Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Quality Images on Commons

At Commons, a new system of promoting quality on Commons and helping users create better images is developed. It should be complementary to featured pictures. See the proposasl at Quality Images, Quality Images, Quality images guidelines, commons:Commons:Quality images candidates. Help developing the system, join the disscussion - your imput would be much aprreciated! --Wikimol 21:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet another suggestion.

. Stevage 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I like low DOFs, but this one is too low. Other than that it's nice. --Pharaoh Hound 19:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm I don't think it's too low. It draws your attention to the front most piece which is clear. --Gmaxwell 18:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Article on fake DOF

Some of you may find this interesting [1] -Ravedave 17:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ferrofluid in magnetic field

Anyone else think the voting on "Ferrofluid in magnetic field" is a bit strange? -Ravedave 19:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - I don't see any obvious sockpuppeting or any foul play, but I'm surprised that there are so many "one-word" supports for a not-so-great image. I've abstained from voting myself - sure, the picture is interesting, but it doesn't have the wow-factor needed for me to support. --Janke | Talk 20:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a detail analisys but there seems to be alot of new names, and also alot of votes rapidly showing up in comparision to other FPCs. -Ravedave 21:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I noted that, too. However, I couldn't find any traces of solicitation either - can you? --Janke | Talk 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think people are supporting it because it's an interesting concept, not because the image is particularly feature-worthy. No comment on the suspicious voting pattern... but I would suggest if people don't consider it a great image, they should vote against it.-- moondigger 15:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisting Procedure

Should delisting not be brought more into line with nominating? Currently Epipcyclic Gear Ratios has been up for a month and a half, Lincoln Statue has been up for a month, with what I see as fairly clear results. Then the map that has been there for 3 weeks with all votes for keep. I believe delisting should be made the same as standard nominations along with the 7 day time period. It just seems random when they get removed to me.....say1988 18:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Criteria adjusted

A slight elaboration has been made to the "Have a good caption" point of Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?, following frequent complaints on the Main Page. When evaluating these, please take into account that the image description page should have an extended caption that is suitable for featuring the image on the Main Page. This should be pretty easy to satisfy for any image with a little effort. Thanks.--Pharos 06:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass Delisting

Without wanting to make a personal attack on anyone, I find the attitude Vanderdecken as taken to delisting many of the old FP's rather distrubing. I strongly believe a more restrained attitude should be taken in defeaturifying an image. I'm not suggesting scrapping the delisting process (I've delist some images myself) but I feel that FP status should be more "permanent". For sure there are many images that have FP status which wouldn't pass on today's standards, but that's not a good enough reason (IMO) to "defrock" an image. Sure anything truly bad should be delisted, but I think the delisting process should be done with restrain. --Fir0002 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As I seem to have triggered this surprisingly large discussion, I should probably explain my motives for delisting some of those pictures. I'm sorry if I alarmed people by delisting so many at once. I'd just been browsing through Featured Pictures Visible, and I saw some very poor quality pictures in there (e.g. this, this and this). I knew that if someone tried to nominate pictures like those today, they'd get booed off the page. For instance, the Sainte Jeanne d'Arc picture - people would be editing the voting page asking if this was a joke, or if a problem with the Gregorian calendar had meant April 1st had returned in the middle of July. If it was the fact that I nominated all the pictures at once that alarmed you, I'm sorry. Would you have preferred it if I nominated one every two weeks, so it didn't seem like I was waging a war on FP? I'm not, I just thought that according to the (recently updated) FPC criteria, those pictures were substandard, and some of them ineligible. Sometimes I find that a lot of the attitudes on FPC when voting suggest that if an image is delisted it will be deleted from FP and never seen again - of course this is not the case. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia will lose the image - if you like it you can dowload it or put a link to the image page in your favourites. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about letting any FP keep its status for some minimum length of time - say a couple of years, before it can be up for delisting? I looked at the upload date of a couple in the recent bunch, and there was at least one which wasn't even a year old. So, how about it? Shall we let a FP be a FP for at least a couple of years? Greetings, --Janke | Talk 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion of letting FPs keep status for a particular length of time before they can be nominated for delisting. Frankly, the more I look through the FPs the more I find that never should have become FPs in the first place. Did voters just ignore the FP criteria in the past? I think it reflects badly on Wikipedia to see images with obvious problems, many of which are little more than snapshots, with featured tags. Wikipedia should compete with print encyclopedias for quality; some current FPs would never pass muster of an experienced photo editor for professional publication. -- moondigger 14:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it most of the images he nomed for delisting should be delisted. As Moondigger has aforementioned, did the criteria exsist before because the images are way too small. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take the opposite stance of Fir0002 above: I think it benefits our readers and our project more to keep constant pressure on featured pictures. Although I'm not sure that we should delist a fantastic image just because it is a little small, we should do what we can to make sure that the list of featured pictures is the best Wikipedia has to offer. Perhaps we should establish a practice of providing feedback during delisting in the form of "an ideal image of X would have Y property". --Gmaxwell 15:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit angry to see one of my pic nominated for delisting for this reason : "Too small, bad JPEG compression artifacts." A few years ago most wikipedians were conidering that it was a good practice to limit the size of their picture for bandwith reasons. I think it would be fair to ask the uploader if he/she can upload a better version before nominating a picture for delisting. Ericd 16:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Now thats a good point, as before the practice was to make them smaller. Now if a small FP is to be delisted the delister should first ask if a larger one is available. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you all (or most of you), but there are dozens (or more) of photos in the FP listing that are non-historical, of no significance, and sometimes of poor quality and photography. Although I agree with you that User Vanderdecken did nominate for delisting a few pictures that were definitely living up to FPC, but most of those he nominates for delisting, most certainly need to be. NOTE: The Featured Pictures listing is not a free studio for amateur photographers with a high-megapixel camera, it is for historical or significant pictures, with high quality, in the public domain, and must follow every regulation the FPC set. No animated cartoon donkeys, no pictures of rasberries spilled on a table, and no images of the same idea over and over again. You know, the point of FP is not to get as many high-quality pictures into the FP as possible, it is to display the distinct few with historical, significant, or intrinsic value. If anything, mass (regulated) delisting is needed at one. I stress "regulated". Thank you. AJ24 00:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That has never been the way we've done things here, for as long as I've been at Wikipedia. There is nothing in the FP guidelines that says a picture must be 'historical or significant'. I assume the raspberry picture you are referring to is this one. Would you please tell me exactly which of the 'what is a featured picture' guidelines it doesn't meet? Raven4x4x 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

