Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 22

This 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.

Hawaii bathymetry

Alright I'm confused. I nominated an image Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hawaii Bathymetry which received two supports, one oppose, and a lot of questions. Why was it was closed as not promoted? I don't deal too much with FP, so I'm unsure how things work around here. Should I renominate? I felt it should have been left up a little longer to garner more comments, as it didn't receive that many. Also, I'm a little confused as to why anybody can just come along and decide that the discussion is closed, shouldn't this be left up to admins? After scanning over this talk page I see I have stepped into the FP process at a tumultous time, so what should I do? I suppose I could renominate because there is no time limit for renominating. This whole process seems broken. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It was more than likely closed as no consensus. Feel free to nominate it again, addressing all the issues in the previous nomination, or ask specifically to the closer. Zoo Fari 02:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I closed it because its 7 days were up (actually, they were up when I moved it to the "Older nominations" section) and because there hadn't been a comment in 3.5 days (half the nom period). Sometimes lack of interest implies that a nom is not up to FP standards. If you really want, it can be reopened, but I doubt you'll get much more input. It requires at least 4 supports and 2/3 supermajority to pass. And just to point out, you needn't be an admin to close noms here (though I am one), you just need experience in determining consensus here (I've closed about 150 FPCs and VPCs). That said, please do keep nominating images. If you find it to difficult to pass images here, you can always try some images at VPC. And for future reference, canvassing is typically looked down upon. wadester 16 02:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually those were just two polite notices of candidacy to relevant wikiprojects, not solicitations for positive reviews. That's not necessarily canvassing. Durova^Charge! 02:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well that's always the impression I was always under: mass messaging of users that would not otherwise wander by FPC, that have a greater interest in the nom than the typical user, thereby skewing the numbers that would have normally come by to take part in discussion... is bad. But if that's not consensus, then so be it. Either way it doesn't really affect this closure. wadester 16 02:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Brief notification is standard procedure at some processes and wikiprojects. MILHIST keeps a central page for all its active featured content nominations. At any rate, since the concern wasn't serious enough to raise while the candidacy was open or during closure, it's better to let that rest. We wouldn't want a newcomer to walk away supposing their conduct was doubted in retaliation for asking a question. Durova^Charge! 03:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I suppose I'll mull it over and renominate at a later time. And yes I realize "canvassing" is frowned upon, but when a nomination is not garnering enough comments, I think notifying relevant wikiprojects is tolerated (we do it at FA all the time). And just to be fair, I would have notified those who do not have an interest in the subject (WikiProject Geology Haters?) but they generally don't exist unless it is a political topic. But thanks for the explanation Wade, at least now I know a little about how this works. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 10:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, no biggie. A little time reviewing noms will teach you a lot about the expectations here. wadester 16 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

FPCUrgents

Has something broken the bot for that? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Judy Garland Main Image Quality

Hi, as apparent photo experts, might you have a view that you would like to express in the discussion at [1] and [2] as to the quality of the Judy Garland main image? Feel free, if so, to leave your thoughts there, whatever they may be. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FPC Urgents again

Dustybot keeps on removing entries I add just a few hours later, before the om has closed. --Muhammad(talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently closed to be completed

Two recently closed noms without a closing decision: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Argiope sp.jpg and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Helvellyn Striding Edge 360 Panorama, Lake District - June 09.jpg. And this is why I maintain that having them out on the FPC page IS a good idea. --jjron (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Done now. --jjron (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

FPCs needing feedback

Can't be bothered to try and remember all the templates and such for the FPCs needing feedback box, so ya get 'em here. They aren't mine. Therefore, I get to be lazy. =P

[All closed now: Nothing to see.] Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All these close within two days. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and the bot that updates the template is broken anyway. MER-C 10:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Whiteness

I hope noone minds, but I've thrown a white background up for FPC: The standard blue tint misleads about colours. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alas, does not play nice with panoramas. Reverted for now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FPCs needing feedback - today's edition.

I'm just putting up ones nearly passing, but short of the quorum. The bot is, evidently, broken, so...

All of these could use some attention fairly post-haste. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, thumbnailing's a little borked at the moment; if they don't display, they probably will tomorrow - though, try to vote on them now, for obvious reasons =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Image server breakage

There's some problems with the image server, so occasionally images and thumbnails will disappear during peak periods. This isn't permanent, so don't worry about your images dropping off. Be patient when attempting to review borked images - it may take 10 minutes for the server to spit it out (that was my experience last night, not sure if relevant now). MER-C 03:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:ThacherParkPano.jpg

Seems to have been ratehr badly sidetracked; any votes? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Common Abbreviations

An exchange at FPC on a current nom got me to thinking. We seem to often get questions from newbies or irregulars over abbreviations we commonly use here.

Does anyone else think it may be worth adding a list of "FPC commonly used abbreviations" somewhere where we can just point these enquiries if they don't see them, perhaps at the bottom of the Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria or perhaps as another subpage? --jjron (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. When I became interested in FPC a few months ago, it took me far too long to work out what EV meant. It's one of those little things that contributes to FPC appearing a little bit unfriendly, like not being "in on" an inside joke. We could even go out of our way to notice new and well-meaning contributors here and point them to the list as a sort of welcome, before they have to ask or puzzle over the acronyms for too long, ;-) Maedin\^talk 08:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If I'm voting on a nomination by someone new I try and take care and avoid abbreviations. That doesn't help someone new watching other noms though. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that we should have a little list of abbreviations somewhere. I don't think we should (as they suggested) stop using acronyms completely, and I don't think it's necessary to link to the appropriate page every time we use them either but anything that makes FPC feel less like a gentleman's club is okay with me. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So sounds like a goer. I'll put something together to get it started in the next few days. Think I'll go the subpage route - doesn't really belong on the Criteria page itself, but would add a link from there, and also possibly from main FPC page. Thanks for feedback. Will put a link up here when I get something started. --jjron (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Books/FPC_terminology, abrv. --Fir0002 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that suggesting not to bother? --jjron (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that a short glossary of commonly used abbreviations or technical terms would be helpful. Perhaps it should be the last section of the FPC main page (under de-list candidates), with a heading that shows up in the "skip to" box at the top. Spikebrennan (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Added in two places. Though if you disagree with the placement or wording, feel free to edit. wadester 16 05:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture sets?

As the review of FPC gets close to wrapping up here's a question: have found a map of the Oregon Trail from 1846, published by order of Congress. Covers Missouri to the Pacific Ocean at a scale of 1 inch = 10 miles. It's in seven parts nearly 100MB each (uncompressed). Nominate separately or together? Durova^Charge! 16:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoo boy...I think a set would work. How is this going to appear in the article(s)? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Geographically. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that nominating sets dilutes the scrutiny each picture receives. What can we do to make sure all images are reviewed to FP standards? MER-C 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be willing to give each one a thorough lookthrough, being an individual or a set. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be willing to nominate either singly or as a group, depending on what people prefer. These require a lot of work and a few caveats: ev and execution are stunning, yet the scans were done roughly 15 years ago. Was pretty much at the working limit of mid-nineties technology. Roughly two days' intensive work per image to restore. Was thinking of putting up the first to see whether it meets approval, then doing the others if that gets the thumbs-up. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a set would work, but perhaps, as you said above, submit the first one for approval first. I'll still thoroughly check all of them. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Durova^Charge! 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Use of scales in images

Muhammad has been adding scales to many of his images, which are extremely useful (thank you!), but not good (IMO) for the FPs, especially if one wants to print the FP. Should there maybe be some policy on uses of scales within FPs? Yes, they add to EV, but they degrade from the beauty of the images. wadester 16 01:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they are useful too. I'd say keep them, but unfortunately the scale doesn't stick with the resolution of the image. Thus I agree, we should limit the bars for scales. Zoo Fari 01:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe specify that they always be sufficiently far enough to the sides of the image border that the image can be cropped so as to remove the scale without clipping the subject. On a side note, an alternative or even addition to scales might be to specify the dpi that the image should be printed at for the subject to appear life size. So measure the number of pixels that make up one inch on the scale or subject and specify either that DPI (or the actual dimensions the full image needs to be printed) in the image description. That way if say a teacher wanted to print a life size image of a spider/fruit/bird out they could do so without having to either work out the DPI themselves or figure out the print size by trial and error. Mfield (Oi!) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking of downsampling an alternative in which the scale will be implied, that way both a full resolution image and downsampled image w/scale are available. Zoo Fari 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me how the scaling is done? The only way that I can think of doing it halfway accurately would be to hold a ruler up the same distance from the lens as the subject then crop that portion out, but even then it would be very difficult to get it exactly right. Am I missing something? I think they are a valuable addition. It would be ideal to link to an image without the scale on the image description page so either option is available. Cacophony (talk) 04:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you note the focus distance of a particular shot you can calculate the size of something with some trig. Particularly, with a 400D and at 1:1 you know that 1 pixel on the plane of focus corresponds to 5.7µm or so. Unfortunately canon don't record the focus distance, but the data is there for E-TTL2. You can also get imprecise measurements from surrounding flowers etc. Personally I'd rather not add a scale for aesthetic reasons, and because in most cases there is guesswork is involved. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm 100% in favor of scales. They add great EV for macros shot (insects) or single-object shot (the mango picture). Whenever i stumble upon one of theses pictures on a subject i don't know much about, i can't figure out the size. We don't promote images for lack of EV and/or artistic deformation (HDR) so I think we should keep the same line for scale : They add EV, they stay. The way i see it, if someone print a picture from wikipedia he is not printing an artbook image, but an encyclopedia picture, therefore it is best to have the scale. However, i do agree that we need to be careful about how we add them. They can be more or less distracting depending on their color (visible but not flashy), size and position (bottom-left is best IMHO). Ksempac (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be all for adding the scale above or below the frame of the image so that it doesn't detract from the aesthetics of it and one could then crop it if they didn't want the scale. I don't think it's helpful to have two images - one with and one without the scale - as duplication of images can cause confusion down the track (especially when edits are performed on one version but not the other). Ultimately though, I'm not fussed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - if you want to put in a scale, make sure it can easily be cropped out. MER-C 13:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been adding them in positions from where they can either be cropped out, or cloned out even by an amateur. Apart from the studio shot where size is known, I only add scales to 1:1 macro shots where the scale is very accurate, obtained by comparing the image to a picture of a ruler at 1:1. --Muhammad(talk) 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Scales should only be added to images when the size is hard to discern. We all know how big butterflies and honey bees are (or at least relatively). It's not necessary, IMO, to add a scale to every single macro photograph no matter the subject. Kaldari (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Scale Bars and Other Scale Methods

I'm going to use the image on a right as a reference. I know that the shot is 10.45 mm across at the focal plane. Mentioning this is one way to provide a scale and it isn't distracting or ugly. The other option is scale bars. I think they are superior because they are less obtuse. Just my opinion.Noodle snacks (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's acceptable if you mention the scale in the caption. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Scale bars and dimensions are helpful so I believe it won't be considered as "distracting" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of scale bar. Since I always sucked at optics, saying which lens you used or what is the focal whatever thingy you have, I can't use the information at all. OK, I'm actually exaggerating, it's not a real problem for me, because i do have a scientific background and if I wasn't so lazy i could check out the relevant articles and calculate the scale. However, 1- it forces me to make some additional and unfamiliar calculation 2- Most people wouldn't even know they can calculate scale based on this information. On the other hand, a bar is straightforward and understood by most people. Your bar is nice because it's tiny, but it still lack a hard number. There is no number (in the picture or its description) to tell me what distance the bar represents. It could be 1mm, 1cm, or 10m ("RUN AWAY ! THE GIANT FLIES ARE COMING !"). Adding the number will require a trade-off : on the picture (my personal choice) it will be more distracting, but on the legend it will be less visible and might get lost. Ksempac (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't notice the "2mm scale bar" caption. It's useful, but experience tells me that you may ends up on a picture page without seeing its caption first and anyway captions may vary depending on the article. Therefore, the information should be directly in the description of the picture. Ksempac (talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying, it skipped my mind. The scale note can be added to the image page at some point too. The trouble from an aesthetic viewpoint in my view, is that if you make the scale big enough to be readable at thumbnail size, it is absolutely huge when viewed at full size or printed. I used to receive a CSIRO magazine years ago with many Scanning electron microscope images. They always used scale bars. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i never print anything so i can't see how it impacts the print. But then, pls put the number on the description, so that someone who stumbles on the picture without seeing this specific caption (caption may change from one inclusion to another), will still have all the information. Ksempac (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Predominance of GFDL 1.2-only licensing

