he disagrees. Anyway, I really don't care how this comes out; promote or don't promote, it just won't be me doing it. wadester16 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What was worded improperly? ZooFari 00:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
What Mfield quoted. wadester16 01:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you were in response to me, I was referring to Mfield's comment about you two bickering, not his response to your comment situation. I don't want to be part of this mess, nor am I going to create boundary lines between both of you. ZooFari 01:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, for what it is worth I don't feel that the image in question is comparible to the other FPs you list, but my point is that if the consensus is that it is, then one persons opinion really doesn't matter and I don't personally believe that the closer should hold or offer an opinion on the image, and if they do they should vote and then not close it. This is a consensus driven project, and all that the closer can do is weigh the consensus and promote or not. If there is dispute about the outcome then the image can be delisted but for when a closer appears to be going against consensus or even expressing an opinion on an outcome you have to see that those actions will generate suspicion and accusations from the community. The closer has to remain impartial in the closing process or stick to voting. Opinions should only be made in the vote, not in a talk page message to another closer. I am not suggesting you were attempting to influence the outcome but I can certainly see how taking a few steps down that road will take us all to the top of a very slippery slope (if you will excuse the mixed metaphors). We now appear to be on that slope and we need to prevent further slippage and regain confidence on all sides. Mfield (Oi!) 01:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There's no such thing as a completely impartial human, but I think I do a pretty good job. I decided not to close the nom precisely because of impartiality, and in response to earlier complaints against me. So I think I did the right thing here. Do you disagree? wadester16 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I am trying not to take sides here as I don't think arguing this all out further will help this project by dragging regular contributors in to take sides. I am strongly suggesting that the matter gets dropped in this venue or if it cannot be that it gets taken to mediation to avoid damaging the FP project any further. I think that as there have been all manner of accusations, the best thing to do is to ensure scrupulous impartiality until this matter blows over, that means that all nominations get closed carefully, on time, and irrespective of who the nominator was. Personal feelings have to be put aside in something as straight forward as closing a vote. If you or any other closer feels unable to do that, then you should refrain from closing as your decision to not close certain noms will only make this current situation continue rather than allowing it to blow over. If we need to do something as drastic as have a vote of confidence in the closers then lets do that, affirm them a community mandate to close and then expect that, between them, all noms can be closed without regard to the nominator or personal opinions on editors, images or votes. We have to put the greater good ahead of personal feelings and let water flow under the bridge so things can cool. Mfield (Oi!) 02:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough; just making my point clear. wadester16 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec - adding some more) I am not assigning any blame on anyone, but the community project is more important than any single person, however they are contributing, and the interests of the community trump some hard feelings here and there. Can we please agree to drop this completely and move on, if not then it should instead be escalated to a proper dispute resolution medium and not be allowed to continue disrupting and driving participants away from this project. Mfield (Oi!) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to strongly endorse Mfield's comments. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Me Too. I'm not sure if you were aware of this page Mfield, but there's a broad consensus for the introduction of a cool-off period for all closed FPC noms which should make the task of closing less onerous and much more transparent, essentially in response to difficulties encountered with close calls like the Bahá'í Gardens one. A fact that adds significant weight to your comments. --mikaultalk 06:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I have looked over that page but i haven't had the time to fully digest it. Whatever the community can agree on in order to move on and improve should be pursued as soon as possible. If the consensus is to introduce a cool off period then so be it, at this point we need ideas to break the deadlock, and to stabilize and reenergize the project. Mfield (Oi!) 07:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read most of this, so sorry if my comment seems out of place. I just wanted to say that this looks absolutely ridiculous. People complained that Wadester is incompetent to close nominations. I recall someone even suggesting he recuse himself from closing noms. Well here he does exactly that, and he gets criticized for it! That doesn't make sense to me! He did what he thought was right...what ever happened to Assume Good Faith?! All of this argument and fighting at FPC is getting ridiculous. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone is not assuming good faith at this point (not commenting on what has happened prior to this thread). What we are trying to do now is move on, swiftly, in a way that stops this continual bickering that is a great disservice to the community and project in general. We have to draw a line under what has got us to where we are and look at how we can move forward, reestablishing confidence in the processes so that this project does not fall by the wayside in the light of the number of established and regular contributers that are giving it a wide berth at the moment. It is ridiculous at this point for sure, but what will stop that is some professionalism on everyones part and some demonstrated decisions to put the project ahead of personal grievances. Let's look at how we can move forward, not at what got us here. Mfield (Oi!) 07:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned this in the myriad of proposals on FPC closing process, but I think a lot of good ideas have been lost in the wash due to the sheer volume of discussion - Mfield, I agree with you that the closer should not attempt to second guess voter's reasoning or understanding or they run the risk of being an impartial judge, jury and executioner. I know vote counting has been shot down due to the potential for less informed voters to miss obvious faults or misinterpret the criteria, but hear me out. Maybe we should stick to simple vote counting for the initial closure at the point where the nom is transfered to the 'cooling off' section. This would give a rough overview of consensus, and then the cooling off period would allow all contributors (not just the closer) the opportunity to bring up any issues they had with that total and to debate the merits of contentious votes if necessary, and establish a more subjective form of consensus to complement the objective voting consensus. I would imagine that the vast majority of nominations would not need much in the way of further discussion at all, and we would allow the nom to be closed as-is, but the way I see it, this is probably the only way to alow everyone involvement in the closure process/decisions for controversial nominations while keeping established closers in control of the more administrative functions, as well as protected from claims of bias. Sure, there will still be the occasional unhappy camper, but no process will stop that completely. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but it seems like the discussion (and the follow ups from that discussion in the two delist noms that Durova cited) there seems based on the (incorrect IMO) assumption of what the standards for FPC are. It's perhaps best to bring this up here, rather than hijack that MFD process. While I do agree that EV is more important the encyclopaedia than aesthetics or great image quality, that doesn't mean we should lower our image quality standards to allow low quality images just because they're important - that said, there is an allowance for historical or otherwise irreplacable images in the Featured picture criteria. FPC should strive for the best of the best photos with regard to both image quality and EV, though. In that sense, I think those who are voting for the deletion of VPC are doing so without this understanding of the differences between the two projects. Having said that, I haven't really seen the need for VPC, myself, as I'd be happy to keep images that don't pass FPC as just that - normal images, many of which happen to be valuable. I don't think we have the numbers or interest to keep two parallel and similar projects running, as has been demonstrated by the failure of VPC to attract contributions, but I am a bit disturbed by Durova's reasoning as it once again seems to suggest there is a cabal out to get historical images, and I don't think thats true. Conspiracy theories have been running wild here lately... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 07:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you Diliff, that there has not been a cabal to push historical and scientific images out to VPC. I think it is just a side effect of the criteria at FPC. A lot of scientific and historically relevant images are failing the FPC criteria on technical grounds and thus seem to being relegated to VPC. In fact what should be happening is that the established standard of accepting a relaxed attitude to technical faults when EV is exceptionally high needs to be maintained. Images taken in the field of science by non professional photographers, or (for example early photographic) images that have high EV but understandably low technical merit when compared to a modern digital image need to be given way more leeway. Maybe it is the case that a large number of regular FP voters are competent digital photographers and contributers but great care needs to be taken not to judge these older, and often very high EV images, against anything like the same standards that are applicable to contemporary, purposed digital photography. If we can take great pains to not fall into this trap then there is no reason to have a side project such as VPC where these images get sidelined to. Everything should be featureable in high regard to both its context, timeframe and EV. Naming no names in the interests of impartiality, I have great respect for those contributors that concentrate on the sourcing and restoration of older imagery and it is a great disservice to this encyclopedia that they are feeling marginalized. I support the concept of doing away with VPC STRONGLY CONTINGENT on the fact that we can overcome the current issues and make sure that historical, scientific, high EV and all other images are given the correct context when voting and do not get marginalized by comparatively easily repeatable, but highly technically perfect contemporary photography by Wikipedians. That outcome is best by far for FP, the reader and the entire community. Mfield (Oi!) 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's fair - perhaps a number of us have been expecting overly high standards of images of which the source is inherently not very high quality. But what would your opinion be of historical images that are fairly low res or full of other capture faults, not because the capture medium was poor such as with 19th century cameras/film, but simply because the source is low res or badly done. Would you support it because it's a good historical image of that subject, or would you oppose it because it doesn't do justice to what it could be if only we could find a better source? I think that's a key differentiator. Other than that, I agree with you. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't honestly see where the complaint has come from. It seems much harder to get a photograph through than a historical image with a bit of cloning here and there. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
(e/c I don't think Noodlesnacks meant to delete my comment) Agreed, the nominated image should always be of the highest quality available i.e. we shouldn't be promoting free use inferior or lower resolution images when a copyrighted higher resolution version exists or all reasonable efforts have not been made to find the highest quality version. This is after all about featuring the best free content available. But if the image is the only and best example of its type and portrays content that is irreplaceable then it should be given significant amounts of leeway in the technical vs EV weighting. Mfield (Oi!) 08:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of factors have caused a serious gap at FPC and related processes. There's a section from an article I've been raising to GA that gets part of it by analogy:
The incident that inspired Berlin to write "Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning" was an occasion when a colonel wanted a group of buglers to play George M. Cohan's "Over There". The buglers were unable to comply because it exceeded the range of their instruments, so the oblivious officer ordered them to practice Cohan's song.
Or to put this in different terms, suppose someone who had never touched a camera had learned the term 'depth of field' but not the optics that govern it, and demands that you produce a shallow depth of field under direct sunlight at noon. This person had seen you get a shallow depth of field from a shaded spot at late afternoon, and has no interest in learning why you can't do it whenever they want.
Part of the problem are mistaken assumptions about digital restoration, both in terms of the technical parameters and in terms of the availability of material. About 1 in 1000 archival images is potentially featurable and a 10MB source file in uncompressed format is normally the minimum starting point for serious work. In the course of reviewing several million images one does find caches of suitable material. By returning to these caches and cycling through them it is possible to become a prolific FPC nominator, but in many topics the caches of suitable material are not large. FPC reviewers have been burning through rare material in the mistaken belief that more will be forthcoming. More could be forthcoming if we feature the best we actually have, because then other archives that contain material on similar subjects might be persuaded to release their collections. That requires slow negotiations by a global network of volunteers, and the difficulty and delicacy of that effort is almost wholly unknown to the majority of reviewers at this process. FP has substantial value to these negotiations, but VP has none. It has been a source of considerable frustration to see the photographers at this process paint the future of our restoration efforts into a corner, under wholly misguided notions of quality control, while they consistently ignore the input of the people who actually do restoration work. In recent weeks I allowed the depth of that frustration to show itself, but that trend simply cannot go any further or restoration itself will dead-end. DurovaCharge! 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
In the posts so far I hear a lot about photos and photographers. The issue is not Featured Photos but Featured Pictures. As the technical criteria are based on what can be done with modern digital cameras, these same criteria should not be applicable to other material. People can then not complain about falling standards because the standards can be applied as rigorously as you like on contemporary photos.