After clicking on your link I was switched to what could be described as a computer scrambler (i dunno). But at any rate, pages multiplied and it was probably a virus. Im not blaming you or anything, im just wondering how someone could do that, you know? But back to the point: how are rasberries spread across a table of encylopedic value (which is a basic FPC). Or an animated donkey running like an asshole (pun intended). I sincerely apologize if any of those photographs were yours, as its just my entitled opinion and, but I believe some of those photographs were just really bad, and thats it. Thanks. -- AJ24 05:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The raspberries illustrate raspberries, that is pretty simple. Having many on different angles illustrates them especially well, as all sides can be seen. The animated horse, though cheesy, is an extremely good animation. It accurately depicts the action in which a horse runs. An animation is probably the best way to do it, as one would have to be moving very fast with a camera along side a horse to get the same view on film. Only David Attenborough's cameramen are that good! It could use some improvements aesthetically, but I still consider it WPs best work due to the accuracy of the action. --liquidGhoul 05:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes but how are spilled rasberries of exceptional encyclopedic value. And please, please, tell me your joking when you say that mockery of a horse, scooby doo cartoon, animation "accurately depicts the action in which a horse runs". And I thought that it had been added into FP by vandals. Images like that are not exceptional, and are bound for delisting I can promise you that. But please remember, a consensus must be reached, so I do not solely affect the outcome in any way. I may nominate it for delisting, but it is the strong majority that decides. Again, if any of those photographs were taken or nominated by you, im sorry, it is not a personal attack in any way, it is just my opinion, that must be backed by the majority to do anything. Thank You. -- AJ24 16:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in agreeance with Raven and liquidghoul. I hate to break it to ya, but AJ24, you are way out of line here. FPC has never been like that, and I've been around for a while. Ideally many article should have a FP on it - the picture has just (maybe the wrong word!) got to be of high res, technically outstanding and representing the subject in an intreseting and informative way. And no the image does not have to follow "every regulation the FPC set". Those are guidelines, the image speaks for itself. There are things like copyright are a prerequisite, but other than that the image is judged on an individual basis. Imagine someone uploaded a photo of the Loch Ness monster. It has good copyright but is only 640x480 and subject was slightly cut off. That still is a FP. --Fir0002 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You hate to break it to me? Really. A formidable portion of many sections in the FP listings were either nominated by you or taken by you personally. Meaning, you have a strong vested interest in the outcome of many delistings. Which is why, im guessing, you began this discussion in the first place, to delay the delistings. And wasnt it Vanderdecken who very recently displayed how the FPC has become so much more critical? Yes it was. LiquidGhoul even said it, the pictures must be the best Wikipedia has to offer. It is not the more the merrier. On another major note, you later suggested that there be a minimum time for a picture in FP once promoted, I believe you suggested one year. Not only would that never happen, but just going through some of the FP listings I see some pictures with poor quality and no significance. If you want me to the point them out, I will, by nominating them for delisting. Thank You. -- AJ24 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Kinda backfired on you didn't it? Maybe you should get a little more familiar with Featured Picture Candidates before you begin mouthing off. No offence meant, but you've got all of 4 days experience. --Fir0002 22:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you Fir. The featured pictures are supposed to be the best Wikipedia has to offer. I don't think that a photo has a right to stay on the FP list if it has passed nomination. No process is perfect (especially this one, as some sub-par images are in the list), and there needs to be a processes to refine it. Currently, the only process we have is delisting. There is no harm in Vanderdecken nominating lots of images for delisting. If he succeeds, and they are delisted, then it is obvious that they should not be there. If they are not delisted, then there is no harm done. I am a very strong advocate of telling the original uploader before nomination. But after that is done, I don't think there should be any restraint on the process. If someone can come up with a better process to "fill in the gaps" caused by FPC, then I am all ears (or eyes). --liquidGhoul 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize not permanently, but I like the idea mentioned above that it should have a minimum length before it can be defeatured. Like a president really. I would suggest that 1 year be set as the minimum length. And if there are some that need to be removed, do it with some tact, and do it gradually. --Fir0002 06:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be no regulation on delisting whatsoever. As I have learned, delisting or even mass delisting in no way guarantees the actual delisting. A consensus must be reached, as you well know. Many images have slipped through the FPC process and are featured pictures, if a minimum of one year in FP was required before delisting was possible, than the images would be featured for exactly one year, an embarrassing one year. The process should in no way be regulated, it is vital to keep the featured pictures the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. A user told me a few days ago that this wasnt the way they used to do things, but just like FA criteria has changed, so has FP criteria. The point is, a minimum incumbency in Featured Picture status is out of the question, and will most likely never happen. -- AJ24 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to come down on the side of result over process too - it's *bad* to have a substandard image remain on the FP list simply because it snuck through a process somewhere. The process is there to serve a purpose, not to be an end in itself. We should have no qualms about listing an FP for de-FPing the day after it gets promoted if it doesn't meet our standards. None whatsoever. Stevage 08:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Im with Fir on this. Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 09:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What the point of a minimum time supposted to be? It's not like delisting has become too frequent.. We hardly do it at all.. and from the outcome thus far it would appear that we had a backlog. Unless an image is frequently nominated and kept I'd see no reason to impose such a limit. --Gmaxwell 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure I don't like the look of masses of pictures in the delisting section, but it should not be blocked in any way. From what I have sen typically there is a big group of pictures nominated, then none for a while. It isn't like there are constantly a pile being ut up. A minimu time is a very bad idea. Take the example of the LCD pixle picture, it was nominated a little over 2 months after it was promoted, and rightly delisted for copyrght status. If one image can slip through the cracks more certainly can (either for clear-cut inelligability or less clear reasons). If you established a minimum time you would have to make exceptions in some cases, which would be at the discretion of whoever has that ability, whihc makes it based on one or a few opinions. And you would likely end up with people saying, "How can you oppose this picture, that picture is featured and is <insert reason it is worse here>!" I already see that, especially with claimed historical photos. I say we just let it happen. If they nominate pictures worth keeping, vote to keep it and prevent a concensus for removal. If people don't vote to keep, it shouldn't be featured. Simple as that. Though I do support giving a bit of leeway to recently (and only recently) featured pictures, mind you not much, but a slight benefit of a doubt.say1988 03:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Featured Articles are given a minimum time period before nomination for delisting, mass delisting do tend to upset people alot more, maybe a limit should be placed on how many images one editor can nominate. The nominator should be required to notify the uploader, anyone who edited the image and the original FP nominator prior to it being listed.