Now that the only people left nominating pictures are the 1.2-only club, I don't feel any inclination to support much of what comes through here. I know you all feel that my objection to 1.2-only is completely bogus, but I spent 3 years working on getting us out of GFDL licensing hell, so I feel entitled not to support images which are working against that purpose (especially now that all the Wikimedia projects have basically shed GFDL licensing). Rather than continuing to feel like I'm wasting my time here, I think I'm just going to take a break. If the boycott ends, I might come back, but just wanted to let everyone know (in case anyone cared). Kaldari (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind summing up your main points? I'm not convinced that the difference is all that major; after all they are both free licenses and accepted here, and all our text is still licensed under GFDL, even if CC was just added. wadester 16 04:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence. I asked Noodle Snacks on his talk page why he used the 1.2 only license. You may be interested to see his answer on my talk page or other people answer on his talk page (seems like everybody in FPC is watching NS's talk page XD). And if you think you have some valuable arguments to offer in favor of CC, you can start a discussion here. On this question, I'm an agnostic, since regardless of my own opinion, I think photographers are free to do what they want with their work. Ksempac (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I be offended that you've lumped me in the GFDL 1.2-only club? ;-) I've never once licensed any of my images that way. Besides, if the better photographers refuse to license under GFDL 1.3, then perhaps it speaks volumes for that license. It seems that the solution to your problem is other good photographers releasing FPC-quality images under your preferred license, but I don't see them beating down Wikipedia's door... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never felt that your objection was bogus. You've spent much time on the GFDL issue. All three members of the club have spent countless hours too, taking photographs. I guess we don't feel much inclination to give away more than is needed to improve wikipedia. Rather than not continuing with the wasted time, why not spend it taking photographs and nominating the good ones? I'd certainly look forward to a few more from you. I'm sure you've probably got some you could nominate right now. In that way you'd be working to dilute the GFDL scourge. Oh, and you might have seen it somewhere, but when I have time I will probably add CC-BY-SA-NC as an additional licence option on my images. So you will get a few inches of ground. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

How are you going to license anything NC on Wikipedia? Has something changed that I'm not aware of? wadester 16 14:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wadester16 is correct, NC are not permitted on Wikipedia. There is unlikely to be a move towards the acceptance NC license for a couple of years, if ever. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Provided you offer at least one compatible license, you are also free to offer any number of incompatible licenses as well. The extra licenses are a benefit to people who prefer that in place of a wiki compatible license. For example, CC-BY-NC may be easier to use than GFDL in some applications where GFDL would be a burden to reproduce. That marginal benefit is usually small, but there is nothing wrong with it provided at least one license is free enough for Wikipedia. Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the plan. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it's going to change anyone's mind, but since you asked, I will go over one more time why the GFDL license is not a true free license for images:

Anything that includes GFDL media is also required to include a full copy of the GFDL license (5 pages of text), a list of all the previous versions of that media, as well as a list of all the people who collaborated on it. It is not allowed under the GFDL to simply provide a URL to this information. This makes it very difficult, in practical terms, for people to use such images freely.
The copyleft provisions of the GFDL are vague and confusing, especially when you try to apply them to images. There is no consensus as to when the GFDL acts as a strong copyleft and when it acts as a weak copyleft in the case of images. If you include a GFDL image in a book, is the book a "work", a "combined work", a "collection", or an "aggregation of independent works"? Depending on which term you choose, the licensing for your book could be any of the following: the book and other images in the book are still copyright; the book must be GFDL, but other images in the book can retain copyright; the book and all other images in the book must be GFDL. Which of these is right? No one knows.
Depending on how you interpret the copyleft provisions of the license, it is likely that in many cases GFDL is incompatible with CC-BY-SA (i.e. you can't include GFDL and CC-BY-SA media in the same published work). This may sound strange since Wikipedia does it all the time, but Wikipedia works around the issue by never defining the licensing of Wikipedia itself, only the licensing of the text and images separately. And so far, no one has challenged this.
Legally, its questionable whether or not the GFDL is even enforceable as a license for images. All the wording in the GFDL concerns "documents" and "texts". Several sections of the GFDL are nonsensicle if applied to images. It would be like licensing a song under a BSD license.

But as far as I have been able to grok, the 1.2-only club doesn't actually care if GFDL is a "free license" or not. They just want to add their images to the encyclopedia, and don't care so much about the core principles and values of the project. If they did, they would be enthusiastically supporting the migration, not doing everything in their power to circumvent it. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Though maybe this should be taken up with WMF bigwigs who allow GFDL as a license option..? I can see that you morally disagree with the use of the GFDL by FPC photographers, but if it's available, is it really wrong? wadester 16 19:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Though Creative Commons has a friendlier interpretation than FSF, I'm not sure anyone really knows the answer to #2 with respect to -SA either. Dragons flight (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Although the wording in CC-BY-SA is not always crystal clear either, it is far more clear than the GFDL. And in the case of encyclopedias, CC-BY-SA is explicitly clear and unambiguous: CC-BY-SA is weak copyleft for encyclopedias, which are defined as collections of separate and independent works. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak copyleft is what I explicitly don't want. I want copyleft provisions applied to all derived works. 'weak copyleft' is just a euphemism for unenforceable copyright in many situations. I either want my work shared (not just used) freely, or not at all. Furthermore, whilst CC-BY-SA might be better suited to the "core principles" of the WMF, you can't say that the GFDL is contrary to those values, given that we've been using it for the last eight years. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is strong copyleft for derivative works, but it exempts encyclopedias as "collections". Regarding the historical use of GFDL, it was the only option at the time, and I don't know of a single member of the WMF board that currently believes that GFDL is actually an appropriate license for images. Kaldari (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that the whole issue is quite confusing and inconclusive, I have to ask the question: Is it actually wrong for photographers to want to contribute to Wikipedia without agreeing with every principle of the Commons project of free content? I know I've asked this question before and been presented with a theoretical ultimatum of "take it or leave it - if you don't agree with it you're welcome to leave" but this is a pretty alienating position. I see goals of an encyclopaedia and the goals of the Commons as separate and different. Sure, the two are clearly symbiotic in both structure and in practice, but in some respects the commonality with regard to requiring full free content hinders Wikipedia IMO. Clearly I'm not going to change your mind either. It's just another opinion. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid opinion. My reply is that there are plenty of other collaborative encyclopedias on the internet that are worth contributing to. Indeed, Wikipedia wasn't even the first. What set Wikipedia apart and attracted the attention and dedication of the people who initially built the project (and its software) was its commitment to the principles of free culture. The principles and values of Commons are not separate from those of Wikipedia. They are, in fact, the same. It's not an accident that the first thing mentioned on the WMF's "Values" page is freedom.[3] Nor is it an accident that the WMF's mission statement mentions free licenses in the first sentence. These ideas are fundamental to the project. Kaldari (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Stepping in to say am reading with a sympathetic eye. Not directly pertinent to most of my image work because restorations tend to work with PD material. But if there's a workable solution that addresses the concerns, would be glad to raise it with the Foundation, etc. Not sure where to go with this. Durova^Charge! 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The foundation's hands are tied (at least for the immediate future) due to the nature of the agreement reached with the FSF. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we enact new rules about what licenses aren't allowed. I'm just saying that I'm disappointed that the principals of the project are so poorly reflected by our Featured Picture candidates. It's this disappointment which has caused me to lose interest in participating. No one has to do anything about it. I'm just venting :P The only thing I would want to ask is that the nominators stop to consider the importance of their licensing choices to the project and consider the work that has gone into making Wikipedia a truly free resource for everyone to share. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia-en-I mailing list has a thread today that's at least tangentially related to your concerns. It tuns out material is getting used uncredited by major publications (including Time, Wired, and the government of Australia). Not sure whether there's anything I can or should do about it since my work exists within the public domain. Durova^Charge! 21:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Material is getting used without credit or the correct license all over the place. And most of it isn't even spotted as such. For example, a London-based free newspaper (circulation of over half a million, daily) used one of Noodle Snack's images without any attribution or license acknowledgement whatsoever and I just happened to spot it and recognise it. How many similar images go unchecked? What we notice is only the tip of the iceberg. Frustrating. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick google image search for "tessellated pavement" reveals: http://queenslandtravelaustralia.com/TASMANIA.html, http://myamazingfact.blogspot.com/2009_03_01_archive.html, http://www.uphaa.com/blog/index.php/natural-wonders/. One of them has attribution, none of them meet the licence terms. The one website that does use the image appropriately (http://www.tasmanpeninsula.com.au/attractions.html) emailed me asking for permission. That image is under six months old. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Attribution is the problem for professional image content producers. A great many would happily release work under CC-BY, especially for very popular and deserving outlets like Wikipedia, if CC licensing was respected in re-use at least as well as it is in primary use, ie within the various Wikimedia projects. Unfortunately, despite being a beacon of respect for authorship compared to the web at large, the big neon FREE, broadcast from the rooftops of WM, is sending out entirely the wrong signal to re-users (and they are many) who don't (or won't) understand the difference between free (gratis) and free (libre). No wonder there is resistance to CC re-licensing from providers who are basically asking for nothing more than a byline in return. As long as CC licensing is perceived this way – ie permitting unrestricted use – you simply won't find large quantities of quality content available outside of traditional copyright restrictions. As a very high-profile pioneer (and consumer) of free content, the foundation would do well to make that distinction much, much clearer than it does at present. --mikaul^talk 06:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But how is CC licensing any different in this regard than GFDL? People who don't understand CC licensing and rip off CC images won't understand GFDL licensing nay better. 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, really. Personally, I see no real difference. Current WP-friendly licensing in any form is simply a deterrent to uploading quality content at a good resolution. It's a much, much wider problem, but those who re-use that content need to be educated to respect authorship. It often costs them nothing and benefits everyone. The WM foundation would be a great place to start and a very high-profile example to the wider internet community. --mikaul^talk 12:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That is incredibly well expressed, Mikaul. Makes me want to raise it at my blog. Would you consider giving an interview on the subject? Durova^Charge! 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, Ok! Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I missed the follow-ups to this thread. I have no idea what that would involve but I suspect I'd be up for it. Ping me or drop me an email or something. --mikaul^talk 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I happened to see this thread, and I decided to do an Internet search for some of the images I uploaded (not FP quality, but still mine). And lo and behold, first one I check, was on some website. (I emailed the site admin, who was prompt in a response and attribution, fortunately). [Sorry for the rather off topic interjection.] Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this thread and feel the same way as Kaldari. I sometimes wish en.wiki would take the de.wiki route and bar GFDL 1.2-only images altogether, and I certainly don't feel that GFDL 1.2-only images are our best work (i.e. FPs). When authors are deliberately licensing their images in a way to de facto bar commercial use, it is contrary to the goals of the project. I don't know why we celebrate these images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Because they happen to represent not just the best quality images in the encyclopedia, but the closest thing we are ever going to get to professional-quality photographic illustration, as long as CC licenses are so weakly protective of content providers. For illustrators – quite unlike writers – a real, viable and unique source of individual income is jeapordised by unrestricted or poorly-recognised free licensing. Copyleft licensing needs to be strong, enforceable and very high-profile before this sort of content flows as freely into the project as text. Riding roughshod over the sensibilities of quality primary-source material providers will impoverish and diminish the WP project. I'd urge people on both sides of this to re-evaluate the benefit to both illustrator and encyclopedia of free-content provision. At the moment, the former may be poorly-placed to benefit from the free-content economy, but the latter is frankly in danger of biting off the hand that feeds it. --mikaul^talk 12:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently Closed

Given the size this page can grow to, would it perhaps be better that the recently closed section has only a summary of the result and a link to the discussion? Something like:

Liaodi Pagoda | Image | Not promoted | --wadester 16
Calliphora hilli | Image | Promoted | --wadester 16
Male yellow flower wasp | Image | Not promoted | --wadester 16
HMS Warrior (1860) | Image | Not promoted | --wadester 16

Etc.

With/without closer signature. Or perhaps in the form of a gallery allowing the main image to be shown to jog your memory. I don't think doubling the page length is worthwhile for this. |→ Spaully ^τ 10:56, 5 July 2009 (GMT)

That's a good idea. Bold it is. wadester 16 02:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, nominations can get quite long alright. Zoo Fari 04:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that just about put us back to where we were? --jjron (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just about... All these new ideas we came up with are being rolled back because they're either too much work or consume too much space on the page. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, having closed 6 last night, it's a lot of added work. Cutting and pasting the the noms to a different section is a lot easier. Think I'll be changing it back soon. wadester 16 14:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I guess we're still waiting for a guru coder to come along and automate it all. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the size, it presumably wouldn't be too hard to put them into a "collapse" box, or a scroll down box. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just leave it as is. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Queenston, Ontario, c. 1895

Don't really like doing this, but any thoughts on this? Do you prefer the restoration I linked in my comments on the image restoration, as an example of an alternative restoration? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You can always offer an alternative restoration, much like our photographers offer a similar photo of the same subject (example), when you nominate the image and let the reviewers compare the two images. I have done this on the nomination for you. MER-C 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A provisional closing system for FPCs

Yes, so we've talked about changing the way in which we close nominations... and not much has really happened.

Under this proposal, closed nominations will be listed (but not transcluded, as that is unnecessary clutter) at the bottom of the page for 48 hours. People comment on the closure and ask questions. A featured picture director(s) is appointed to review closures, consider objections, process nominations and look for non-negotiable issues. After 48 hours the director(s) can mark uncontested nominations for processing, process them or take the appropriate action in the case of contested closures based on the comments given.