This would allow for reasonable criteria for other material. Given that Commons is mostly about pretty pictures, it makes sense for the English Wikipedia to concentrate more on useful material. This would off set the perceived difference in quality because the value of a picture as an illustration is what we are looking for here on Wikipedia. This is what we seek and this is what we should showcase in our featured pictures. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but you go on and on about always needing a high quality, uncompressed image, while the example you use mainly to call for the death of VPC is one that passed in 2007 (after not passing in 2006), but you won't touch it because, "Nominator overestimates the feasibility of restoration," and, "[it] presents quite a challenge to restore." It's a small image (3900px in longest direction) and obviously needs work to remove "a handful of scratches". Trust me, it wasn't a handful; it was about two hours of cloning. I have presented a possible replacement, which removes most of the dust, scratches, etc, and I mainly did it to combat the holier-than-thou comments you keep making such as, "The problem is unrealistic expectations by people who never work with historic images." Really wasn't that difficult—just time consuming—and I think I did a reasonable job, especially considering I'm only on day two of my photoshop class. So I honestly don't really know where you coming from. But my point is, you won't touch a potential nom unless you can get a 70mb tiff, but for the 6mb FP that passed over a year ago, you demand it stays, but ignore its low quality (and again, I don't mean technicals; I mean the easily-removed effects of age and human handling!), and when responding to expectations of higher quality, you keep saying something along the lines of, "You don't know what you're talking about." Double standards? wadester16 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Those quotes are taken out of order and out context, with factual errors added, and the ascribed motivations are false. If you wish to discuss your novice restoration effort, please open a separate thread to do so--preferably on the nomination's talk page or at user talk. DurovaCharge! 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the order matters, but the context is exactly as I noted: you voted keep on an FP that has easily-fixable issues, and said what I quoted above as reasons for not touching it. I'd like you to identify the factual errors (save for the 70mb comment, which was obviously hyperbole to make a point); you always seem to lack evidence with your claims, save for a diff or two that proves somebody said something. God knows how many edit summaries I've written in response to you that consisted of "evidence plz". Would you care to ignore the rest of the point as well—as usual? wadester16 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated above, I would gladly discuss your novice restoration effort at a more appropriate venue. This thread has more to do with the tensions and miscommunications that built up over months, and the points raised above at 14:48 were limited not by how much there was to say, as by how much it was feasible to express in one post. It would be very productive to see what people think about that, and proceed from there. If you are willing to suspend your suspicions, I can readily say that I regret some of the things I expressed at the end of last month. Some of the people here have reached wit's end as our input has been consistently disregarded on the points where our input has the most experience and relevance, and although our opinions differ slightly we share the view that this process has drifted dangerously far from its appropriate mission and from Wikipedia's best interests. DurovaCharge! 18:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
We don't really agree on that last part though. Tweaks are definitely needed, but I wouldn't say we have drifted dangerously. All the things that will end up changing will be changing in a minor way: 7 days→10 days; not fixed→fixed; 4 supports→5 supports, etc. These are all very minor changes, really. What I believe is at issue is the untimely MFD that should be suspended until FPC is fixed. This thread is not as much about miscommunications as it is about your concerns regarding "mistaken assumptions about digital restoration" (14:48). And that's totally fine and I respect that opinion; but when the delist nom you're basing most of your case on receives an edit that cleans up the scratches and dust (all effects of age and handing, whose removal don't affect the aura of the image—most of which made the case), I think the MFD loses some ground. You have every right to list VPC for deletion, but it's my belief that discretion would have indicated to wait a bit for the right—and fair—timing. I understand that you truly feel that VPC is a negative, but that's not much more than a hunch, really. Deleting it now will not prove either way because there are too many variables ongoing at the moment: the FPC restructuring, mainly. If we delete it, nobody will ever be able to definitively say, "Hey, you know what? That was the right/wrong thing to do," because there will be nothing to compare it to. We need to go step by step, and the current step is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process. wadester16 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, FPC has drifted dangerously. Consensus has been shifting toward pure esthetics away from encyclopedic importance and technical limitations. These images illustrate articles; that's why they're here. Nearly everyone at MfD other than a portion of FPC regulars has been affirming that FP/VP priorities have gone off course. It may be worth bearing in mind that Shoemaker's Holiday and I are probably the two FP regulars who do the most non-image content building, and we're the least happy. DurovaCharge! 21:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the possible solutions are not going to fix anything that may have "drifted dangerously". Like I said, they are all minor tweaks. Add them up and the overall "restructuring" will be minor. wadester16 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the changes to the process need greater emphasis on EV. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The thing is, as far as I can see, there already is a strong emphasis on EV, along with a strong emphasis on image technicals and aesthetics. What you, and others, are not saying (but seem to be implying) is that something with strong EV can be forgiven for having crap technical quality, and I guess that may be a sticking point. If I'm wrong about my inference, could you tell me why exactly there needs to be a greater emphasis on EV than already exists? As I said, I think it's already high, so I'm wondering about the reasoning behind that. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We already have a huge emphasis on EV. In my short time at FPC, I've seen tons of high-EV but not high-quality images get promoted. And lots of images have failed because they lacked EV even when the technicals were high. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Heck no. Changing that critique is just going to bomb FPC. Just to save historic material, we are going to make exceptions for quality??? Just imagine the flooding of FPCs (historic or none historic) it would make. That's why VPC was made. IMO, the criteria for Low quality/high EV should be reduced. ZooFari 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It is only natural that we have a strong emphasis on encyclopedic value, we are an encyclopedia. That is how it should be. If we were a gallery then we would put image quality first. Chillum 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, put VP on the main page. Same thing as putting a high EV image in FP, so you might as well separate quality images and EV images using both projects. ZooFari 16:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, why bother separating images out into "Valued Pictures" at all? If they would both run on the main page, then would FPC not just become a gallery of images of great technical quality, while VPC would become a repository of images with high encyclopedic value? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the thing that should matter the most is the latter. Why should we put VP on the main page anyway, if wadester16 has described it at VP's MfD as a JV team compared to FPC's Varsity team. NW(Talk)(How am I doing?) 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, you guys don't seem to understand. FPC is not an image gallery and nobody puts quality ahead of EV. Just take a look at the page now and see for yourself. The images that are being opposed because of quality concerns have TERRIBLE quality. Even with all the exceptions they do not meet the criteria. --Muhammad(talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
*Sigh* Not trying to persuade inclusion of VP at the main page. If it is all about EV that's wanted, than dump all the quality images and send them to Commons, because you have yet to say it is a gallery. Don't forget the quality images serves great illustrations to articles, so I don't know how you argue EV with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". ZooFari 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding shallow depth of field, at noon, in the sun. Its called a neutral density filter. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In my short time at FPC, [...] And lots of images have failed because they lacked EV even when the technicals were high.. As it should be. But I disagree with the part of your statement I've seen tons of high-EV but not high-quality images get promoted. But in my two years of voting at FPC I've seen image quality standards drift upwards. They're now at the stage where things have to be very tight technically to pass. Exceptions are rare, largely thanks to the high quality of restoration by key FPC editors. I have no problem with this and am happy that the FPC process demands this quality.
The problem comes when these standards are applied to historic images which cannot be altered without losing either EV or integrity of the original image. And I think that's started to creep in, and it's disturbing me. Minor flaws are seeing amazing historic or scientific images sent to the dustbin. So when I say that I want more emphasis on EV, I mean that I want it explicit that Encyclopedic Value trumps image quality. I think Durova's comments below echo this sentiment to some extent. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. EV already is in the FPC standards, but an increasing number of FPC regulars have been disregarding the former priorities. DurovaCharge! 04:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why this process is ailing: parsing one example
Picking up on the 'crap technical quality' comment in the thread above,[26] a problem in recent months has been myopic understanding of technical quality. One of the best examples to diagnose the ailment is the Titan delisting nomination.
The image is dated 2004, but of course the camera wasn't made in 2004 because the spacecraft was launched in 1997. The exact mass of all the equipment had to be known and tested years before launch in order to plot its course, which included two gravity assist flybys at Venus and Jupiter. So the camera was built with early 1990s technology. It had to perform at temperatures a few degrees above absolute zero in near-total darkness because at Saturn's orbit the sun doesn't provide much more energy than a bright star.