Process aside there is one thing that really is disgusting to see in the delisting nomination discussions is the suggestion that a better photo can/should be taken. If you believe this then you should do exactly that. Gnangarra 04:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to me on the wolf spider, then don't assume I am not going to go and take photos of them. I will be once I find the time. --liquidGhoul 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not specifically as yours was not the only one in fact some of the comments have been repeated by the same person through out the nominations. Saying you think a better image can be taken is not a valid reason to delist or refuse nomination. I actually think that people making these types of comments should actually have their vote removed. Gnangarra 04:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only is your position inaccurate, but it's personally offensive. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about this, FP are supposed to be the best, if it is a relatively simple picture to retake at higher quality, would that not show that it is not the best? In cases where I have made a comment as to a better picture should be taken, it is typically a simple item (ie. monopoly board) that is excellent composition/perspective, but poorer quality. If it is a picture such as the Elk in a forest fire it is entirely different. And if we are on this topic, what about all the people that want to keep it "cause it is the best we currently have" should be excluded if what you want is, as not every subject needs a FP. say1988 15:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: vandalism and Virus on FP candidacy page

I am not certain if by some odd chance I was the only one who played into it, but I clicked on the "edit" function on a photo being nominated for delisting. At first I thought it was just a minor glitch on the computer, but page upon page began opening, with an address of "1, 2, 3, 4,....". It went up to 21 pages before I manually restarted my computer. It freezes all of the functions.