Advantages

Retains the economies of scale in closing nominations
Transparency
Anyone can close nominations (the legwork was a large barrier to entry previously)
Moves the tedious stuff to the people who are capable of doing them
Reduces process aberrations (e.g. less images with blatant technical problems passing or images failing due to clueless opposers)

Remarks

Why we need a director(s) - nobody has the incentive to come back and finish the closure and automation of the process is highly desired. Humans need to run the programs that perform closing procedures - you don't want bots to chew through contested nominations because someone wants to stifle discussion or users holding up valid closures for petty reasons (closed a WHOLE HOUR early, for instance).
Recall process - probably best to be informal (that way nationalists, trolls, disgruntled WikiProjects, etc don't know about it). If you are dissatisfied with a director's performance, you should let the FPC community know. If the concerns are major or sustained over a period of time the director should resign. Further avenues of redress are available through dispute resolution, namely requests for comment and, if necessary, requests for arbitration. It's (always) your responsibility to hold the director(s) to account.
Of course, the period between closure and director action can (and should) be longer than 48 hours if significant discussion ensues.
Images should not be considered featured until they are processed.
It is possible to write some JavaScript (see, e.g. User:MER-C/temp.js for a starting point) to remove the need for tedious copy/pasting.

Implementation notes

The current decision time and recently closed sections are removed and condensed into a new "closing process" section as drafted in my sandbox.
The closing procedure sections are removed and condensed into a new "instructions for directors" page, which also will contain things relating to FPT maintenance etc.
A colour coding will be used to indicate the status of various closures, therefore we create a new template. This is inspired by mw:Special:Code/MediaWiki, where Brion/Tim review changes to Wikipedia's software before making them live on Wikimedia.
I'd probably take the opportunity this brings to shuffle the sections a bit - the new structure would be nominations, delists, further input, suspend and closing process for a logical workflow. This is optional.

The 48 hours, number of directors (I'd personally go for two), recall process and the exact text of the new section are, of course, negotiable.

Finally I won't be around 14-18 June (inclusive) so please don't canvass nominations for directors then. MER-C 08:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean July 14-18. wadester 16 17:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. MER-C 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

VPc needs input

We need some closers at VPC, and some more input. There's been a nomination there since June 26! ceranthor 11:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll get over there later today. wadester 16 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please post to Village Pump, the community bulletin board, and other broad venues concerning that program. When GAN needs reviewers, does GAN bother FAC? Doubtful. FPC is not a recruitment ground for the valued pictures program. Durova²⁷³ 16:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to brew up more drama here, Durova. He was just trying to help. wadester 16 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wadester misreads my character and intentions, and I would appreciate if he withdraws that unwarranted accusation. Durova²⁷³ 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is best if we all calm down; I have every belief that both Ceranthor and Durova were acting in good faith here. No need to stir up a big argument over a simple request for help / request for redirection. NW (Talk) 17:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If VP really wants to sustain itself in the long run it does need to draw from a wider portion of the community and build its own following. Durova²⁷³ 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with VP/VPC posting here occasionally, seems logical enough to me even though I don't frequent the project. As with other posts, if you're not interested just ignore it. --jjron (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. wadester 16 16:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that VPC has relied upon FPC as its primary recruiting grounds, and its enthusiastic supporters have made little effort to seek broader community participation that might build a separate following for that program. The shortcomings of that approach are obvious: not all FPC participants have the time or interest to join VPC, and repeated appeals for nominations and reviewers are off-putting to a segment of FPC participants. Individuals who used to participate there have withdrawn in reaction against overly aggressive recruitment efforts. The best thing for VP enthusiasts to do is accept that, take a lighter touch here, and look elsewhere. Durova²⁷³ 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to note

My scanner's somewhat broken - it produces streaking on part of the scanner bed. Until I get a new one, the larger things I have are difficult to scan without going into the University, which isn't particularly convenient to the bus routes. I hope you'll bear with me if I have a number of book illustrations and the like in the near future. More variety will come in once my monetary situation stabilises a bit - I'm coming out of a bad patch - and can get a new scanner. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:FP

Well! I've just reviewed pretty much all the categories, and reshuffled things about - there were some somewhat silly categorisations, like Beer Street and Gin Lane being treated as real streets. Two new categories: Literature and Theatre, (under Culture, Entertainment, and Lifestyle), which Wade and I agreed would probably make things a lot easier, as the images were getting put everywhere.

I have used all possible care, if I have made any mistakes, I am truly sorry. I've asked MER-C to run a script I believe he has to check for anything labelled as an FP, but not in the WP:FP subpages; if it doesn't exist, I'd suggest making one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked. You and Wadester agreed on something? ;-) Good to see you involved again and collaborating. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs)

FP categories

New categories of Featured pictures are generally created for one of two reasons:

A regularly-occurring source of ambiguity, e.g. Ukuiyo-e and related Japanese and Chinese art was ending up everywhere in the FP lists, often times in inappropriate categories like "Paintings" (Ukiyo-e is block-printing). The category "East Asian art" makes things much easier for the people trying to close nominations.
Sufficient images now exist to allow images that before fell into a catch-all category, such as "Other sciences", "Other artwork", or just "Other" can be split off.

I believe that Noodle snacks' recent mineralogical work may be sufficient to allow some sort of Geology spinoff. However, Palaeontology falls under both geology and biology, so, to avoid confusion, it may be necessary to spin off that as well.

Thoughts? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly have more minerals available to photograph, so you can expect more over time. Certain natural rock formations (eg Tessellated Pavement, some of Mbz's pictures) may also qualify for a geology category. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is my humble opinion : Since paleontology is the study of life, i would put it as "biology". Geology is used to find/date skeletons and others artifacts but in the end, paleontology studies live species not rocks. (Note : pls don't flame me for such a reduction of topic, my opinion is only now, for the purpose of classifying our FP, not what I think paleontology is). Of course, the best thing would be to have so much FP about it that it requires us to create a dedicated category :) Ksempac (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We have two samples of petrified wood in "Other sciences", and two dinosaur diagrams under "reptiles". We really could do with more: To your museums, me laddos! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's usually very difficult to get FP-quality image behind glass cabinets in dark rooms though. No wonder there aren't many so far. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And for things like dinosaur mounts in museums, they typically tend to have very messy backgrounds which would get shot down at FPC. --jjron (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the more Victorian-style dinosaur halls are pretty good. The Carneghie Museum of Pittsburgh - where I grew up - has some fantastic displays. All else fails, bring two friends and a black sheet with you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a geo cat. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

EV of technical shots

Ok i would like to have the opinion of the community regarding theses 2 nominations which had EV for the Panning article. Both pictures prompted a discussion on what was the best shot that could illustrate panning, with people disagreeing quite a lot about that. The panning article itself has had numerous picture switches that indicates how difficult it is to agree on this subject. I figure this is because even though theses are quite difficult shots, the condition to make them are easily reproducible. So my question is "What is the EV for a technical shot regarding the particular photographic technique employed ?"

My humble opinion is that although theses shots are useful to show what the technique is useful for (Panning) or the effect it produces (Bokeh), they are still easily reproducible and therefore their EV is not enough for FP status. However, if a technical shot does have EV for others articles, then it may become a FP. What are your thoughts ? Ksempac (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The effect that panning produces is not bokeh... Technically it's just motion blur of anything except the subject being tracked. 'Easily reproducible' doesn't mean an image can't be FP. Besides, just because an image is easily reproducible, it doesn't mean that it is easy to reproduce to a very high standard. And you say they're easily reproducible but getting the tracking, composition and subject just right is more difficult than you might imagine. In the end, what makes a photo a good FP is whether it explains or demonstrates a subject in such a way that the viewer will want to view it and learn from it. Whether it's easy or hard to create that image is not the point. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- I mentioned bokeh only to note that my concern is for all technicals shots, it isn't reduced to panning shots. I never intended to relate panning and bokeh, sorry for the confusion. I'm also aware that getting a panning shot right is very difficult. But we can still find many pictures on wikipedia that uses this technique. Ksempac (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  - I really don't think there is any grounds for creating an exception for Photographic Techniques. If the image illustrates the article of a valid photographic technique and it is a good example of it then it has EV. It should be treated the same as any photo. It's not easier or harder to illustrate a photographic technique than it is to photograph a spider or the Opera House. In terms of what happens in the nomination, it would be up to the reviewers to decided wither the image is a high quality, compelling example of the technique --Fir0002 11:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
    - I tend to agree with Ksempac in general (I think the basis of his argument has been sidetracked with specifics). We tend to see an unusual number of panning ones, I know we've seen at least one nom for bokeh, but what if we to see random nominations for say focus? Consider the implications. It may make sense for less common techniques - for example we have a FP for Contre-jour which probably makes more sense - but for more common things I would tend to think they should illustrate more than just the technique. FWIW I also dislike work by an artist being used (solely) as an illustration for the artist for the same basic reasons. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

4S 2O promote

Shouldn't this have been not promoted? I have a couple of my images with the same votes not promoted. Also, the nomination does not have the closure statement. Comments please. --Muhammad(talk) 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure why I forgot to put the status on the bottom. Had I done that, I would have explained why it was promoted. I'm not dead set on 4S-2O as total fail. If the opposes aren't that good, then it may still be promoted. No offense to the opposers, but comparing this nom to another FP doesn't really warrant an oppose, and going with "A lot of messy objects" doesn't give an overall great reason. While obstruction is a valid point, birds photos take place in the wild and the "perfect" shot is almost impossible. I take votes on merit, not just on count. Hope that clears it up; I'll fix it later when I do the other one. wadester 16 20:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Had I seen that decision, as a non!voter I would have endorsed it, with a caveat. The one valid oppose was NS's objection based on the non-promotion of another Wattlebird shot, ie not specifically due to problems with the nominated image. If you follow that paper trail you do indeed find a problem non-promotion; I'd suggest that NS re-nominate File:Anthochaera chrysoptera.jpg as I believe it received a rough ride first time round. As to File:Little wattlebird on eucalypt.jpg, if anyone else has serious concerns about that 4S2O they should say so now and we could do the same. --mikaul^talk 21:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Wadester took the trouble to ask for clarification of the messy objects oppose and the opposer followed up with "There are some leaves in the foreground left part hindering, and the contrast between the color of the tree´s branches and sheets and the bird´s body color is somewhat weird (well... maybe not much)." Wadester's response to Muhammad's question fails to acknowledge the opposer's followup. So Wadester's explanation for discounting the oppose actually doesn't hold together. Durova²⁷⁹ 02:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Except where I state: "'While obstruction is a valid point, birds photos take place in the wild and the "perfect" shot is almost impossible.'" The obstruction[s] I refer to is "some leaves in the foreground" and "contrast between the color of the tree's branches and sheets and the bird's body color", the clarifications made by Damërung, after pressing him on it. Also, if your main reason for opposition is ended with "(well... maybe not much)", you are yourself diminishing your vote at least a bit. If others have an issue with this closing, please feel free to state your case; I still believe it was an accurate closure. wadester 16 08:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While I personally feel 4/2 is historically a promote and argued in the recent discussion that it still should be (until we go to five that is), as Muhammad points out the recent interpretation seems to have been to non-promote, and he thus raises a valid point. In that sense this does seem to me an inconsistency as well, as both opposes seem to me to have been validly considered. --jjron (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we agree at the most recent poll that closers don't get such discretion this extensive with how much weight to grant? Reviewers aren't obligated to persuade a closer to agree with their positions, so long as the rationale is a reasonable interpretation of the nomination. It's fine to discount opposes that haven't read the hosting page or that misunderstand the article, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT opposes or things like that. But closers aren't super-reviewers; attempts to overreach in that regard generated a lot of strife this year. Durova²⁸⁰ 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the quorum now five? MER-C 09:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that seemed to have consensus but was never finalised. --jjron (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I do it now? MER-C 13:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Suits me, but then I support five. I thought we tried to finalise some of this stuff here but that discussion seemed to die away without a clear decision as well. --jjron (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@MER-C: I've actually been waiting; I was under the impression that you were in the process of creating a finalized proposal that would be voted on, based on your last comment here. As of now, nothing from the review process has been implemented. wadester 16 14:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's right, you did. But there was no feedback on that, so nothing has yet come of it. wadester 16 15:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If the quorum is five, very, very few things are going to get promoted at the moment. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression we'd only go to 5 if participation becomes more brisk. Now while nominations have certainly picked up, I wouldn't say there has been a significant increase in voting - true some noms get heaps of comments but quite a few barely get any. So IMO it's still at 4 --Fir0002 05:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is still 4, some wanted to leave it there, some wanted that proviso (i.e., wait till voting increases...) till upping it to 5, others didn't want to wait for that undefinable period. The consensus overall seemed to me to favour not waiting. --jjron (talk) 07:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether we'd like to up it to 5 at a later date or not, it seems that consensus for now is 4. It was never possible to define the conditions that would up it to 5 anyway - presumably someone would decide that perhaps it was time and put it to a vote. There isn't much point wondering when that might be for now. We can cross the bridge when we reach it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's all about partially-opposed noms anyway and they'll always make for a tricky closure when there are only half-a-dozen reviews. If the real issue here is how to handle 4S20, then 5S20 might provide a slightly clearer promotion but shouldn't be an automatic one. It's still a close call and still needs to be open to discussion/objections. It's important that these discussions are opened as casually as individual reviewing or this just won't work. I don't think I'm mis-reading this thread when I say post-close reviewing appears to be taking some getting used to... it needs a calm, civil approach and (it has to be said) a greater degree of AGF towards closer decisions. --mikaul^talk 09:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Diliff, that was my point, if we don't decide to make a decision and just put it off to some indefinable point in the future 'when participation picks up' then it simply won't happen. Don't know where you see that the consensus is to leave it at four though. Re mikaul that's unfortunately one of the risks of opening closing decisions up to 'challenges', that even with the best intentions it can still easily be taken as 'having a go' at the closer and I don't know that there is a good way around that. However I feel that closers have responded positively to any recent questioning - however I would say that it would certainly seem to be best if they are questioned before they leave the nomination page, rather than being brought up retrospectively when it's possibly more difficult to change the decision. --jjron (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My work

Scanner's toast. Can't scan anything on it without streaky lines appearing. Wore the poor thing out, I think.