Titan has been visited by spacecraft only three times in human history. The first was Pioneer 11 in 1973, which returned this image. Then the Voyager missions in 1980-1981 shot this. And in order to even do that well with the technology that existed at the time, NASA scheduled Voyager I's final encounter as a close Titan flyby.
The technical challenges that arise after launch add additional layers of difficulty to these missions. Voyager I was nearly destroyed in the rings of Saturn before its Titan encounter because the best technology available when the mission was planned had been unable to detect any matter in the dark zones of its ring system. After the Jupiter encounter the craft sent back images of literally hundreds of rings in the zone of its planned course: a grain of sand would have operated like a bullet on the craft at the speeds it was traveling. Emergency course modifications were extremely difficult to execute, but the mission was saved. Without that rescue, much of the data never would have been obtained that went into planning the Cassini mission.
This is all cutting edge science and sometimes the technical team has to work around hardware failures. One famous save occurred here:
Since Galileo's high-gain antenna failed to open in 1991 the mission was forced to use the low-gain antenna for all communication to Earth. This meant that data storage to Galileo's tape recorder for later compression and playback was absolutely crucial in order to obtain any substantial information from the planned Jupiter and moon flybys. In October 1995, Galileo's 114 megabyte (914,489,344 bits[40]), four-track digital tape recorder which was manufactured by Odetics Corporation, remained stuck in rewind mode for 15 hours before engineers learned what happened and sent commands to shut it off, after recording an image of Jupiter. Though the recorder itself was still in working order the malfunction possibly damaged a length of tape at the end of the reel. This section of tape was subsequently declared "off limits" to any future data recording and was covered with 25 more turns of tape to secure the section and reduce any further stresses, which could tear it.
The software needed extensive rewrites after the antenna failure, then a second round of even more drastic rewrites after the tape recorder failure. And all of the relevant imaging had to be rescheduled and replanned because the data was moving much more slowly, but the craft was still flying at orbital speed.
It simply isn't rational to review the Titan image by the same standards one would apply to a home tripod photo of earth's moon. Of course the Titan mosaic isn't stitched: it was shot for scientific purposes, not for an art gallery. Of course it's contrasty: Titan is the only astronomical body in the solar system other than earth that has liquid at its surface--they were looking for specular reflections.
As stated before, I do have a conflict of interest regarding the Titan image and will disclose fully to anyone who emails a request. So far, no one from the featured pictures program has inquired. Most of the statements in this post are readily verifiable; a few aren't. A barnstar to the first person who detects which information wasn't published officially. Several of the regulars at featured picture candidates need to spend more time reading the articles these images illustrate.
And yet 'crap technical quality' is a comment that gets taken seriously. And the delisting nominator himself hasn't been called to task for saying FPC is not an image gallery and nobody puts quality ahead of EV. Just take a look at the page now and see for yourself. The images that are being opposed because of quality concerns have TERRIBLE quality.(original poster's emphasis)[27] That is an expression of misplaced priorities, superficial understanding, and distorted perspective. Knowledge of digital photography is not a substitute for research. The technical quality of this image is a feat of international science and engineering, and those who deny that reveal their own ignorance. It will likely be a quarter century before better images can be taken of this astronomical object. Those are the realities of science, and this website is an encyclopedia. Cross posting to my blog. DurovaCharge! 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate all of what you're saying, and yes, having any detailed imagery of Titan at all is a great scientific achievement, but it seems to be based on the premise that every historic or important subject must have or deserves to have a FP associated with it. I don't see the problem with accepting that some subjects will not, and probably cannot for the near future have a FP due to inherent limitations of capture or a flawed source. I'm not biased towards historic content or anything silly like that, I'm just being realistic. There are many great architectural scenes that I've had great trouble getting FP quality photos of - for example, because of the fact that you can't take the photo from more than about 10 metres away from them (typical in London streets) and the perspective distortion is too great for the image to look remotely presentable. I've accepted that these subjects are not illustratable to FP standard, so why should certain historic images be any different? Why adjust FP standards to suit difficult subjects when we should really just accept that some subjects are inherently more difficult to illustrate to the the required FP standards than others? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Durova, I agree with all of that, right down to your penultimate paragraph. You're right about the importance of some images requiring research to fully appreciate. In such cases, the weight of that importance needs to be explicitly spelled out in the FPC nom, otherwise it will be judged with reference to technical criteria more suited to (in this case) other NASA monochrome and false-colour images. Maybe that needs pointing out in the criteria somehow. The thing is, most reviewers, I'd venture, already go that far in making quality allowances, per the criteria for unique and historical images. If/when you nominate an exceptionally valuable image, that probably should be made clear in the nom. In the case of the Titan one, it was passed for FP without that. Crucially in this case, making that case in the nomination is invaluable when reviewers consider images for delisting, ie that the promotion was based on exceptional criteria. Nonetheless when it came up for delisting it was kept, thanks to precisely that level of clarification. I don't see how your example describes anything but a process working the way it should, despite inadequate nomination reasoning. No, where this process is declining is in the level of civility between contributors, second-guessing the intentions, abilities and even intelligence of others that often come to the project from very different perspectives. This diversity is what gives the process breadth and depth and is certainly not a failing. I would appeal to you to strike out your comments regarding the "ignorance", priorities, understanding and perspective of of other contributors. If this process is ill, the cure lies in restoring respect, civility and sense of community among its contributors. The process will then heal itself, I think. --mikaultalk 23:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Mikaul here: the Titan delist nom is a good example of how the whole process should work. We see here the different opinions on the picture, and we see a consensus emerging. We all have different priorities, we all interpret the FPC differently, and we all view each picture from a unique perspective. It's only together that we're able to achieve the consensus that makes this project work. I implore everyone to listen Mikaul and restore the "respect, civility and sense of community." Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Right: the FPC on Titan passed on 5 supports and 1 oppose. Why this sea change in opinions from the FPC regulars? It's baffling, and the reasons articulated by those who would delist it appear to be the most narrow type of photographic analysis. I'm all for delisting low quality FPs. This, for example, is far below minimum specs. Or this. We can get higher quality photos of World War I damage. But the nomination of Titan--where nothing comparable could possibly exist for decades to come--looks like a frontal assault on the notion of encyclopedic value. Either that, or ignorance. DurovaCharge! 00:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't anyone allowed to have an opinion that differs from yours? Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
What a nasty question. Entirely unwarranted. Please answer seriously or else withdraw. DurovaCharge! 05:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's nasty at all. And I think it is warranted given this ongoing drama. If your response was isolated, perhaps Makeemlighter would be assuming bad faith, but I have noticed a developing trend here recently and it wouldn't surprise me if people are starting to lose faith. You've launched an assault on FPC from all sides and don't seem to accept anyone else's opinion that differs from your own - we can't possibly have a valid point of view, we must be ignorant! And I appreciate that as a result of this, you've attracted quite a lot of discussion and may be struggling to keep up with it, but I noticed that you failed to respond to my comments above. I've certainly felt in the past that when someone actually responds with a valid or challenging point, you ignore it or dismiss it as being lacking in seriousness. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The question was why a nomination that was promoted on a 5-1 candidacy is considered technically subpar by many of this process's regulars less than a year later. It's a reasonable question, and if you dislike drama then the best course is to either answer in an encyclopedic vein or cease replying. DurovaCharge! 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's my answer. FP standards have changed in the course of a year. In fact, if you ran a straw poll with 6 other people a week after that original, you'd likely get a different result than 5-1. That's the nature of the beast. But who is to say that the original 5 supporters were correct while the recent opposers are incorrect? You can't bring up old results to justify your argument. So now that I've answered your question as best I can, how about you answer mine? It's a reasonable question, as was yours: Why adjust FP standards to suit difficult subjects when we should really just accept that some subjects are inherently more difficult to illustrate to the the required FP standards than others?. Or paraphrased more simply: Why does every image with great EV deserve to be a FP? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I honestly think that any important object can be Featured Picture and that photographic snobbery is going against the principles here. Featured should be based on educational and encyclopedic purposes. Large size? No. Ultra quality? No. Fancy description? No. The people who say the contrary honestly make me sick. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Then we might as well feature every single picture on wikipedia. The whole idea is to feature the best of the best. Besides, the size and quality are part of what gives a picture its EV. Small, low-quality historic pictures are just as valuable as small, low-quality non-historic pictures: not very valuable at all! Makeemlighter (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