A word of advice, be very cautious whenever a user tells you to "see here" (with a link enclosed) or "please point out this" on another link. It wasnt so much a virus as it was a mild computer scrambler, something a user interested in computer programming could have easily created. I cant remember what user I was responding to at the time (internet history erased), but if an amateur user can temporarily stall a computer, how much worse can it get?

And in case the user responsible is reading this, please know that it is not only very illegal in Wikipedia standards, but there are several unwritten and official laws which could hold the abuser legally responsible, through meager fines and etc. Just a thought next time someone tries it... -- AJ24 05:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you perhaps have a link that caused this? The history of all pages are saved so it should be easy to point out. It this was actually done on purpose by someone then it should be shown to an admin. Threats of "illegality" are a bit over the top, and a bit against assume good faith. Also, if crashing a browser were illegal than MS would have been out of business a loooooong time ago. -Ravedave 07:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to divide FPs?

Is there any support for dividing FPs as follows:

• Photos taken by Wikipedians/Diagrams made by Wikipedians
• Historical photos
• Scans of paintings
• Other nice images (NASA pics, public domain, etc)

These categories are so different from each other, I find it a bit awkward that they "compete" with each other. In particular, I think we should make the bar slightly lower for Wikipedians' photos, and really encourage Wikipedians to go out there and take good photos, without having to compete with NASA, Caravaggio, or Ansell Adams. Stevage 08:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support the division of the FP into "hotos taken by Wikipedians/Diagrams made by Wikipedians" and "Historical photos". But arent the FP listings already divided into many subsections? -- AJ24 16:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Stevage, are you refering to FPC or just FPs? --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Commons has recently started the Quality Image project which is specifically directed at recognising the contributions of Users, that images loaded by wikipedians as PD-self and CC-by-2.5 should be encourage to be loaded into commons anyway, this is the main page for Quality images.. I would suggest that FP standards should be exactly the same for all images irreguardless of the source. Gnangarra 05:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Stevage's proposal makes perfect sense. Photos of historical importance and Wiki contributions are judged on completely different criteria - it would be only logical, in the interest of the picture and clarifiying the criteria on which it is to be judged, to make this distinction from the start. This would also channel judging expertise into a structure at once more progressive and constructive. ThePromenader 07:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IP users

Are unregistered users allowed to vote on FPC? I can't find policy anywhere to bakc me up, but I'm pretty sure that unregistered users (especially those with less than 20 edits) are not counted when performing the final tally. Can anyone clear this up? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Per a discussion on the last archive, I think it's common consensus that IP users/less than 20 edit users are not counted in the final tally. Of course this is subject to the judgement of the closer, which is why it's not set in stone. --Fir0002 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Fir. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suffrage states that its up to the diffrent communities around the decisions (i.e. FP's diff from AfD and whatnot as I gather) about the typical timeframes that anon's and new users go through before comments get more weight. -M^ask 07:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No notice given to uploader/nominator during mass delistings?

The guidelines for delisting a featured picture clearly and boldly ask that that the original nominator and/or uploader be informed on their talk page that a dislisting is being debated. In the 13 nominations for delisting made by Vanderdecken on 7/16/06 and the 9 nominations for delisting made by AJ24 on 7/18/06, I could not find any notice given to the original nominators or uploaders.

If I am mistaken, then I apologize. If I am not, then in the interest of fairness, either the delisting nominations be withdrawn, or the clock be reset to start after Vanderdecken or AJ24 inform the original uploaders and/or nominators that they've recommended their picture be delisted. --Bagginz 22:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Can a self-nominator vote on their own picture?

(First part of this discussion copied across from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chocorua dam).