Anyway, I hate to do this, but I honestly cannot afford a new one for several months without help, so if anyone can provide assistance, please contact me. I may be able to get a little work done, and finish up a few things I have scanned already, but any new stuff either has to go into the University - not practical for some of it - or wait on the new scanner. =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Toasted scanner, that's too bad.--Caspian blue 02:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd send you mine, but the exposure isn't adjustable, so it is useless for anything but documents. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures needing feedback

In the box that says FPS's needing feedback, shall we place also the candidates for delisting? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 00:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think delists are meant to get seven days too, but in practice they tend to sit around until they attract a clear consensus as they typically don't attract a lot of traffic. Perhaps this should be tightened up at some point, but unless it is I'd say not to bother. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I managed delisting nominations - 7 days or until the result becomes obvious. I believe you can place delisting nominations in there, though there were problems with the bot. MER-C 13:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It´s just that sometimes they got unnoticed by anyone who comes here, and sometimes they got stucked without feedback for long periods, but I guess it´s nothing urgent by the moment. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true, as I said above, but should we then leave them in the urgents box till they attract enough attention? The reason we do wait is so that they attract the feedback, else we'd just be closing them all as a 'Keep' due to lack of quorum. --jjron (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

7 + 2 days of inactivity

Can we agree to implement this now (votes after two days inactivity discounted)? Would avoid drama. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. wadester 16 00:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Not that my vote counts for much but it seems reasonable. --Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Avoid drama, gives flexibility while keeping objectivity. Both the Kestrel and Jamaica nominations shows that it is needed, useful, and that it works well. Ksempac (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support but has this been an issue recently? I didn't notice... Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at the bottom of this nomination. Ksempac (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone disagree? Time for stuff to be done... MER-C 11:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to rename the project to "Fir0002, Noodle Snacks and Muhammad's Featured Picture Candidates"

What do you think? ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose "Fir0002, Noodle Snacks and Muhammad's Official Gallery" would be much better :p Ksempac (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose neglects me and Durova, historical large contributors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's always about you, isn't it? :-P I'm not sure that you are quite in the same league in terms of volume just yet. Durova, perhaps though. Anyway, the point wasn't to be fully inclusive. It was to lighten the mood! :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Actually, I am: I have over 4% of all featured pictures, with just over 80 to Noodle snacks' just over 90. Ha! Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 07:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, Diliff, you, one of big contributors, are missed in the naming. However, since you, Fir0002, Noodle Snacks are from Australia, I've always thought "The New Three Musketeers and others" could be a good candidate for the naming. :)--Caspian blue 13:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, perhaps it should be the The Three Bushrangers. Hmm, ok maybe not. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I have noticed that pictured of ducks and other waterfowl tend to do very well, maybe I could find some images with more feathers and not as many of people. :-) --Kumioko (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel left out, I haven't nominated a successful FPC since January (one failed)!! :p ceranthor 13:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Can tweak the name slightly if needs be, but would be a good start. :-) --jjron (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
lol, not sure it's as catchy as just WP:FPC! And this flurry of noms has been but a brief spurt during these holidays - you won't be noms from me for much longer! --Fir0002 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could abbreviate the name to FNM:FPC which is quite catchy as well! --jjron (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Volume from me should go down as uni is back and the work is coming in. Lots of quality nominations isn't exactly a detriment to the project though. Certainly better than getting down to 10 nominations or so about a month ago. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Support and recommend blocking all other users. Mahahahaneapneap (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support proposal and ↑ that, though would add Durova and Diliff. Especially not sure why Diliff was left out (humbleness? methinks not :)). wadester 16 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL, but kinda sad. What happened to Mdf, Fcb, Aka, and jjron? --Muhammad(talk) 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Support and automatically promote their pics while you're at it :-P Zoo Fari 04:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos

New York Times article that came out yesterday.[4] A year ago Jerry Avenaim came to the attention of WP:FPC with this nomination, which was nearly speedy closed

*Comment Recommend closing as does not meet size requirements by a wide margin. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy close - nowhere near size requirement, which is a must for a living person. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Second Speedy close per Papa and Vanderdecken. Clegs (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an old upload, but perhaps the photographer could be contacted for a higher resolution replacement. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I've e-mailed Jerry Avenaim and requested a larger image. Please suspend this nomination for 1 week pending a reply. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the photographer was an active editor and contacted him to explain the featured content standards. Mr. Avenaim supplied a larger version that met the size requirements. Following resubmission it was still a difficult promotion because some editors wanted to move the goalposts beyond what was stated in the official criteria. This went back and forth for a while, but a snippet:

*Oppose' the original and edit 1. Neutral for edit 2. It's not that big, and for professional, commercial celebrity portraiture I feel that we shouldn't settle for the bare minimum; maybe somebody wants to make a poster based on the image. On the other hand, encouraging this kind of contribution is good, and we can also raise our standards later if free licensing of this type of image becomes common.--ragesoss (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
With respect, this nomination was suspended for a week in order to request a larger file size. During that time any argument for a larger minimum might have been made, but wasn't. The photographer has complied with our published requirements and it really isn't fair to change the rules and generate a double standard after the photographer has fulfilled our request. Professional photographers have financial motivation not to upload larger files than necessary, due to the risk of downmarket exploitation of their work. The best way to encourage this type of contribution is to operate within our existing rules. Then, if we're fortunate enough to receive more of this type of material, at some point where the standards generally rise we may review the existing material on that basis. Let's not look fickle. Durova^Charge! 08:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the Signpost editor-in-chief in the debate. And if I may say so, not taking the long view on the matter. Last week in the aftermath of the legal threat from the National Portrait Gallery I was talking to Noam Cohen, who loved the idea that a leading professional portrait photographer was donating part of his work to the public through Wikipedia. Now the story is on the front page of Slashdot.[5] It's important to recognize that some of the people who edit this project bring a lot to the table, and to encourage them so that their example inspires their colleagues to join us as volunteers. Durova²⁸⁰ 13:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for informing the interesting NYT article and the past FPC discussion. Well, I think we have a few professional photographers like User:Toglenn. I'm impressed by his generous donation like File:Kim Kardashian 2009.jpg. As we are talking about portrait pictures, images of American celebrity are in a better position than European, Asian and others. In Gwyneth Jones (soprano), the two images are from a professional writer and photographer living in Europe. But such a case is rare for European figures... I've contacted many people (not professional photographers) to get their permission via OTRS, but some were willing to donate their images, but many would not because of the Wikipedia's strict rule on "free use for commercials". Even amateurs feel uncomfortable with Wikipedia's free-use-images-only, so it is understandable that many professional photographers would not want to give away their images in high resolution for free. --Caspian blue 15:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't apply much towards celebrities but I have about 20 CD's (each cd holds several hundred at least and they consist of 11 Marine Corps, 9 Navy and 3 Army so far and stil lgoing) of images relating to the military (biographical photos, vehicles and aircraft and a lot for OEF OIF performaing missions or training). I haven't really spent much time uploading them but I have them if there is a certain topic. Admittadly not all are of FP quality and of the ones that I though were I haven't had much luck with but there are undoubtedly some there. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, many skillful amateur photographers who potentially can contribute to FPC complaint to me that Wikipedia rules are too complicate to follow, so they feel forced to leave. I've seen some of them left Wikipedia for good after they got a lot of warning of not following image policies by Wiki-cops. Actually, they showed strong WP:Ownership to articles in which their images are featured. Once they upload their images, they link them to articles together with their blogs or website to show more images taken by them. That acts were from good faith, and they believed their such linking would provide more opportunity for viewers. Educating them about Wikipedia policies would take a great deal of time, and in general people tend to be too bitey to them.--Caspian blue 15:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I personally think that the rules for photographers are fairly simple - basically you must license your image with CC or GFDL. The complicated part is educating re-users of the images in what they can and can't do with the images, but this should be the role of Wikipedia, not the photographers! What we really need is a guide to CC-BY-SA in plain english, explaining in detail how it applies to photos for both the photographer and the reuser. It must exist somewhere, surely? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ is pretty easy to understand, I'd say. howcheng {chat} 06:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The lesson from this particular example is that we very nearly missed out on a featured picture and on a beneficial relationship. First, because three reviewers wanted to speedy close the initial nomination without checking whether better resolution material might be available. Second, because other reviewers tried to move the FP goalposts after better material was actually supplied. Collectively, the way FPC treated Jerry Avenaim was not something to be proud of. We need to be taking a longer view of the best interests of Wikipedia. Overall, Noam Cohen's article is very good. Durova²⁸⁰ 16:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, good article, one that should serve as a wake-up call that our slowly-improving reputation for quality is being seriously undermined by our image content. As Diliff notes, licensing is at the heart of the problem but the broader issue is one of respect. Providers need to respect the neutrality and broader ethics of the encyclopedia; wikipedians need to respect the providers' need to associate their contributions with themselves and their work; re-users must respect licensing terms, particularly as regards attribution; all of this needs be coordinated into a clear and coherent image use policy – not to be confused with WP:IUP. It's a serious problem, because while education is vital, not only will it not happen overnight, it hasn't even started in any meaningful way. The longer view for Wikipedia's image content looks like "more of the same", ie deteriorating relative to other content. --mikaul^talk 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  - We need to do more proactive communication in that regard. Which photographers have found their work reused in commercial settings? Durova²⁸⁰ 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Personally I have heaps that I know of and haven't done anything about. It seems to be mostly architecture and landscape. When the people are confronted they uniformly state that they thought it was free (the "free encyclopedia.."). Birds and so on often get use, but I am usually emailed for permission. I suspect that the web is only the tip of the iceberg as far as reuse goes. I very rarely see reuse following license terms (and by count most of my images are still CC-BY-SA). Noodle snacks (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      - What I'm thinking of doing is getting an article published in the mainstream business press. What we need for that are concrete examples. Particularly the one where one of our photographers was compensated for license violation after an FP ran uncredited in a commercial advertisement. Durova²⁸⁰ 00:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that Cohen got it right and didn't just bitch and moan that we had nothing, without giving an explanation or doing a little research. Though to ragesoss' credit, after the discussion snippet quoted above, he did expand upon his reasoning, even stating that he didn't oppose for the reasons mentioned here ("Regarding Durova's comment about fairness... that's why I'm not opposing it."). I think that's totally fair. As for outsiders and FPC, any person still has to go through this process, and while Durova did an excellent job in getting a higher res version of the image at hand, I don't believe anyone else involved in the nom did anything wrong, nor should they be obliged (or indeed expected) to go to that length if they don't have the inclination (I also believe—and I'm not saying they were in this case—that the rules musn't be bent just to kiss the ass of a potential donor; if they don't want to donate because they can't get an FP, then they're too greedy to begin with). A speedy close was a good call on that since it didn't meet size reqs, and it could always be nominated again later when the higher res version was found. The appreciation shown by Jerry Avenaim of a nomination at all shows that if it had to be renom-ed later, he wouldn't have taken offense. These "outsiders" most likely aren't scared of this project nor do they necessarily need one of their images promoted to FP, they just need to be introduced to the opportunity and potential; granted the argument regarding professional photographers is a good one, and is mainly the reason we lack in good images (although, as Cohen noted, it is funny that publicists aren't making deals to release more for celebrities and the like). While I'm not trying to win over a museum's collection for uploading, it doesn't take "FP = Main Page" to convince your local historical society to make their images available; in fact, that even makes some more apprehensive, surprisingly enough. I've gotten three in my home-town area to release me images and engravings recently, and using the Main Page feature as an argument nearly scared two of them away (they were scared of too much exposure; disrespecting the deceased or elderly donors who might give permission, but not understand what they gave permission for; and a bunch of other malarkey, which came completely out of left field). After assuring them that this would get their name out, especially by including a "Courtesy of..." on all the images pages, they agreed, seeing that it could lead to greater interest in the area and maybe some more bodies walking through their doors. We'll see. wadester 16 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you're doing outreach. By the way, did you hear the good news that last week the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam agreed to donate 100,000 images to Wikimedia Commons? Durova²⁸⁰ 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  - I didn't. I'm not sure how I feel about these mass donations; while they can be useful, I'm sure they have thousands of images that will be literally useless to almost anybody, especially if not catalogued and categorized correctly. The lack of speakers of the language doesn't help either. In a perfect world I'd like to see the National Archives or LOC do a mass upload like that, as I feel they could probably offer some more notable subjects. wadester 16 05:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Be careful with this kind of statement. You sound a bit too "insert your country here"-centric. Even if you don't know much about a country doesn't mean that their culture/history is not notable. Anyways, that's not even the point here, since the Tropenmuseum is, according to its article, an anthropological museum. You would be hard pressed to find a topic that concern humanity as a whole more than that one ;). Ksempac (talk) 06:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
      - Sorry, not my intention. I was remembering back to the Germany donation. I went to try to help categorize, but it was of so many random images. At least with the National Archives and LOC they usually have a notable reason to keep what they have. The Germany donation would be like if my historical society uploaded all their images; most would be useless to 99.99% of the population here. wadester 16 15:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
        Perhaps a German editor would characterize much of LoC as "so many random images" before they understood the context of the material. One of the most rewarding experiences at WMF is expanding one's horizons. Durova²⁸⁰ 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
        I feel it's doubtful that a Western foreigner couldn't recognize at least a good amount of what might be in a LOC donation. But the implied and inherent point is that we need a donation from an English-speaking country. Large donations from Dutch and German facilities are good (and while the de.wiki is indeed heavily populated), but the most volunteers will come from en.wiki and the English-speaking Commons population. wadester 16 22:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
        Commons is explicitly a multilingual project. Its mission is to be a central image repository for over 250 language editions of Wikipedia and other WMF projects. It is surprising to encounter this level of misunderstanding from a fellow Commons administrator. Durova²⁸⁰ 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        It's not a misunderstanding. I'm more than well aware that Commons is a multilingual project and making that comment was less than unfair, and to be honest, almost malicious (hence my reference to "the English-speaking Commons population"; that makes my knowledge of the multilingual-ness quite obvious; though I really shouldn't have to defend such basic knowledge). I'm saying that it's odd (and indeed annoying) that we're getting these huge donations from places that are disproportionate to the available population at WMF to deal with them. I think one of the more important goals of Commons is to kiss the ass of LOC or National Archives to get them to upload their files, to offer them to the various Wikipedias. They would typically be most applicable to the English Wikipedia, but that's fine: en.wiki has more than three times the articles than the next largest wp. Plus the contents of LOC or National Archives are at a level that is more international than most other sources could ever offer. The moon landing was a US venture, but a human achievement. The Manhattan Project was an Allied program, but still led the way in many human scientific advancements later on. The fact that many (if not most of the more notable) technological advancements occurred in the United States in the past century and a half means that many America achievements are also human achievements. I'm not spouting pro-American rhetoric here, either; it's a fact of life. These two places should be Commons' main goal for source material. IMO, it should be Jimbo or the board members making calls to attempt a deal, considering the influence that comes with their titles. wadester 16 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        But your statements sound like that.--Caspian blue 03:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        Sound like what? wadester 16 03:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        Sounds like something you might really want to consider refactoring. And your new restorations are lacking documentation on the edits performed. Durova²⁸⁰ 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        I believe that despite your disagreement, I still have a right to my opinion, which is pretty sound and definitely founded. Dictating refactoring is one of the more patronizing comments that has come my way lately. wadester 16 06:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        
        We are a global encyclopedia. Not an American encyclopedia. Not an Anglo-American encyclopedia. But a global one. Wikimedia Commons, similarly, is not an American media resource, or an Anglo-American media resource, but a global media resource. Perhaps 10%, maximum, of all files that could be beneficial to the Wikimedia projects come from American sources. Many hundreds of countries have dozens of years of photographic history. It would be a shame to ignore them just to focus on our inherent Anglo-American bias. I believe that Caspian blue is working hard to try to get Korean history featured more prominently in Wikimedia, which is a huge area thus mostly untapped. This is only one such example where we should be broadening our efforts, not excluding them to focus on just the Library of Congress, no matter how good it is. NW (Talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        I never said that excluding other efforts was a plan of mine, and as I said before, many American achievements of the past century and a half are human achievements. Obviously every user here can bring to the table what they wish, and they should; the amount of media (and categorical organization) I upload from my area of New York probably only compares to that of NYC (meaning the effects of one user can have a vast impact on the representation of even the smallest place in the world). My point was that the Board of Trustees should be pushing the American gov't with their clout to upload their archives. Are you saying it would be bad if either of those American entities did such a thing? No, of course you aren't; I trust you would be excited about it just as most others would. I just think the WMF should have priorities, with those on top; once they get them, they move on to other sources in other countries, the most important and influential sitting at the top of the list (regular users have the ability to get smaller donations; the biggest and hardest should be reserved for people with the power and clout). And not to be a downer, but Commons will only be as global as this globalized world can be. There will still be a glaring hole in representation from Sub-Saharan Africa and other places in the world still off the grid or who need to be spending their money on essentials rather than computers and internet connections. Then there is the little fact that many people from those areas won't want to take part here because of its Western roots. No matter how much current users want to act as good shepherds and try to find (and even nominate for FP) works from underrepresented regions of the world, the fact of the matter is that they will remain underrepresented until they have the money and spare time to volunteer here themselves. I'm not ignoring the rest of the world, I'm just suggesting that WMF have priorities; I'm being realistic here. wadester 16 15:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        You seem to be arguing on principle that systemic bias is a good thing--one that ought to be reinforced with the United States at the top of the heap. You actually call Dutch and German uploads irritating; how do you suppose that impresses Caspian Blue, a Korean, who has been working for years to bring his country's history and culture to the English Wikipedia? Where is Korea on that scale of importance? Where is Tanzania? If you're offended by the suggestion that this might not reflect very well upon you to explore futher, then do elaborate. Durova²⁸¹ 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        And hence my pointing out how much one editor can influence the representation of a certain area; it seems he can claim he has done that (well done). But I'm explicitly placing a line between editors and the controlling institution of WMF. The irritating part of many of these uploads (to me personally; I should have indicated that above) is that I couldn't really help out. I had no idea what they were photos of and many of them were so completely random that I lost interest after only a few. It really needed local people to do that work, and these locals are low in number compared to English-speaking members of Commons or other WMF projects. I feel that the board should work its magic to gain access to collections that overly affect humanity; we have a surprisingly large collection of top-notch Chinese and other Asian history here. Sources from that area are essential to bring our articles to the next level. Mexico would be a good place to go to offer media related to the Mayas and Aztecs; Egypt would also be a beneficial government to make friends with. My idea of priorities shouldn't be visualized as a numeric list, but more of a pyramid of importance to the human race, with, yes, the LOC (the largest library in the world who also already scans and makes available a portion of its PD content; most of the work is already done!) on top; another bonus is that we could use our vast population of English-speaking users to help categorize and use these media. At present, English-speaking and American users are left wanting. I'm not arguing that systemic bias is a good thing, only that it's an evil we can't rid of any of the projects here unless a number of local or interested editors decide to help out. In 100 years, the situation could be vastly different, but currently, the realist in anyone must admit that there will be systemic bias that just can't be overcome until those people make an effort to overcome it. Also, Kumioko's comment just below this is precisely what I was trying to say from the beginning. wadester 16 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
        Thank you very much for that explanation; things were looking worrisome for a while. United States Wikimedians already have a major advantage over other countries because our federal government releases its work to the public domain. Hardly any other country does (although I think Brazil may be an exception). Durova²⁸¹ 15:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I don't think that the LOC donation comment was meant to be an "American better than you" comment but rather a "LOC is the largest library in the world and they have a huge and free collection of stuff" comment. --Kumioko (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the US library of Congress does not allow visitors to bring cameras, scanners, laptops, or portable electronics of any kind into the collections area. (Or, at least, that was the policy the last time I was there a few years ago) Raul654 (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- And that rule hasn't changed (though laptops and cellphones are allowed, I've brought mine in many a time). I'm referring to its digital collections, many of which are online, but it would be nice if they uploaded them here. And @Kumioko, thank you for putting it in words that I couldn't seem to muster. wadester 16 23:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  - No problem, words I can do, images...not so much. In fact the more I read and understand this process the more I am beginning to see that I lack the eye for identifying a good image and the skills or software to make the adjustments necessary to make the image a good one so I will probably not be submitting images and leave that to the folks that understand and have the necessary skills. It seems that when it comes to WP and images not everyone can edit (at least not well) after all. --Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Durova, for Commons images used in the media, you can use this tool, Commons:Category:Commons as a media source, and Commons:Category:Images used by media organizations but violating license terms. There is also a template that categorises images on Wikipedia, IIRC, but right now I can't remember where it is. Matthewedwards : Chat 20:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What I'm actually looking for is examples that would be suitable for an article in the mainstream business press. Most of the general public has no idea what we mean by the term 'copyleft'. They think full copyright, republication permission, and public domain. So internal process links aren't at issue. What I want are examples of photographers whose material has been reused in violation of license and without their permission. In particular, instances where the photographer sought and received compensation for violation of license. There's been at least one instance of that (with an advertisement in the London subway?). Specifics of that case? Other instances? Durova²⁸¹ 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were just looking for examples of images used by other media organizations. I'm not even aware of the Tube violation incident. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We've had complaints from some of our photographers about license violation. I'd really like the details of that for outreach. Educate the broader public, cut down on violations before they happen. Durova²⁸² 04:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have previously written about an incident, where I ended up getting a compensation of 150€ after a French company had failed to follow the attribution requirement of the CC-BY-SA, where a photo of mine (not an FP but a Commons Valued Image) was used in an architecture competition in Greenland.

The London tube incident had to do with this image by mbz1, and is briefly described here and in depth here. I also seem to recall that mila has writen about other copyright incidents. --Slaunger (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WP isn't just about ducks and flowers

I appreciate that we want to have high quality images for Featured content in WP however it seems as though no picture gets accepted unless its by 1 of 4 editors and its not a duck or a flower, taken under ideal conditions and then heavily photshopped and cleansed. I admit that due to my lack of understanding of photography some of my submissions may not have been ideal but there have been a couple, that in my opinion are very good and I think that in some cases it is phyisally impossible to get the ideal shot as in the case of the Saddams Palace image or the one of the Tomb of the Unknown soldier at Arlington Cemetery. The later image was taken more than 50 years ago before digital photography and without substantial editing (which I believe also damages the historical aspect of the image). If the only images that are going to be passed are those taken recently with high end digital cameras I think we are going to lose a lot of good content. --Kumioko (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

First regarding bird/flowers pictures, don't worry that's just 3 of our photographers who are in a frenzy during their vacations, but it should be over in a few months. Moreover, they don't get free passes or privileges. If we do have bias, that would probably be the opposite one : since they used us to take "perfect" pictures, we expect nothing less, and they also have to compete with already featured pictures of similar subjects and great quality.

Now, on to the main issue. We are perfectly aware of what can or can't be done regarding historical pictures. We expect perfect technique and quality only for reproducible images (current bird/flowers). For historical pictures with unique EV, we are more lenient regarding technical quality. On the other hand, many old, non-digital pictures, have issues that can be addressed : bad scan of existing picture can be redone (case of your Merrit A. Edson picture), and old originals can be restored with Photoshop. See for example this nomination where I think you will agree that the cleaning job added greatly to the picture.

Therefore when we judge a picture we access its EV first, and balance it against technical quality, but if we feel we can get a better version (by rescanning or photoshop-cleaning, ...), we will oppose. That's why we hope to get a better nomination for Merrit A. Edson and rejected the current one. Regarding your Saddam's Palace nomination, that's a different matter. Even though it does have EV, it look very amateurish and can't be saved, and the EV isn't enough to balance that. I hope i helped you understand how we judge pictures. Ksempac (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out too, the Tomb of the Unknown contains many hairs, dust, and scratches, some of which I don't believe could be fixed to the extent necessary to be an FP (the resolution isn't great enough). Open the image up full size and have a look around; you'll see the hairs and dust from the scanning process. For a scanned image, these are typically unacceptable. Though if you know photoshop at all, cloning them out can be fun. I don't mean to get you down, just expand upon the comment above. wadester 16 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be a little kind about restoration: I'm currently working on a restoration I'm 8 hours into, and will need another 10 or 12 minimum to finish: It's an engraving of the first performnce of Verdi's last opera (good) but there's a fair bit of bleedthrough and ink splatter that has to be carefully removed. (bad). The number of good restorationists is limited, and it does require a very big time commitment on occasion, so please don't presume that every image requires restoration or it cannot pass. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoration has never been a requirement of FPC, nor will it be. Recently Louis Daguerre's famous "Boulevard du Temple" was featured at Commons. It would be a serious mistake to demand restoration of images such as that. Durova²⁸⁰ 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet it has the white flashing problem on the bottom center.:-) --Kumioko (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, must confess that none of my featured pictures are of either a duck or a flower, although George Washington Carver had a carnation in his lapel. Please excuse the delays while I set aside the portrait of Booker T. Washington to find proper flowers and ducks. Durova²⁸⁰ 20:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I truly meant no disrespect and I have only been submitting images for a short time but it seemed as though a frustratingly large majority of the images that where getting a support vote where of flowers and duckies. --Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, was able to locate an ukiyo-e print of a mandarin duck. Coming right up... ;) Durova²⁸⁰ 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I hope the bill isn't too high. ..sorry... --mikaul^talk 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the duck and flower pictures (along with Butterflies) because they are some of the few life images I am willing to look at in detail. I will -not- look at some of the bugs at high resolution. Sorry, but I just can't bring myself to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon that admission, we shouldn't see any votes from you on insect nominations then; all !votes must be made on the full-res version of an image. wadester 16 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mhmm. You can check, I skipped over the more disgusting images. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured sounds

Since Valued images can do it..