No, and saying the above shows that you didn't read what I stated. If you are going to respond, at least have the courtesy to read what is said. Feature pictures should be based on their artistic merits, not technical merits. You can have a technically amazing picture that is utterly worthless and of crap. The standards that you seem to agree with are the equivalent of an encyclopedic page that is a bunch of well written nonsense that doesn't have a topic nor a point. To uphold such a thing is not what Wikipedia is about, and I really feel that such people don't belong here. The only thing that matters are historically important pictures. This is not your photo gallery. This is a damn encyclopedia. Your statement above seems 100% trollish and I have seen people banned for such before. If that were to happen, I can only say that Wikipedia will be 100% all the better for it. We need people who care about an encyclopedia, not their own peacockery and diminishing actual encyclopedic content. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec, to Makeemlighter) That hyperbolic response can hardly be taken seriously. A year ago there were stable standards for such measures: how high was the encyclopedic value? How replaceable was the image? Occasionally, through great effort and bits of luck, a few of the contributors to this process have been able to contribute material of superlative encyclopedic value that also had esthetic virtue far beyond what was previously thought possible. Those are exceptional instances, and editors who do not work with such material have taken those instances for granted. By overreaching, you risk closing the doors that could actually open. Have you read the posts about our negotiations with museums and archives? The proper course is to feature the best content we actually have, because that can become a stepping stone to better material. DurovaCharge! 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I did read what you said, and I disagreed with it. Historically important pictures are great, but if the quality of these pictures is low, they aren't so hot. What good is a small, blurry picture of a famous historical event? Not very useful, I think. I simply claim, as do others (see Noodle snacks below), that quality is inherently tied up with EV. When I reject a picture as being of poor quality, it's not because I only want fantastically high-quality pictures; rather, it's because the quality detracts from the picture's usefulness in the encyclopedia. You don't see any artifacted, motion-blurred, perspective distorted, etc. pictures in Britannica, do you? Makeemlighter (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
We do have small and blurry historical photos that probably ought to be delisted. In an earlier post to this thread I linked two examples, one of which I nominated for delisting a year ago (but it was kept). A third is File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg. Someone tried to restore that while it was up for delisting, and the underlying quality of the source file was really too decayed to get good results from. We could get better shots of the Chancellorsville battlefield and better images of Confederate dead, but possibly not of Confederate casualties from this particular battle. The reviewers seemed intent on rescuing this particular image. Was baffled by that urge to keep really low quality historic images that are relatively replaceable. Titan and Nagasaki are much better files with unique value. Why were they nominated for delisting instead of something like this? DurovaCharge! 23:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If wikipedia is to be of professional quality, then the images have to be too. The titan moon is of professional quality. I'm about to make Ottava Rima sick I suppose. The fact is that image quality does have a direct impact on encyclopaedic value. Compare this with the original. Both images would be sufficient to identify the bird, however the high quality image tells you much more. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
NO, NO, NO. We are not professional photographers. We are AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. If you dare say such a thing as the above, I will start an RfC demanding a ban from this process, as you are making it clear that you are not here to create an encyclopedia with encyclopedia content, but are instead treating this like myspace or your own personal website. Such behavior is 100% unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this response. I'm certain that Noodle snacks understands that this is an encyclopedia. He asserts, as I did above, that image quality and encyclopedic value are directly related. Thus, in promoting the highest EV pictures, we'd also be promoting high-quality ones. We make allowances for lower quality pictures, but only when the quality doesnt detract from the EV. Take a look at some of Noodle snacks pictures. Most of them are of the highest-possible technical quality. But he's seen quite a few nominations fail because of pictures lacking EV. That sure doesn't sound like we're making a photo gallery. It sounds like we're working to better the encyclopedia. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Ottava Rima will probably have to start RfC's for a lot of people here, as many of us agree that technical quality is usually a must (not only for photographs). For someone who is not a regular here, and probably not acquainted with the guidelines and culture of FPC, those are strong words and opinions!... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yep, sign me up for a RfC too, Ottava. Your comments come across as a bit over the top, missing the point completely. Nobody is trying to turn FPs into a personal gallery or myspace - it isn't even about any one person's images, it's simply a project that maintains a collection of images that meet certain standards. Standards that have been discussed and agreed upon. If you disagree with them, then you need to raise that issue separately. Until the community agrees with you, stop pushing your own (IMO misguided) ideas onto us - this is about collaboration, not inquisition. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 22:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Over the top? All of you above should be ashamed of yourselves. Do you even know why FP was started? It isn't about "professionalism" at all. Mostly, the people responding about "quality" are running amok, bullying actual people who produce actual encyclopedic quality images, and make this whole thing a farce. If you were all banned then maybe we can get back to some common sense and continue actually building an encyclopedia instead of this bs. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Well jeez, if we all left, there'd be no FPC left. While historical images are essential to the FP project, you can't deny that the encyclopedia has benefited greatly from images like this, this, or this — and if you do, it's probably a good thing you don't take part here. wadester16 06:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. Professionalism is not a dirty word - it is something that everyone should strive for on Wikipedia. Or would you prefer that we create something decidedly amateur? In any case, it's a fallacy to suggest that proffesionalism and encyclopaedic value are mutually exclusive. They're both two important but very separate ingredients in a quality image IMO. Look, if you feel so strongly about all this, then please do raise it as an issue at the appropriate forum. Or better yet, actually participate in FPC instead of just making grandiose claims about how misguided we all are! Actions speak louder than words... Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course the ability to obtain a better replacement has always been a factor, and should be. The scarlet robin is a common bird. Suppose we obtained a good but imperfect photo of a lazarus species: Bavarian pine vole or Night Parrot? DurovaCharge! 05:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
The probability of finding a Night Parrot is very low, so the probability of one appearing under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA is infinitesimal in my view. So, if someone did nominate a Night Parrot, I'd be ensuring it wasn't a Ground Parrot first (which look very similar and are easy enough to find in Tasmania for example). . Assuming it was, then it'd be a pass. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Ec'd; you answered the question while it was being written. We're in agreement then. :) DurovaCharge! 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, Maedin has kindly summarised the hundreds of pages of discussion on the 'Review of Closure Process' down to a dozen or so 'pick your preferred procedure' sections. ;-) We really need everyone's opinions and participation to make sure that whatever we decide on has the backing of the whole community, and not just a couple of interested parties. Please visit the page linked above on the section summary and let us know what you think. You don't have to respond to every single section if you don't want to - just the ones that you have an opinion on is better than nothing at all.