• [...] you can't support photos you took yourself. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Who says you can't support photos you took yourself? What's the reasoning? People support their own photos all the time. -- Moondigger 12:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• [...] I'm pretty sure there's no prohibition against you supporting your own photo. Many nominations here are self-noms, and they almost always self-support as well. When I've closed nominations in the past I counted support votes cast by the photographer, as do the others AFAIK. -- Moondigger 13:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The template for nominating a picture actually has "nominate and support" in it. Doesn't give guidance on counting the vote, of course! InvictaHOG 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• • It says at the top of the page "if an image is listed here for seven days with four or more supporting votes (including the nominator if it was not a self-nomination), and the consensus is in its favor...", which I always took to mean that the photographer couldn't vote. I suppose under a strict reading you could interpret it to mean "four excluding the photographer, and the consensus including the photographer" but I find that rather a bizarre rule. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's rather bizarre myself, but I don't take it the way you do. I think it's meant to address a particular unusual situation: one in which there are very few votes cast for a given image. In other words, if there are only four votes cast, then the photographer's vote doesn't count... but if there are more than four votes cast, the photographer's vote does count. Personally I don't think there should be any such limitation. If a photographer supports his/her own photo, I'm fine with that, even in the extremely unlikely case that there are only four votes for a particular nomination. -- Moondigger 15:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Parsing that statement now leads me to think more along the lines you are, that the photographer's vote doesn't count no matter how many votes are cast. However I think it's a pointless restriction with no rational justification, and is contrary to the de facto implementation. Photographers self-nominate and support their own work all the time, and photographers' votes sometimes carry even more weight than others -- I've seen nominations ended immediately when a photographer opposes his/her own photo. Can somebody explain the rationale for not counting a photographer's vote on his/her own image? -- Moondigger 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think the rationale is that FPC is very subjective, and the photographer always thinks their own photo is better than it is! So their opinion really shouldn't count. I've always thought that the standard was not to count a self-nominator's vote, but maybe I'm wrong, or maybe it's changed recently (I tend to have periods when I do and periods when I don't follow this page). Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
          • By the same reasoning it would be logical not to count the nominator's vote (when not a self-nom), since they wouldn't have nominated a given image if they didn't like it more than most who had seen it and not nominated it. In any case I don't think the premise (that all photographers think their own photos are better than they really are) is sound. As previously mentioned, I have seen nominations ended early when photographers opposed their own photos. Besides, there are always people who think a given photo is better than it really is, whether they snapped the shutter or not. It's the nature of the game -- as you say, it's totally subjective. Everybody else can have their own biases and private reasons for supporting or opposing a photo, but the photographer who took it cannot? Just doesn't seem right to me, and I don't think that's how most of those who tally the vote counts at the end do it. As I said, I always count the photographer's vote equally, and I believe others do the same. -- Moondigger 17:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
            • We've had photographers vote AGAINST their own photos for FPC... I think you're being rather uncharitable to just make a sweeping assumption that all people cannot be objective (or appropriately subjective) about their own work. I agree with Moondigger, anyone who votes should count (excepting anons and "new" accounts). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Is that the consensus? Does anyone discard the self-nominator's vote when closing a nomination? If not, should the rubric change? Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I've always read this the same as Stephen, i.e., for self-noms the nominator's vote doesn't count, if not a self-nom it does. I believe this was implemented long ago when far fewer people voted, and having maybe half-a-dozen votes total was not uncommon, so the self-nom's vote could really sway the total.

Re a couple of your points Moondigger. I see the ability of a nominator to withdraw or close their own nom as a recognition of many similar real world situations, e.g., a candidate for election withdrawing from the race, a job candidate withdrawing their application, etc. On the same reasoning I also think the supporting of a nominated pic has been seen as different to supporting a self-nom. The presumption being that a self-nom has a vested interested in the pic being promoted, and (perhaps rather charitably) that there will not be a vested interest for non-self-noms.

Now I'm not saying the self-nom's vote shouldn't count, but as it's currently written at the top of the page, the closer should not be counting it now. The wording should be changed if you want to count them.

Two more things. In the time I've been contributing here I can't recall a single instance where the self-nom's vote, whether counted or not, would have changed the final result anyway. And an interesting twist: say someone nominates one of my photos, and I then come along and vote support, should my vote be counted? I believe they always are, and going on the wording on the page there's no reason not to count it, but surely I would have just as much vested interest as for the self-nom where my vote currently shouldn't count. Hmmm... --jjron 13:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You bring up good points, but in the end it just seems to me that photographers' votes should count equally. I don't see how a photographer could have a vested interest in any such outcome, by the traditional definition of the phrase. There is no monetary or political gain to be had; the only gain or loss is to one's pride, if they place that much importance on it. The only exception would be if somebody is utilizing sockpuppets, in which case I think all of that person's votes should be ignored -- but that applies equally to self-nominators, nominators, or others.

You made a parallel to elected officials, about how elected officials can withdraw their nominations for a given race. By the same token, elected officials are allowed to vote for themselves, and those votes are counted. A nominee in a political race is a member of the community that he or she is seeking office in. Likewise photographers who self-nominate are Wikipedians, and their votes should be counted just as all Wikipedians' votes are counted. Just because the direction of a self-nominee's vote is a foregone conclusion does not mean it shouldn't be counted. -- Moondigger 14:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I thought the exact same thing as I was making the election comparison - yes, you can (and generally would) vote for yourself; of course there'd usually be far more voters than we get here. Re the 'vested interest', I think a lot of people are very proud if their pic achieves FP status; if not, why would they go to the effort of nominating, especially with the risk of having their pic dissected and canned. --jjron 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I've always assumed (and observed) that a self nominator's votes count, and count equally. It may not carry the same weight in consensus if it appears that there is a vested interested, but as others have said, why does the opinion of an author not carry weight? They usually give valid reasons for supporting as a result of the nomination procedure. However, perhaps it should be given further consideration if, as with voting, the self nominator does not have a significant edit history. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 17:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Diliff --Fir0002 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have to say that when I'm closing a nomination I don't treat the nominator's opinion any differently. I certainly don't disregard it. Raven4x4x 11:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now, if I read the opinions correctly no one is strongly against a self-noms own vote counting (I think Stephen was more questioning the matter).