May I invite everyone over to Featured sounds? The project really is languishing due to lack of reviewers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Just wondering but where do Videos fall in the mix, are they considered a sound or an image? --Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As with animations, they're nominated here (FPC), having said which, we haven't seen one for a while. They don't tend to attract a lot of votes or attention though. --jjron (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it all depends on the video. Something like the government's video of Obama's inauguration speech would probably be better at Sounds, because while the footage is all HD and professionally video'ed, it's the actual speech that is the main subject. Matthewedwards : Chat 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's generally been how it's been done: If the sound track for the video could be played on its own with little loss of encyclopedic value, then it should probably go to FSC, not here. E.g., while the video adds to a recording of a symphony, the main interest is in the symphony itself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because I have a couple dozen video clips that aren't on WP yet regarding Medal of Honor recipients speaking at different events or something (Charles Lindbergh, Alvin York, Eddie Rickenbacher, Teddy Roosevelt, etc). --Kumioko (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Those all sound perfectly appropriate for featured sounds, provided, of course, the basic stuff like permissions works out. I suppose that some speeches by them might be more notable and easy to get featured than others, but so long as it's a useful addition to the article on the person (or an organisation they belonged to, etc), I can't see any real problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Spaarnestad partnership

Good news, all, Spaarnestad Museum in Haarlem, The Netherlands is partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation to provide images. Many thanks to go GerardM for his work making this possible.[6] Durova²⁸¹ 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hurray! NW (Talk) 19:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of possibles

Since I haven't had much luck with choosing good images and rather than throw my hands up in frustration and defeat (which is my first impulse) I thought I would link a couple here and if you all think they are decent let me know and I will submit them formally. , , , , . --Kumioko (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I kind of like the first. The third gave me a good laugh, but the quality is lacking in that. wadester 16 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, should I go ahead and submit that first one, or do you think that it would need to be touched up in some way prior to submission? --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a project specifically for his kind of pre-submission enquiry. You'll get good advice, a proper review and possibly even some help fixing minor problems. Give it a go. --mikaul^talk 22:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

↑ Precisely what I was gonna say. wadester 16 03:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll give it a shot. --Kumioko (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Feedback please

Feedback here, here, here, here and here. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 15:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jamaican daily life under British rule

This has a 2/3rds majority in support. It's also been open for weeks. If noone objects within 24 hours, I intend to close it as promoted, because noone else has stepped up to close it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By raw numbers it's exactly at 0.666… (13S-6.5O). It also has no fewer than 6 reasonless supports. In a close nom like this, I believe supporting your !vote is essential (going back to the almighty "this isn't a vote, it's a discussion"). All the opposes seem to have thought-out reasons; I find it hard to swallow that this nom has "reached consensus". And no offense at all to you, SH, but I don't think you should close this since you voted in it and it's such a close call. Either way, somebody uninvolved needs to step up and close this. wadester 16 14:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

By request, I'll be happy to make an attempt at closing this. As long as you promise to be tolerant of any mistakes I might make! Maedin\^talk 15:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me just clarify something: The guidelines of the page state that "For promotion, if an image is listed here for about seven days with three or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list.", the question is: Excluding the nominator only applies for reaching consensus or for reaching promotion also?
In case of the second one, then this picture won´t be promoted to FP if closed, because the votes would be like [S-12 // O-6.5]. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting interpretation. I've never thought of it that way. To be fair, I've always looked at consensus including the nominator's vote, and will in the future unless directed by the community to do otherwise. wadester 16 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I always thinked as the nominator's support vote as a highlighting tool wich only serve to attract consensus for the community (not to be considered as part of it), but in this situation, it makes me rethink and ask for clarification. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c (because I'm slow)) I think it's just another way of saying "four supports, including the nominator". I believe the reason that it's been worded the way it has is because the nominator isn't technically a "reviewer" at that stage. As far as I know, the opinion of the nominator always counts, regardless of whether one is determining consensus or just counting !votes. Maedin\^talk 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Wadester's initial comment, if I may, I agree that it seems rough to count 6 reasonless supports with due weight; however, we have never demanded reasons for supports, never disregarded supports (at least not from our regular, otherwise well-reasoned contributors), and never asked for clarification on a reasonless support, so it would be impossible to try and attempt to do so at this point. The supporters were not to know that this would be a difficult one to call. We either need to establish that all supports require reasoning or that they don't; but not change the goalposts after the fact. P.S. When I say never, I don't mean never, ever, ever, of course. Maedin\^talk 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually disagree a bit there. As I said in the post I made on that nomination when it was due for closure "It's hard to determine what those supports are thinking, which is a bit careless in what was clearly going to be a controversial nom". --jjron (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I am beginning to alter my opinion on this point now. Maedin\^talk 06:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. I never disregard support with no qualification from trusted reviewers. If an image has problems, supports with no justification can safely be discounted, e.g. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oklahoma city bombing. I can name at least one user who has, over the course of hundreds of FPCs, has supported all but (I think) one FPC usually without reasoning (and when reasoning was used, it was poor), so votes by such users should be discounted. MER-C 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does depend...and my point was in this case the supports should have been justified, even from the trusted reviewers IMO. Re the second point I'm trying to pin a name down, can think of a few possibilities, but over hundreds of FPCs...the mind boggles... --jjron (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite "hundreds", but still 100+/6 months. MER-C 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Picking up one Wadester, Maedin and Damërung's discussion about the nominator. Like Wade I was a bit surprised by the wording, as I remembered it as having said four supports including the nominator for some years. Seems MER-C reworded it in March. People probably shouldn't be rewording these things (other than fixing up grammar, etc) without notifying the community as in cases like this it does alter the interpretation of the thing (for example I would have regarded conominators as each counting for a support). Unless I missed something, there was no discussion on this. --jjron (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That was to ensure all promotions get a minimum amount of scrutiny - three uninvolved reviewers. (Stuff like this is concerning, especially with "boring" pictures). Nominators don't count towards meeting quorum but otherwise they (usually) are valid supports. MER-C 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate the reasoning behind this, but it still raises a couple of issues. One is the rewording that can change the interpretation (as I said above you changed it in March, but I wasn't aware of it till today, and it sounds like Wadester may have been in the same boat). The second is that under this interpretation why would you ever bother with a co-nomination? Surely one would nominate, the other would support - why disadvantage your nom? --jjron (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It is meant to discourage pointless co-nominations. And co-nomination = share the credit for a collaborative exercise - we don't give out talk page notices to people who support, collaboration not mentioned in the nomination => taking credit for others' work (something that won't go down very well with the reviewers) and if it is mentioned it should be treated as a conomination anyway. MER-C 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Then raises interesting side issues. Surely an 'edit' of someone else's picture is a form of collaboration, but we don't 'punish' people for that by ignoring their opinion when they do the edit. And how do we know how much collaboration has actually happened in a conom? They pretty much never say, one could have done all the work, the other just said they agree with what's been done, which is the impression I sometimes get (e.g., that an experienced FPC editor is guiding a newbie through the process). --jjron (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this case is a good argument for strict vote counting unless there's very strong reasons to overrule. It's a bit awkward to have 20 people vote, 2/3rds say it should be promoted, then it's overruled. It's not fair on Durova, and it makes the process a crapshoot, where whoever closes it will give vastly different results. Maybe in the minimal 4/2, but 13/6.5? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't that important to me either way; but this is how Wikipedia works. This is not a symptom of a broken FPC, this is a symptom of a Wikipedia-wide goal of maintaing and improving standards. Potential bureaucrats get asked: would you have closed this RfA as a promote or not? I have participated in rename requests and RfAs where the result was against the numbers (and against my personal opinion), but that never made the system appear broken to me. As for fairness, how about it being unfair on the opposers who spent time reveiwing the articles and made well-reasoned opposition when others drive-by support without saying anything? We could come up with all sorts of things that are unfair to all sorts of people on any side of almost any argument; it's quite pointless. Maedin\^talk 12:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the type of dynamic that reinforces systemic bias, though. People are more likely to challenge EV on subjects that aren't already familiar to them. So a wagon trail through the Rocky Mountains passes unanimously, but Jamaica comes under fire. There's a cache of images about a World Heritage Site in Uzbekistan that I'd love to nominate, but the articles themselves are too underdeveloped and Google Books is patchy (partly because the same name gets transliterated multiple ways, and different Uzbek historical and legendary figures share the same name). Been waiting since March for one of only two self-described Uzbek editors at en:wiki to reply to a query. It took two days' labor to restore the Jamaican image that lingered and failed. Durova²⁸⁵ 15:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Though, to be fair, the Rocky Mt pass image is a finished work. ;) wadester 16 15:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That really doesn't address the point, wadester. Regardless of whether something is "finished" or not, it can still be a valuable and encyclopedic contribution. I wholeheartedly agree with Durova in this matter, and I would be interested to hear your point on view on the issue that she just brought up. NW (Talk) 15:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why it was a joke. wadester 16 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An inappropriate use of humor: the issue is a serious one. Durova²⁸⁵ 23:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't disagree with that, Durova, but that bias would be present in the reviewers, not just the closer who attempts to determine the consensus. Even in terms of numbers, this one was really, really close; I'm not suggesting that I did or did not make the correct decision, but if there is anything at fault here regarding indeterminable or vague EV due to the subject, it did not come just at a single point. I surely hope you realise how much we appreciate your restorations and the work and effort you put into FPC; any nomination which doesn't pass is never meant to de-value that contribution. Maedin\^talk 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do want to say that bias is function of the population of editors that is here, and their respective interests. It's not really the fault of the community that there's only 2 Uzbek users here and few editors interested in fleshing out articles about the subject. Jamaica is an impoverished nation (and going down, thanks to the economy), so how many people there have computers? Of those people with computers, how many have the time/interest to donate to WP? And of those, how many will take part and vote on an FPC and give some input on their view of EV in the image? I think our bias is minimal to the bias seen in other FPC projects on other WPs. Spanish FPC jumps on any image that goes through here that relates in any way to Spain or Latin America. It's not really the process, but the contributors. Just look at its places images. 2 from Africa, 4 from Oceania, but 38 from Spain alone. Nothing wrong with it; it's their prerogative. wadester 16 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is obvious we all have our own biases, and that promoted pictures will somehow reflects them, I dislike the way Durova seems to attribute the failure of her nom to country bias. I try to avoid voting on subjects I don't feel confident to vote about, that's why I avoid most of the US-centric subjects. On the other hand, our US contributors are more likely to vote on them (either to Support or Oppose), because they know the subject quite well. Sometimes, we get a nom about a country not many know about, so people don't feel confident they can judge it and the nom fails by lack of votes. But on this specific Jamaican nom, that's not what we saw. A large number of people actually voted on this nomination. This means they were interested by the picture and felt qualified to give an insightful opinion about it. We had different opinions, but we did have opinions. So saying "nobody cares about Jamaica" is wrong because the nom got attention, and on a personal note i feel quite hurt that someone suggests those who opposed must be pro-US, Jamaica-haters people. I don't support/oppose a picture based on whether i like the subject, i do it based on my (as much as possible) objective assessment of the quality of the picture. Give me a picture about French history, i will feel qualified to vote on it, but it will never get a free pass : it will only get my support if it is a good picture and represents the subject well. Otherwise I will oppose even if it represents a subject I'm deeply interested in. Ksempac (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Durova meant that images from cultures that we don't have much of are ignored on FPC. I thought she meant that we FPC reviewers often fail to appreciate the impact that these particular images have within the culture, and see the images as "low EV", while a Jamaican interested in history would immediately recognize that as an enormously important representation of Jamaica's history. NW (Talk) 20:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To contradict Wadester's original statement above that it has 6 reasoned supports and 6 reasoned opposes - I contradicted most of the claims within the opposes about lack of encyclopedic value. As such, I cannot accept any suggestion that opposes based on that are credible. The statements were very flimsy, especially with the standards used for other images. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered this from the beginning: How does this image fit in Plantation (settlement or colony)? Nothing on the image page or at the LOC states that it's a plantation (in the definitional sense of Plantation (settlement or colony)). The article states that 'plantation' transferred to meaning the large farms (i.e. plantation). This is from 1810-ish, long after the initial plantations of the 17th through early 18th centuries. Jamaica had long been settled by 1810, having a population of roughly 10,000 free blacks, which implies a much greater population of slaves: hardly a small starting settlement to expand a nation's interests (i.e. plantation (settlement or colony)). It seems by this time, the original term plantation was archaic and replaced by the large farms we know of from the Caribbean and American South. That said, I don't see any reference to plantation on the image page or LOC page, so I wouldn't think it would fit there either (if it were suggested). So I believe the EV isn't there for that article. And while it has some EV for History of Jamaica, I still don't see it adding much, especially to the section it resides in, which mainly discusses slave uprisings (i.e. it's not really relevant to the surrounding text, which it should be). Sometimes an image just isn't ready for use on WP or in a certain article where it has great potential; one must wait the time for the text to appear, rather than spam an article with images or insert an image that is only slightly relevant. I have a bunch of photos uploaded that currently have no home; hopefully the will eventually. It just takes some time. The most EV this has is with watercolor, in that it shows an unfinished work (or call it work in progress, for the sake of the article), and shows that watercolor has been around for at least two centuries. But I still think the EV there is minimal compared to many of the other images in that article. wadester 16 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's as may be, but (quite aside from the fact that none of them concede your point) it doesn't alter the fact that they are reasoned opposes. It seems pretty clear that unreasoned voting either way is potentially inadequate in any nom and might result in the vote carrying less weight. Any review can be contested but it only becomes discountable if it's (a) conceded by the reviewer (and struck out or amended) or (b) assessed as such by a closer (who then provides the opportunity for contesting that assessment).
As to other points, images are promoted entirely on technical merit and reviewers' assessment of EV. Issues like systemic bias are, relatively speaking, irrelevant to this process; although it certainly merits a mention, it's not a recognised mitigating factor. SB is surely only remedied by expanding articles; lets not forget that the best FPC can do is positively reflect our existing article content and respect that as a fundamental tenet of the featured pictures project. --mikaul^talk 21:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree very much with the last 3 sentences of the previous statement. wadester 16 21:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias is a clear indication of the opposite of us having a "neutral point of view". NPOV is a non-negotionable aspect of our project. One of the important aspects of the restorations we do is exactly the attempt to cover many illustration techniques, subjects and cultures. I suspect that the only excuse that arguments that allows for systemic bias is "it is a joke".. The sad thing is that nobody is laughing. GerardM (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is there to keep the content of an article (typically writing, based on the nutshell using the word "written") from being too biased in any particular way; paired with WP:V and WP:RS, it aims to create an accurate and well-versed encyclopedia. It seems you're implicitly scolding anyone that doesn't upload files or nominate FPCs that represent the greatest range of humanity possible. But that, in itself, is not possible, nor is completely removing systemic bias on any WMF project; it's simply not realistic or feasible. Kudos to anyone that makes an effort to overturn it, but those users do so by choice and have no right to expect or demand the same participation by any other user. If I create a systemic bias because I upload and nominate photos that parallel my life, my interests, and my likes, then so be it. But if I didn't do that, then those areas would be lacking. Based on your interpretation of NPOV, it will always be there anyway (which is the case anyway) because each user/uploader brings their own bias, because, well, they're human. Basically, no user is obligated to do anything they don't want to do. One should appreciate the work, uploads, and nominations from anyone, no matter the subject. It still adds to the project. wadester 16 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Photo illustrations