We're getting closer to determining a better process for FPC closures but if we don't get this sorted out soon, it's in danger of becoming 'too much work' and nothing will change - and that includes disillusionment and a mass exodus from the project! ;-) Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I had previously added a comment about "choosing only one" in one of the sections—the voting period section. Ignore that bit ;-) I've removed it now, as I think it's more appropriate that people add their name in the few options that suit them best. Sorry, it was a mistake! I was sleepy and not sure how best to format it all. Thanks, Maedin\talk 16:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Less time arguing, more time doing things properly
As I look now two (1 and 2) of the three most recent FP promotions don't appear in the archives.
And have just fixed a bunch more mistakes at FP Thumbs, you would think the place least likely to attract errors. Not to mention Page 17 was up to 157 thumbs and should be rolled over at 100. Who's checking any more?
Who would know what other mistakes are piled up elsewhere? I only check occasionally, and only in some places.
And no one better try blaming just one closer for it or get on here to continue their ranting, because firstly it's not just one person and secondly I reckon most of us have had enough of it. --jjron (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the two not in the archive, which is really weird b/c I specifically remember placing them in there... wadester16 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
About the 157 thumbs. I recently closed 2 noms for the first time. So I was really careful to follow instructions step by step. The step on the thumbs page simply says : "Add the image to Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs - newest on top." There is no mention that the thumbs page should be limited to 100 pics. Moreover there isn't any mention of this limit on the thumbs page. So i didn't whether or not there was a limit, what was that limit, who/what (bot) was supposed to took care of moving things once the limit was reached, nor how the moving process should be done. So i think people who knows about this process should add all of theses informations on the relevant pages. Otherwise there is no way to know how to keep things tidy. Ksempac (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Admittedly the 100 thumbs is a bit of a rule of thumb (total FPs/no of thumbs pages), though they are in line for another reshuffle when someone gets time - those delists throw the earlier pages out of whack, with some of the earlier pages perhaps down to 80 odd images. Having said which, 157 is getting a bit over the top! And the main point was take care that everything gets done properly. --jjron (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Sexual content, nudity, pornography, etc...
I noticed we once again have another candidate that involves nudity[28]. Since Wikipedia is open to a huge amounts of schools 18-, I strongly disagree with having them in the main page. If we keep having these types of photos, schools will start shutting us off. We have to have this in consideration now, before we start receiving pics involving sexual activity. So what do you guys think? ZooFari 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree - however the school that I work at already blocks the nudity page already because of this photo. The whole main page will be blocked if this photo shows up on that page. Dinkytown 16:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Howcheng would probably not allow these types of images on the main page. --Muhammad(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say that it is OK to have these FACs, but just to not host them on the main page. TFA has a similar precedent; though Jenna Jameson is an FA, Raul654 has stated multiple times that he will not run it as the TFA. NW(Talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Yea, I have no problem with nude FPs. By all means, please feel free to nominate them. But I would request that the nomination be safe for work and family, please link to the image rather than hosting it in the nom (and if you don't, I will). I was under the assumption that there's an unwritten rule (if not just Howcheng's) that only "safe" images will make it to the Main Page. Maybe that should be written somewhere... wadester16 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
POTD operates by different standards from FPC. Two FPs that will never run on the main page are this and this. Just review as any other FPC, and leave the rest up to Howcheng. DurovaCharge! 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Nagasaki Bombing
Editors do not close requests which they were heavily involved in. This goes for all processes on wikipedia. Such actions bring projects like FPC in disrepute. I ask that editors cease the closing of FPC requests they have been involved in. Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I didn't know such a thing (I don't close often like many others do), but I wasn't going to leave the nominations there for an eternity. I'm closing the ones I didn't get involved in, so I hope other closers get to them soon (many are heading to a month here). ZooFari 01:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, the more proper thing to do would be to ask on this page, or even WP:AN, WT:FAC, or WT:FLC for an uninvolved administrator to come around and close it. If a closing script was released to allow many more people to use it, I am sure that there would not be a shortage of people willing to help out. NW(Talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Closers do not have to be admins, though, but yeah. ZooFari 01:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You are correct, they do not have to be admins, but they should be uninvolved. This is something that needs to occur accross the board. If other users are doing this more often than yourself as you say, then there are serious issues here. Seddσntalk|WikimediaUK 01:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
My apologizes, that was indeed a mistake with "administrator" instead of "uninvolved experienced editor". But yes, Seddon is right here; any closer must be completely impartial and should not have either a conflict of interest with either the image (as declared by a !vote) or with the original nominator. NW(Talk) 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
You've misinterpreted Zoofari's comment. He meant that he rarely closes and that other users do closing more often than him, not that other users that have voted or participated in a nom do the closing - that in fact very rarely happens, and if it does users are reminded they shouldn't do so. --jjron (talk) 07:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Seddon--that has something to do with why two of the most prolific contributors are boycotting this process. Things have been happening at FPC that would be out of the question elsewhere. Would like to get matters straightened out and return. It's concerning to see this is still an issue: perhaps some of the contributors here could branch out and gain broader experience in Wikipedian site standards? DurovaCharge! 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Putting on my consensus hat, I'd say (but don't want to enact, because I am involved):
Voting period: two days of inactivity, no less than seven days
Validity of votes: Discount anons, sockpuppets, nonsense, no longer relevant and poorly grounded
Quorum: 4 excluding nominator
Supermajority: 67%+ as a guide
We also need to talk about how to implement the results of the survey. I've proposed something that (hopefully) is a compromise on the points made and also solves some other problems, though you are welcome to suggest something else. MER-C 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't Agree I'd say Maedin is the most likely candidate for a "director" as a fairly neutral third party with closing experience at commons. Ditch the "as a guide", whether existent or not, people are concerned about closer bias. There isn't any argument to be had with a hard rule. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Maedin seems viable, or perhaps Seddon. But choosing a director is too early. First we need to determine either a term of office or a replacement mechanism. No need to establish a monarchy. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree that above interpretation seems to be the balance. No comment yet on MER-C's suggested implementation. As I read the proposal the logical person to be director would be MER-C, though there could (should?) be more than one director (if we had one at all) - perhaps there should be at least two directors with overlapping terms of office? --jjron (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't agree - As summarized by Spencer in the discussion page, for some of these issues no clear consensus was achieved; for others, the consensus is not well interpreted. First case: voting period (undecided), validity of votes (what is a poorly grounded vote?); second case: minimum number of votes (consensus is 5, not 4), supermajority (67% + as a guide?? - that is only MER-C's opinion) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that some of the votes don't have a straight-forward consensus. However, I think you are a bit too harsh about MER-C proposition. First : That's not "+ as a guide". That's "67%+". And the vote on the Supermajority specified "As a rule of thumb" (so you could say "as a guide") because we knew some votes would get discarded (since there was a vote about this). Second, on the voting period, this vote had many options and many votes were cast but it does seem that the "7 days + 48h of inactivity" got the most 1st choice (5) OR 2nd choice (3) votes. If i count well, "Flexible and fixed 10 days" got 4 1st choice votes (and maybe a 2nd choice vote by Makeemlighter (unclear)), Fixed 7 days got 2 1st choice votes. Ksempac (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Nowhere in the voting section's title is written "67%+" or "as a rule of thumb", this last expression appearing only in MER C's comment. This doesn't seem inocuous or innocent though, as "67%+" may be interpreted as any value greater than 67%, depending on the closer's descrition. As for the voting period, the expression "no less than 7 days" (which doesn't appear in the voting section) isn't innocent either as it also allows for the discretion of the closer. Anyway, no consensus was reached on this issue and the reading of the comments suggests that people weren't even sure of the content of the proposals. As for discounting "poorly grounded" votes, the discussion didn't produce a clear consensus and no definition was proposed for "poorly grounded". I'm not being harsh, just fair. Once again, an attempt is being made to make the guidelines fuzzy or, in other words, to keep the status quo. If this is the interpretation of MER C on the results of the discussion, then it is clear that he is part of the problem, not of the solution, and I will oppose he continues to be the closer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC
About the 67%+, X+ is a classic notation which means "any value equal or greater than X". As for the "rule of thumb/as a guide" thing, let me quote you the header we voted on (emphasis mine) : "Defining a supermajority :It isn't really appropriate to mix fractions with percentages, but it's been used here so I'll stick with it. Please remember that defining a supermajority is only a rule of thumb—it does not turn it into vote counting. It's a measuring stick, particularly helpful as a guide for new closers." Do you need anything else or can we stop arguing about vocabulary/petty details and start talking about real issues ? I agree that "poorly grounded" is hard to define and may be an issue, but since we will be able to see and contest closed nom we will be able to notice if a vote as been discarded too fast. Ksempac (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the expressions in the header, but that is just the opinion of the user who started the poll and is not reflected in the sub-sections below. Anyway it wouldn't make any sense to make a poll to choose between 2/3 and 67% if this were only helpful as a guide and the final decision on the number were left to the closer. Sorry about the 67%+ misinterpretation but the notation is ambiguous, as it may apply either to the definition of supermajority (at least 67%, at the closer's discretion: my interpretation) or to its application (at least 67% of support votes). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree Don't see an issue with voting periods, vote validity, supermajority, etc not being cast in stone. Hard fast rules will never be fully adhered to and thereby cause conflict: as long as there is a reasonably well-defined benchmark (and only slight variance from it) there should be no complaints. Where a nom closes very close to one of those benchmarks and it materially affects the result, there is (under the new "discussion time") ample opportunity for consensus on a case-by-case basis. --mikaultalk 09:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Not being cast in stone? And what the hell have we being doing for about a month but discussing the sensitive issues and trying to reach a consensus on them? With what legitimacy an ad hoc wild interpretation of that discussion is being forced upon us? As I see it, in all four points MER C is trying to pass his own views. No way! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not much you can do when the majority agrees with you... MER-C 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Alvesgaspar. It seems like if we avoid hard and fast rules, then very little has changed. You say they cause conflict but I think that history has shown that the lack of hard and fast rules has caused conflict. Agreed that the discussion period will help, but it seems like it's probably the only material change that's come of this debate, other than an appointed director. I've never really understood the role of the director though. Is it another name for the closer, or am I confused? Can someone summarise what the director is supposed to do, and whether there would still be separate closers? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs) 10:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how I feel about the director, if we're going to nominate people (two names have already been tossed around openly), then expect them to do all the work that mainly two people do now. I do it because I choose to. Others don't do it because they chose not to. Now we're going to nominate someone to do all the work that two people do now, both of which don't typically do it. I'm not saying I oppose either person, I'm saying that we're essentially forcing work on them that they apparently don't want to do—otherwise they'd be doing it! wadester16 14:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No consensus has been reached on the appointment of a director, not even a discussion was started on that. I really don't see the need for it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Re Wadester - did you not read my comment where I tossed around a third name along with a further suggestion? --jjron (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Admittedly, I did not. Provide me a link? One too many drinks to put the time in and search. Sorry. Here's one for you, John. Enjoy! wadester16 04:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I won't provide a link, but will merely say to look at my only other comment in this discussion. P.S. Thanks for the beer, but reckon I coulda gone one of these... :-) --jjron (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Ahh, yes, a quick find. But now you can make yourself two black & tans! wadester16 16:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
If we had too strict rules, we'd get wikilawyering (= drama), so we need a little fuzziness to account for the fact people aren't paying attention 100% of the time and other similar real world problems. MER-C 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Final call on the straw poll results. I'll formally propose the new provisional closures system (with the director(s) and such) on this page afterward. MER-C 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with all proposed guidelines above. Kaldari (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I felt was consensus, I just created a "Recently closed nominations" section. I don't feel there's any need to wait to create this, so I went WP:BOLD and made it. Two days in the section, removed at the the next available moment by a closer (or anybody, for that matter, if the two days have passed). These noms have been added to the archives, and will continue to be. They are there currently to be easily reviewed by other FPC contributors. I felt there was no reason to wait to enact this, as it's not a big deal, easy to do, and adds greatly to transparency. If anyone has any complaints, by all means, revert my effort; it won't bother me. Just trying to help the cause. Based on these closures, if anyone has an issue with a closure, please bring it to the talk page of the closer. Thanks in advance! Comments welcome, as always. wadester16 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. BTW we're not meant to be 'endorsing' them are we? Just wondering about Zoofari's comment on one of them. --jjron (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked the lead in slightly. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Not as of yet. ZooFari asked me, and I cleared that up. wadester16 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I'd be tempted to add a small comment at the end of this one for example, just to add some agreement (a good call on a close call). It seems a bit daft to bring to a talk page. While there's no need to endorse closures, is there any need to prohibit them? --mikaultalk 12:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a wiki, after all; there's no harm in doing it. Maybe you can start a trend. I'd appreciate support if you agree with close-call closings. wadester16 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it a wrap?