So I propose changing the wording on the main page to unambiguously state that all votes count (excepting anonymous voters and sockpuppets - does everyone agree with this too?). If anyone is strongly against this change of wording, please speak now.

To give people time to respond I will change the wording next time I'm on, if no one else does it first. If I do it I will also clarify the wording on what I think we have agreed previously as a consensus for vote counting (i.e., a two-thirds majority); unless I've missed it, that's not clearly stated anywhere. --jjron 11:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated wording on main page. --jjron 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. HighInBC 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Candidate removal without decision?

As an example, look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/VanGoghsStarryNight, which seems to have "vanished" from the FPC page at some point, but with no one taking responsibility for closing it... I wonder if there are others that this has happened to as well... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it happened here: [2] It appears to have been an accident... Raven4x4x was archiving nominations, and removed a bunch from the FPC page. But it doesn't look like any of them were tallied or added to the archive page. -- Moondigger 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the full list. Only the last one, Stockholm, was tallied. None appear in the archive page.

Cajun Sunrise

The Baths, Virgin Gorda

Sidi Saiyyad Ni Jaali

Horseshoe Canyon pictograph

VanGoghsStarryNight

Castel Sant Angelo

Mount Bromo

Stockholm

-- Moondigger 20:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how that happened. I'm certainly remember closing those noms, so perhaps the edits didn't go through for some reason. I'll fix them up now. Raven4x4x 11:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense candidate

Self-nom : Garry-W* [3]

• • Garry can you update your Featured pic cantidate page to follow the template in the instructions found here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Nomination_Procedure? The nomination needs your reasons and where the pic appears. -XYZ 03:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I think its a good shot. Garry-W*

• Oppose : Tilted clockwise. Ericd 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose : Not to the FPC level, your Leica M lens distortion is ruining the picture. Ericd 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose : This Tri-X film is not of FP quality not only its B & W but it shows way to much grain at 4096x6144. Ericd 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose : There is something dark in the frame on the right that is distracting. Ericd 20:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose : It's a shame that we can't see her eyes. Ericd 20:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose : Needs more rhinos. howcheng {chat} 20:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

FPC on other wikipedias

WE should look at what the other languages are doing. Check out some polish FPs [4], and look at their submission template [5]. It's much nicer. -Ravedave 06:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the Chineese FPs: [6] -Ravedave 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good hunting Ravedave. I do kind of like their submission and voting structure; shame I can't read Polish though. It appears to be something like this:

Contributor: (Nominator?)

Licensing:

Subject: details of the pic, including probably reasons for the nom

Support Votes:

1. reason/user
2. reason/user

Oppose Votes:

1. reason/user
2. reason/user

Neutral/Questions: (not sure, maybe these could be separated).

1. question/user

Isolating the different votes would surely make the compiling of the votes easier. Also like the way they've got the creation of the new candidates via that text box and button. Any other comments on this process? --jjron 09:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I really like that "text box and button"; that makes it so much easier (rather than opening a new window, typing in the text...). I'm hopeful that this process will become the norm, so if there's ever a vote to make it official or something, leave a comment on my talk page and I'll gladly support it. I also like the way the Polish and the Chinese have their FPs displayed. It's much better than Featured pictures visible, that's basically just a very long page. --Tewy 04:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments on new style