Currently there is no category for photo illustrations such as this one (I haven't uploaded it to WP, yet) but I think there should be. I used this one as an example but it could also apply to other things like ships, events, movies, etc. Althuogh images of this type are not exactly photo's I think it is a format used quite often on images, even in WP and we should at least consider having a category for it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories get updated periodically; just recently categories for literature and theatre were created out of necessity. If something is promoted, and it doesn't fit in our current system, we will evolve for it. wadester 16 15:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I say this is because I have been told and read several comments stating that this type of image will never get to FP status because it is essentially a manufactured image. I think it was the last rule about not over editing pictures.--Kumioko (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But, if on the off chance it were promoted per consensus, it would be added to a gallery. I think it's pretty easy to say it would go to Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military, wadester 16 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow I never noticed that, 15 images for Military people in FP. Thats pretty humble. --Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

JPEG thumbnails too bright/warm?

I just started a thread at the Village pump (technical) about issues with JPEG thumbnailing. Specifically it seems to me that our thumbnails are significantly brighter and warmer than the original images. If anyone has any opinions or insights about this, please join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had the same issue and brought it up here back in February. wadester 16 18:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the issue is that we use Imagemagick's convert function with the -thumbnail flag which strips the color profile information. We should probably use the -resize flag instead. See the discussion for more info. Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there is now a MediaWiki bug on the issue. Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Should be saving as sRGB anyway. Many applications and browsers (notably iexplore) don't have colour space support, so they get dull images at full size too. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

All my images are saved as sRGB, unfortunately that doesn't prevent the problem as different browsers and operating systems use different color spaces by default, so unless the profile is preserved, you have no control over how the image is going to appear. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great news. I brought the issue up with the Imagemagick developers. They say they are going to add a patch to the next ImageMagick release so that "convert -thumbnail" leaves the color profile intact. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures with no quorum

There are two pictures (one recent and other past) which were closed without much consensus, I couldn´t post the old one in the section of "Niminations older than 7 days, decision time", and the recent one was removed very quickly. I was thinking in renominate them back, Would it be a good idea? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If they didn't get enough attention the first time through, it seems unlikely they would get more attention by immediately renominating them. Why not wait awhile and nominate some other pictures in the meantime? Kaldari (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominators can always renominate later if they want to. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The page has been very busy. When that happens you almost invariably get some going thru with little attention. I'd suggest waiting till things are a bit quieter (have NS & Fir started back at uni yet... :-) ) and renominate then if you think they're worth it. --jjron (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New template for photography

I noticed that the template for photography is a real mess. There are too many things in it, some are duplicated, and many articles which it refers don't have the template transcluded. So I would like to do a major overhaul of this template and then check that every related article will get the new template.

The main idea is to split this much too big template into multiple, smaller templates, and then transclude all the templates into the existing template. This will 1-allows us to edit all templates one by one 2-help to classify information 3-make the template easier to understand for readers. Moreover, there is an almost unused template that we could merge at the same time.

To get started, I created a template on photographic techniques. The main goal is to replace the current unreadable list in the big template with a dedicated navbox which ordonnate techniques in different categories. A secondary goal will be to get rid of the "alternative photography" template. So here is what i did, I would like your input on it :

It was hard to come by with the categories, and even harder to classify items in them (is a panomaric a hardware or composition technique ? is the fill flash an exposure or a hardware technique ?), so please don't flame me. However, constructive critics are very welcome. I'm also interested to know if you feel I should add (rule of thirds in composition technique ?) or remove some links from this specific template (Lomography/Polaroid art) and maybe put them in another template. Ksempac (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The existing one probably does need weeding out and rearranging. It's actually an indictment of the poor state of our mainspace photography articles, given the amount of steam and energy this page burns up ;-)
I actually prefer one big template, precisely because everything is in there: it crosses too many boundaries to neatly split into techniques and terminology. The first thing needed is a finer and stricter division of cats, so that (eg) cross-processing, redscale and solarisation go under processing techniques and are excluded from processing, which would contain only developer, C-41 process, etc. Similarly, technique needs splitting into lighting technique, capture technique etc.
The second thing is to deal with currently bloated (yet often non-comprehensive) cats like technical terms by adding a more link to a summary style article. Just need to make sure the template only lists the main terms (or techniques or whatever), maybe the top 10 or 15. That way the cats can be both comprehensive and informative without being cluttered. Splitting out techniques isn't a bad idea, it just needs to be an article rather than a template.
Finally (phew) there's no mention of problems/issues like noise/grain, distortion, fogging, camera shake, etc. In a slimmed-down, weeded-out template there should be room for this. May be of interest that a similar issue cropped up on the image noise talk page recently where splitting to summary articles was suggested as a solution to the overall topic of distortion. --mikaul^talk 03:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, meant to add that I'd be happy to lend a hand if you need some guidance over what goes where :-) --mikaul^talk 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer (looks like there aren't many people interested), but I must say I'm quite confused. On one hand, you tells me to stick with the big template because it's hard to separate things into groups, but on the other hand, you would like to add new groups and split existing groups in the current template. The current template has already 10 groups. It's a mess to read, and it's a mess to update (I've been trying to do both for a few weeks when I decided I was seek of it). Wouldn't it be easier to have one template for each of the main parts (For example : Vocabulary, Technique, Hardware, Theory) like i proposed ? (note to others wikipedians : feel free to take side one way or another) Ksempac (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain what I meant by "summary style articles" properly (that's not strictly speaking what they're for) I'm suggesting we need a kind of expanded list-based article to act as a kind of mini-portal for the bigger template groups. If the groups are slimmed down this way there should be room for more, although I can understand you being averse to that. For me the hardest thing to navigate at present is the cluttered lists within the bigger groups. Bear in mind we can absorb some existing groups into techniques (like "colour photography" and "composition", for example) so the template could comfortably accommodate dividing up the more cluttered groups, which is all I'm suggesting; it wouldn't grow significantly bigger, if at all. The other point I made is the crossover effect of photo terminology: splitting the main template into the ones you propose means articles like exposure, fill flash, macro, etc could conceivably need all four of them. --mikaul^talk 20:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support"

That's what it says at the top of WP:FPC. It doesn't say "more than two-third majority".

Hence, I think Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Jamaican_daily_life_under_British_rule, 13 supports, 6.5 oppose, is a clear promote, and should be promoted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So the issue comes down to "generally regarded"; i.e. there are exceptions or situations where it's not warranted. I think Jjron said best: "It's hard to determine what those [reasonless] supports are thinking, which is a bit careless in what was clearly going to be a controversial nom…". I still question its EV, to be frank. wadester 16 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but it shouldn't matter in a nomination that was this commented on. One person shouldn't overrule the consensus of 20, at least unless there's a hell of a lot better reason than the ones given: If the image is a copyright violation, sure. If the image has major, major problems, like JPEG artefacts everywhere, okay, you have a case for overruling. If the image has been removed from all its articles with excellent reasons given; if the image isn't of the location it's stated to be, if there's some major misrepresentation, then, yes, there's a possible exception. "I agree with one side on a hotly debated point"? Hell no. Go with consensus. Let's just promote it and be done with it. We don't need another major drama over this. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't know, Shoe. I asked the person I thought would garner the most respect and least hostility from FPC reviewers to close this. She has been praised by many reviewers here and even mentioned as a possible FPC director, if we ever did it. IMO, she determined consensus successfully on a nom that had many reasonless supports (which, like Jjron said, really should have had a reason, given the controversy surrounding it and the previous Jamaica nom) and many fully reasoned and argued opposes. Also, if I were closing, I would have discounted Ottava Rima's support, for the reasons I give in the nom: nutshell is that FPCs are not to be judged based on their potential EV. That is just flat out incorrect, and does not follow the guidelines here. wadester 16 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's not said that reasonless supports may be disregarded, then they shouldn't be. We can't make up ad hoc rules after the fact. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And what of Ottava Rima's ill-reasoned support? That would bring it to 12/6.5 < 2/3. wadester 16 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not degrade this into personal attacks, Wadester, in an attempt to discount votes to support your point of view. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no I'm definitely not making it into a personal attack. I don't care if it were Noodle snacks, Fir, or Diliff making the comment. I would still say something because it is so backwards. I'm discussing the merit of the statement here, not the person. That said, do you agree with that support? I find it to be a scary precedent. wadester 16 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Supporting with no comment upon the specific example raised. There's been a problem with closers weighing merit-based arguments too subjectively: closers may discount factually incorrect rationales, but step beyond their remit when they expect to be persuaded by rationales. And agreeing about ad hoc rules being out of bounds. Durova²⁸⁸ 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Unless major problems are discovered, which were not known or commented on by the voters at the time, all images should be promoted on a strict vote-counting method. A minimum of 2/3rds support, with at least three of the supports not by the nominator, is necessary and sufficient to promote. The closer may decide, instead of closing, to vote instead, but if they wish to close, and do not have evidence of unnoticed major problems, they must follow strict counting.