Where do we stand with closure review? DurovaCharge! 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just about finished. I have closed three of the remaining four discussions as above - the only issue left is the supermajority. The next issue is whether we want provisional closures - I will make a formal proposal once it's finished (related to my comments in the review). Then we look at the criteria. MER-C 11:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to perform the change immediately - it will most likely come if and when my aforementioned proposal gets implemented (maybe a month), or on the completion of the criteria RFC (maybe two). MER-C 11:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, my own boycott is not an attempt to force any particular outcome. Am looking for any reasonable resolution, ideally one that refocuses energies upon our shared mission to identify and promote quality media. DurovaCharge! 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
IMO, the change to 5 supports should be made after the boycotts have ended. At least two users who enthusiastically reviewed my images have dropped out. -Muhammad(talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Would be better to implement consensus changes without timing that way. DurovaCharge! 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
First, we have ALL to accept the opinion of the majority in the various matters that have been discussed (by counting the votes, of course!). After, the guidelines at the begining of the FPC page will have to be re-written as to reflect the result of the discussion, and accepted by most. Only then can we move to the implementation phase. Trying to burn the necessary steps with wild proposals that do not respect the (possible) consensus will only make the process slower. Maedin, can you please finish the discussion you started, make an accurate summary of the results and propose a new text for the guidelines? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the en:wiki standard for determining consensus is not raw vote counting. The merit of the reasoning is a relevant factor. DurovaCharge! 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what I can do, but I won't be able to until Tuesday. Maedin\talk 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There are still a few points that aren't clear, and I think conclusions can't be drawn yet and probably need further input. Sometimes I wish we could have a giant Skype call and figure this out in double quick time, ;-) Maedin\talk 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, Maedin. Actually, that's totally possible if people are willing. The final decision making should be onsite, of course, but some of us do use Skype. Often a voice conversation helps people to find common ground. Anyone from this discussion who wants to try is welcome to email for my Skype ID. Durova273 featured contributions 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bump... any news on this? MER-C 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry MER-C and Alvesgaspar, I haven't been able to make any headway on this. I have sat and stared for a couple of hours and tried to put something together, but as well as the whole thing just being generally confusing, I'm afraid I'm lacking in the motivation. I never had a problem in the first place and I'd be quite happy to see all sorts of things put into place. I am sorry for letting you down. From what I can see, MER-C's proposal looks good apart from the suggestion of a closure director, as no one seems all that happy with it. Perhaps MER-C would be willing to tweak his proposal? Maedin\talk 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. There seemed to be general agreement with that proposal, save for a minor tweak or two. wadester16 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I clear all the prior drama off this page before I make the proposal? MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind. Maedin\talk 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue's disruption
Caspian blue is currently disrupting my first FPC. Not only has he caused a formatting change that completed destroyed the formatting of WP:FPC, he accused me of various impropriety that were blatantly untrue and now is making all sorts of claims about civility, no personal attacks, etc, which are completely unnecessary. This page is supposed to be about the images and only the images. Can someone please remove his blatant disruption and warn him about staying on topic? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That's something we don't want to hear and should stay between you two. We've had to handle many incivility the past few months and we certainly don't want another. Ottava, you can always come here and ask for suggestions before letting the complain expand. If you disagreed with the formatting, simply come here and request assistance for it. ZooFari 02:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
If it was to stay between me and him, then it would not happen on a process page. This is on the page, my talk page, and now WQA. This is an abuse of the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Given Ottava Rima's weird behavior and disruption, I thought the nomination is his first nomination (newbies sometimes are inclined to be sensitive at evaluations) and my hunch is right. I've had more than "one experience" in reviewing and nominating FP on here and Commons, and you've threaten me for the unintelligent reason. So I've raised the concern on your bad faith behavior and incivility to WQA. Please visit the page and let's have objective view on each. Thanks.-Caspian blue 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not initiate the thread with the outrageous accusation, but you did. Since my trials to peacefully resolve the issue on your talk page rather gave a chance for you to threat me further, the next DR is WQA according to the suggested guideline.--Caspian blue 03:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but we are not judges, so take it outside. Your POV is not even with us, so that's prove that this doesn't belong here. We're here to discuss about FPC, not your threads. The incivility is not relevant to FPC, but the formatting is something else. ZooFari 03:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Urgent POTD
See this. Can anybody make the necessary changes if any? I am afraid Howcheng may not see in time. --Muhammad(talk) 13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Done ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the two not in the archive, which is really weird b/c I specifically remember placing them in there... wadester16 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Cortinarius_archeri.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Quartz,_Tibet.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Danaid_Eggfly_Hypolimnas_misippus.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Austrolestes_annulosus.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Common_Pigeon_Portrait.jpg){kind=link}