Please leave any comments about the new style (which I tried on Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Bales_of_hay) here. Thanks, -Ravedave 04:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrm it seems like responding to comments may be hard. I tried using ::#. I am not sure of a better way. -Ravedave 05:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the code on a few of the Polish FPCs, I notice they indent/leave comments with this sytax: #::: , and that seems to be the standard. A few cases left unnumbered comments (with subsequent ones below) with this sytax: ::: --Tewy 05:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Why not stick with ::* as I've done here. I see no reason to number responses to comments/votes, it makes more sense just to use bullets. Numbering the votes themselves makes sense as it's so much easier to count. BTW, any reason you indented the original subheadings? --jjron 06:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I did some experimenting and the reason the # is used is because otheriwse the numbering starts over. Since we are using :# for normal entries than replies need to be :#:-Ravedave 06:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. Though it looks like that may be a problem with the numbering too - Dante's vote, under AJ24's comment on Fir0002's vote, has also restarted the numbering. This could be a problem. --jjron 11:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps the template could include <!-- --> comments telling the commenter what prefix should be used. --Billpg 15:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Ok, I fixed the numbering issue on AJ24's comment, by changing the "::#" to ":#::" . I think if you don't make the entire list tab over (each vote on the Bales of hay nomination starts with a colon, as in ":#", ":#:", ":#::" etc.), then the sytax will look like "#", "#:", "#::" etc.. (Sorry, confusing way to explain it). Basically what I mean is that each numbered vote should simply start with "#", and its comments should start with "#:", "#::" etc., and any comment that is not part of a vote should be bulleted with "*" etc. as is done now. --Tewy 17:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like the information in the heading, but I prefer the traditional style for discussion. Just IMHO. --Billpg 09:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also trying the format out on my nomination, Facial Markings, Siberian Tiger, to try to get more input from more users. --Tewy 02:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like this formatting because FPC is not a vote, it's a discussion. Users often change position from support to oppose, or voice neutrality while making a comment. Forcing the comments out of chronological sequence can be jarring and a numbered list format encourages simple counts with disregard for reasons. refactoring an AFD into this format was recently considered a horrible breach of procedure--we shouldn't encourage it on FPC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that a pure chronological order is better. It is interesting to see how votes change over time and with new edits and arguements. As well as the ideas given above. Though the heading may be good (perhaps a little overcomplicated for newbies, but they would probably learn from people chewign them out about it, and hopefully not get scared off). 209.226.175.59 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like this format, please stick to the normal "chronological discussion" format. Separating oppose/support does nothing to help us reach consensus, it only highlights opposition and groups people into "camps". Stevage 12:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Worth a try, but having seen it in action, I've gone off it. While it clarifies the overall support/oppose positions, it seems to become rather fiddly, and it loses the flow. --jjron 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I think the "flow" is ruined. It's a nice idea, but I think it's not really an improvement. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• I initially thought this was a wonderful idea that would group the votes into nice, neat packages, but I wasn't considering the main point, which is that the FPC page is a discussion, not a tally of votes. I completely agree that the flow is ruined in this format, so I have stopped using it and will continue with the system that proves effective. Thanks to Ravedave for finding and proposing this new method, and thanks to everyone who voiced his or her opinion on the matter. --Tewy 03:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. Shall we try just the header on a few noms? -Ravedave 04:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the Contributor/Licensing/Subject part? That's a possibility, but then the only thing new to the current sentence format would be the licensing information. I like the current format (without the bullets) to keep things simple, so maybe if a sentence was added to include the lisence as well as the creator etc.? Of course, then the question is whether having the lisencing information would really help or not. --Tewy 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Nominations of images hosted on Commons

When a picture from Commons is not promoted and you remove {{fpc}}, please consider speedy deleting the Wikipedia image description page under criteria I2 (or, if you are not an administrator, tagging it for speedy deletion). The reason for this is that these blank image description pages are added to Special:Uncategorizedimages. Thank you. BigDT 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture Removal Candidates?

Is there an FPRC process? The pictured I'd specifically like to remove is Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg; it is of poor colour, dark, speckly and Mount Rushmore looks kinda blurry. I can't the right page though (WP:FPRC leads to Portal Removal candidates). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's not a separate page. The bottom of the featured picture candidate page has a section for delisting and review! InvictaHOG 21:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks! smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower nom

I have closed and archived Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Eiffel_tower_nuit as not promoted as currently the image is fair use at best and the nom has suspended for more than enough time for an investigation to take place regarding the lighting, if the issue with the copyright status is ever cleared up it can always be renommed. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 23:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually it looks as though a 'fair use' status will not be needed, but understood for the 'long enough' part. Sorry for the mess. ThePromenader 00:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that U.S. law reigns supreme in terms of copyright but that doesn't mean that we can just ignore claims to copyright just because the entity is outside of the U.S (as convienent as it would be) especially since the copyright limitations that Wikipedia imposes are not only for current use of this material but future use not only on the website but also for future commercial or other use much of which I would assume would be outside of the U.S. so while it is infeasable to be compliant with every possible international law we can't just ignore laws because they come up as being inconvienent to us. On the topic of my delisting it, I think it was perfectly reasonable considering that if the copyright status is unsure then the image should not be suspended indefinitely until it is clarified, it should be suspended a reasonable amount of time (as it was) then if no clarification is found it should be closed as ineligible due to lack of clear allowable copyright and the image can always be renommed if it's found which is specifically what I stated when I closed the nom. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the very reason that Wiki stresses that US law is the standard here is that it simply can't hope to follow every convention in every country. The only hard-code connection between other countries and US law is the Berne convention, and even this stipulates that the work of signatory countries are protected only under the laws of the (signatory) country of the the publisher, in this case, the US.