Support Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 17:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Support Otherwise we're right back with the problem of closers behaving like super-reviewers that caused so much trouble earlier this year. Durova²⁸⁸ 17:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry but I just can't support the idea of consensus = X% voting majority. Either the image has consensus or it doesn't. It's not about voting. If it isn't clear that the image has consensus, it probably doesn't. It's not like we have some quota we have to fill. Kaldari (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- And so it's better to have a single random person block an image for whatever reason they feel like, no matter how widespread the support for it is by every other person, causing this drama month in and month out, rather than use a system used on every other featured picture process? Vote counting is used at Commons, And I believe at German, Turkish, etc. Only here do we let anyone who wants to close an image overrule the majority of people and refuse to promote it. The people working to contribute images deserver a transparently fair process, and every time the voting goes in their favour, but someone closes it as not promoted because of purely subjective reasons which the supporters often specifically argued against, we're basically slapping them in the face. Let's stop abusing our nominators and give them the transparent process they deserve, with closer discretion limited only to truly major issues. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  - The process at Commons is about the least thoughtful process I've ever witnessed on a Wikimedia project. Everyone just piles on votes without a word of explanation. I don't really understand what all the drama here is about. IMO, the FP closers almost always err on the side of promoting, so why is there a problem? Even if there is only a single oppose, but it's firmly held and reasonable, the image doesn't have consensus in my view. The fact that you may have argued against the opposes or addressed their concerns isn't really that compelling unless you've convinced them to change their mind. Have there ever been any non-promotions without a single standing oppose (and at least a handful of supports)? Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Err on the side of promoting? Have you even READ this talk page regularly? =P Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 20:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      - I've never personally seen an instance of an image that should have been promoted, not getting promoted. I see instances all the time, however, of images that don't have consensus being promoted (due to the tendency to treat the nominations as voting contests). Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        You're kidding, right? Durova²⁸⁸ 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You can argue this until you are blue in the face, but fortunately I will be out in the sunshine (well, hopefully sunshine) for five weeks on end and therefore will think nothing of this microcosm of strife. My only opinion on the matter is that raw vote counting is not the standard by which Wikipedia works; consensus is determined by validity of argument, by reasoned opposition and support. It just isn't a numbers game. If you want to make it one, fine. But in the meantime, please don't use emotional language that, by inference, claimed that I made an arbitrary decision completely against the numbers and against all of this reasoned support that you claim the nomination had. The issue was EV; EV was addressed satisfactorily by the opposers and not by the supporters; what else can I say on the matter? Even by the numbers, this was a whisker, a nudge, a wink above 2/3, and I agree with Wadester that at least one support used faulty logic, and several others appeared to use none at all. In any case, as I will be disappearing on Sunday until September, you are free to be as explicit as you like in your reference to my wildly unsatisfactory closure, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip :-) wadester 16 22:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! If I don't get eaten by cows, I'll have a great time, :-) Maedin\^talk 08:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if it says at the top of Featured pictures ""Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support"", then that's what we go by, not the validity of argument as judged by whatever random Tom, Dick, or Harry decidesd to look at it. End of story. We don't screw over our nominators with ad hoc rulings, when a clearly defined criteria exists at the top of the page. In fact, I'll go further: from this point out, I will personally overrule all closings that do not strictly apply the rules, and promote the images - since this is never about breaking the rules to promote. I'm not going to touch the old ones, but so long as the rules are as they're currently stated to be, I'm going to make sure they're applied, and no nominator gets screwed over again. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a really bad idea. I guarantee others will revert you if you do it without discussion. wadester 16 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

It also says "However, the result is not simply determined by a vote tally and the closer may exercise discretion." And "If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." That's exactly what happened here. You can't just keep quoting the two-thirds thing and keep ignoring these other parts. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you check the history, that was added in by Fir0002, without discussion, specifically because people were screwing over the rules: [7]. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 22:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The close candidacies part appears to have been there for much longer. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Kaldari's right: the number of times borderline consensus goes the way of support far outweighs instances like this, where there's clearly no consensus of support. I hope people here never tire of defending basic FPC principles because I believe they're basically sound, no matter how many times the process throws up some "drama" or other. A 2/3 majority may not be stipulated as a minimum but neither has it ever been regarded as anything other than a vague rule of thumb for measuring consensus. Vote counting has this purpose and this purpose only: to gauge a rough idea of consensus. Consensus was not overruled in this case, the vote count was found to be borderline and consensus of opinion was correctly assessed to be lacking. That assessment only becomes a drama if you believe there's something fundamentally wrong with the the established method of consensus-based decision-making at WIkipedia. If so, you're clearly raising the issue in the wrong place. --mikaul^talk 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose From WP:Consensus: "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons." Makeemlighter (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- So why are we giving the right to judge these reasons to anyone, whatsoever, who cares to? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 23:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
  - The problem is that most of the regulars at this process know digital photography pretty well, but not other visual media (or their historic contexts). So the consensus review system works pretty well with digital photography but breaks down on a semi-regular basis with other media. That problem isn't visible to most of the regulars, precisely because neither the reviewers nor the closers know what they're looking at well enough to distinguish a sensible rationale from a nonsensical one. So I expect twenty percent of my nominations to tank for nonsensical reasons, and rarely complain because the people who don't realize what's happening would be apt to suppose I'm quarrelsome. The problem, Shoemaker, is that you and I are perfectly aware of what's really happening here--while the majority of participants (who aren't) perceive us as two troublemakers. Durova²⁸⁸ 23:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    - FPC candidacies aren't open-ended discussions, so we need closers. Closers' decisions as are open to debate as the candidacies, which makes it irrelevant who does it, so long as it reflects consensus. So yes, anyone can judge those reasons. Just as anyone can review images. Do you both really think the majority of reviewers and closers are incapable of a reasoned opinion on anything but digital photographs? I find that disingenuous in the extreme. --mikaul^talk 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      - It gets played out often enough, particularly on restorations that counter systemic bias. During this period of Jamaican history it is really rare to encounter artwork that depicts any part of the island's 95% African-descended population (the original indigenous population had been completely wiped out). Period literature rarely even reflects their existence, except as a source of income for the British elite. That was the reason three decades ago Edward Said did a great big whiskey tango foxtrot over the moral temper of Jane Austen's novel Mansfield Park, in which the heroine agnonizes over whether an amateur theatrical production would offend the master of the house without ever contemplating that the theater, the estate, and all their livelihoods depended upon the labor of people who, on average, survived only seven years before they got worked to death or perished from disease. Virtually all of Jamaica's African population was enslaved, with the exception of a few individuals who lived in cities and an even smaller number who were the mixed descendants of British plantation owners. It was extraordinary that this image, which was lost and forgotten for two centuries, was made in the first place or survived at all. It took two days of careful labor to digitally correct for its extensive damage, a fact which Shoemaker's Holiday fully appreciates but few else do. Yet the fact that the subjects weren't in manacles leads ignorant people to doubt whether they were even enslaved. Manacles weren't necessary: what choice did they have, dodge the sharks and dog paddle to Cuba? The way historic nominations go haywire is somebody shows up, posts an opinion that's equal parts definitive and ignorant, and then several other people (including the closer) who know no better mistake that for common sense. Usually I sit back, roll my eyes, brush it off with humor, and just do another restoration. But don't you dare call me disingenuous. Don't you dare call me that. Durova²⁸⁸ 23:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
        Some important points:
        Your restorations are outstanding, there's no question about that. The encyclopedia and its community are thankful for the time you put into them. But that time and effort does not guarantee it a star, nor does the fact that it may counter systemic bias (doing so is an added bonus, but overly irrelevant to the review process). Find me the section of the criteria that says to give extra weight to time-consuming and systemic-bias countering candidates. Sometimes you have to just be happy with adding to the encyclopedia. How many restorations that you do aren't nominated at FPC? Do they all deserve to be nominated?
        
        Sometimes it is indeed common sense that one needs when closing, most especially in a close nom like this. The closer must zoom out and ask, "Is this really Wikipedia's best work?" (This is the situation for all closings, not just restorations.) This nom rubs me the wrong way because it's not complete, it's mainly a sketch. The information on the image page is very much lacking. I mention the issue of it being in Plantation (settlement or colony), and how I don't believe it belongs there (no response yet; I'm strongly considering removing it from that article). You have the outline of three (presumably, but not explicitly stated) slaves (plus a baby, it looks like). The one on the left could be a corpse rising from the grave, as it only looks like the torso and head of a human. These people are overseen by a dressed white man and what looks to be another black man, assumedly free(?). What about this gives us a clue about Jamaica in the 1810s? Nothing says it's on a plantation (plantains do grow in nature, after all, and the tree on the right seems to imply not much organization if this is a plantation, and not the settlement kind).
        
        You state that you roll your eyes at us for being ignorant and unknowing, but I rolled my eyes at an unfinished candidate, then moreso at your responses to my issue of you not mentioning the painting being unfinished either in the nom or image page (including that information for curious viewers is far from patronizing - it feeds their interest). I gave this nom a chance, hoping you'd flesh out the image page and caption, and hoping you'd find more relevant articles to place it in. But that never happened. You distrust reasoned opposes, but don't seem to make any effort to correct (possibly) incorrect negative reviews. On the other hand, you seem to have no issue with reasonless and blatantly incorrect supports. You don't trust our reviewing skills (throwing AGF out the window); maybe you should start a Featured Restorations project and you won't have to worry about our supposed ignorance. wadester 16 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        Cut to the chase, Wadester. It ought to be possible to post to this page without getting targeted by personal attacks. Durova²⁸⁸ 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        Ditto. You attacked us stating that our opinions are half ignorant and that we are just followers that don't know any better. Maybe it is time you start a featured restorations project if we aren't good enough for you. wadester 16 00:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        A person may be uninformed without harmful intent. A person may not be disingenuous without intent to deceive. It was probably not your intent to intent to insult anyone when you claimed that many if not most of the world's achievements of the last century and a half were American, and named the Manhattan Project as an example. Yet it also happens to be true that scientists in four different countries of Europe (and nowhere other than Europe) were splitting the atom in laboratories for four years during the 1930s and not realizing what their results meant, because they were looking for something else. The first physicist to deduce that the atom had actually split (and that a chain reaction with great release of energy was possible) was a Jewish woman. An element has been named after her, and although she lost her career and her savings to the Nazis she refused to work on a bomb. If I manage to get a sufficiently good portrait of her from an (annoying) German archive, rest assured that I will restore it to the best of my ability and nominate it here, regardless of certain individuals' opinions. Durova²⁸⁸ 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        It wasn't I who called you disingenuous. This possible FPC I would likely support. Unquestionable EV. Noms of questionable EV, on the other hand, lead to contentious discussions and arguments like this (along with threats of overturning consensus to make a point). BTW, the "(annoying)" comment was inappropriate; you purposefully left out my explanation and are attacking me for a very legitimate opinion. Thanks for being grown up about it. wadester 16 01:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        Hey, no-one called anyone disingenuous. Please try to keep some perspective here. If those comments immediately prior to mine above were in fact candid, sincerely-held beliefs about the ability and intelligence of fellow wikipedians I should have labelled them far worse than that. I gave them the benefit of the doubt in assuming they were a way of making a point about expert reviewers to add weight to yours & Shoemaker's claims. And yet later on you refer to those who negatively reviewed your nom as "ignorant people". Where I come from "ignorant" is a deeply offensive thing to be calling anyone, individually or collectively. You can bet a few others here will have done a "whiskey tango foxtrot" just as I did.
        I'm afraid the credibility of any regular reviewer is always going to be taken at face value – not based on a person's apparent credentials but on the relevance of their comments. The consensus EV of an image, digital or otherwise, doesn't have to rely on expert reviewer opinions if the info is there to evaluate it; we've had that debate before. An image either does the job exceptionally well or it doesn't. If it isn't clear from the nom that, as you now claim, the precise period of Jamaican history contemporary with that illustration is crucial to its evaluation, you can't blame reviewers for not giving that fact due weight. --mikaul^talk 04:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
        The relevant points do get made, usually once, and if people decide to shout them down/ignore them/fail to read links I shrug and move on. It was Shoemaker who kept raising these threads at talk; he didn't ask my opinion. He's genuinely offended by the way this went down. I'd written off that nomination after about half a week; it was kind of silly to do a two day restoration at the suggestion of an opposer at a previous nom, and then get reamed for trying to be cooperative. But (shrug). Once in a while it needs to be said that this process does get absurd on a regular basis, or else people who genuinely don't see the problems never get their presumptions challenged. Durova²⁸⁸ 04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Someday I may publish an overview of world history according to Wikipedia featured picture consensus discussions. So far the most interesting discovery was that the women of the Warsaw Ghetto defied a wartime shortage of hosiery during the final days of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, in order to emerge from their bunkers and surrender in style. But keep trying, maybe together we'll top that. ;) Durova²⁸⁸ 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Unless someone can think of a better method to avoid all of the WP:DRAMA. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CON. It might work if we restricted input to trusted reviewers only, but sadly strict vote counting is easily gamed by any WikiProject or other bloc that can drum up enough support to get a crappy picture promoted and delivers poor results when lots of n00bs who don't bother reviewing pictures. MER-C 05:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – it's patently obvious that vote counting is but a tiny step in deciding consensus, per WP:VIE, WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:PRACTICAL. It's time to recognise all this as the WP:DRAMA it is and move on. mikaul^talk 06:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this silly drama

One possible solution is to have on any reasonable request, three (or however many) closers for a controversial nomination, the outcome determined by the majority of such closers. (If I can't find three here, then I will ask elsewhere.) This ties in best with a provisional closure system, where such requests are made to the featured picture director.

There's no need for directors nor should we have committees. If it comes down to it (and the Jamaican nom may be a prime example) we should call a brief RfC on the nom (talk?)page to debate the best outcome. --mikaul^talk 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we haven't done anything with respect to the closure review. So let's stop the drahmaz and start doing stuff. MER-C 05:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Where do we start? --mikaul^talk 06:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Closing time. 7 days + 2 days of inactivity had consensus, but we never implemented it for real. That would have prevented the drama about this nom (since the last two support wouldn't count). NS tried to implement it when the drama started, but as usual others things got in the way and he didn't get enough attention. Ksempac (talk) 10:58, 1 August 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.

v t e Photographic techniques
Composition	Bokeh Contre-jour Night Rephotography
Exposure	Fill flash Fireworks Multiple exposure Panning Redscale Rollout Time-lapse
Hardware	Digiscoping Fisheye Harris shutter Kite aerial Macro Panoramic Photogram (Kirlian) Stopping down Time-lapse Tilt-shift
Processing	Bleach bypass Cross processing Cyanotype High-dynamic-range (HDR) Print toning Push printing Solarisation Sun printing
Related topics	Lomography Pinhole Polaroid art Stereoscopy