Things can be clear-cut here if we look for the answers. I have them, but am in a verification stage that was a question of days - in fact, today, after reading the entire copyright act several times, I can consider the case closed, but I am waiting for all the same for second opinions (consensus) on this. Pulling the picture at this time to me was cutting things short just before the finish line, and I can't also hide my disappointment at having to go through the voting process once again - with probably the same copyright paranoia questions arising once again. At least this time they'll be answered. ThePromenader 08:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Counting votes

User:Eagle_101/WikiVoter This tool may or may not work for counting votes for FPC. Anyone want to try it? -Ravedave 04:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipe-tan" euphoria eclipses FPCriteria

Wikipe-tan

The overwhelming support and comments we have witnessed from the nomination for FP status of the "Wikipe-tan" anime is becoming excessive. The majority of supporters of the image have never before or rarely taken part in the FPC elections, and while I understand there must at some time be a starting point, it is beginning to appear that these are one-time only voters. In my opinion, the voters premeditated their support before even acknowledging the guidelines of FPCriteria. Upon examining the image, it is obvious that it is not Wikipedia's best work or of exceptional artistic quality. It now appears that the image will most likely become FP Status, and so I would like you to peruse the already Featured Pictures and compare them to the Wikipe-tan. Does it belong? -- AJ24 20:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I've been meaning to vote on it, but I'm still not sure whether to oppose or to support. It may well be a rare instance of a free, accurate, and relevant picture to the topic, so in these aspects I'd say it doesn't fail any criteria. I certainly wouldn't support it as any kind of mascot for Wikipedia, but that's irrelevant here of course. To me, it doesn't really add much to the article, but since I'm not a fan of anime or related stuff, I can't really judge that, so to others it may. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with the votes there, looks like just a popular topic. — Wildrick 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

AJ, I understand your strong feelings but FPC is a part of wikipedia, anyone is allowed to contribute, and all valid votes should be counted. You yourself a relative newbie to FPC, infact it looks like a large percentage of your edits are on FPC, should your vote not be counted? Does voting on FPC actually make you any better at judging? (I actually think people who have been here too long get *crusty* :) I shall soon count myself as one of them )-Ravedave 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I do consider myself relatively new to the FPC process, which is why I said, "...and while I understand there must at some time be a starting point, it is beginning to appear that these are one-time only voters". I would again like to emphasize how these voters most likely fully supported the image without FPCriteria in mind; a premeditated vote. And I do not believe any votes should be invalid, I was simply bringing up that there seems to be a conflict of interest between ardent fans of the anime and users who frequent FPC with the Criteria in mind. -- AJ24 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I too was wondering why so many people are commenting on this image in particular. Where did they all come from? Raven4x4x 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The why is simple its being advertised on the project page which uses this image in their user box Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Wikipe-tan_for_Featured_Picture.21 Gnangarra 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Then it must be a very popular page for anime fans. -- AJ24 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No matter the irregularities of the nom I have closed it as promoted as the time had elapsed. The reasoning I used when closing is that I looked at all the votes, I gave votes without a reason the lowest value, I gave votes with a reason not based on FPC criteria a slightly higher value, and I gave votes with a reasoning in FPC criteria the highest value, I did this for all support and oppose votes and still found a fairly clear (albeit undoubtedly controversial) consensus to promote the image. In the interest of neutrality and not being accused of trying to rig the vote I excluded my own vote of having any weight as I do (although don't normally note) on every nom I close. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Um, have you read the way votes are generally counted on FPC (at the top of the project page). This method of counting votes is highly unusual, to say the least. --jjron 08:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC) See 'lens' discussion below. --jjron 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were to nominate for delisting the image, what level of support would I have? Personally, I think the opposition from the countless fans of the anime would be the majority no matter how unfitting the FP. -- AJ24 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't have my support, though you might not have my opposition either since I should stay neutral as the person who closed the original nom. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasnt really taking an individual pole... I wanted to know in general. -- AJ24 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotion of the 85mm lens image

I noticed on my watchlist the promotion of the 85mm lens image which strikes me as a far stretch on how to interpret the meaning of a consensus. The voiced opinions were 8 supports and 10 opposes. Policy this far was only to promote images with 60% support. I understand that FPC is not meant to be a vote, but this amount of opposition (being not addressed at all) seems pretty far from a consensus to me. Hopefully me being in a ranting-zone today will not distract from the core issue too much...--Dschwen 06:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dschwen. I think the promotion was totally random. Thygard, the least you could do is explain which votes you discounted and why. I only wish more admins discounted irrelevant votes on the RfA (which they rarely do). FPC should be much more vote driven because a reason for opposing a picture can simply be that you don't like it enough (which I hope is not a reason enough to oppose a candidate on an RfA).- Cribananda 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I have become pretty disillusioned with FPC lately. It appears there are a few contributors who want to get their own views through, at any cost. Also, solicitations from "outside" skews the voting in some nominations in a totally illogical way. So, I'll probably leave FPC altogether. Sorry about that, it's been nice chatting with you all. --Janke | Talk 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with irregularities. The consensus position (as stated at the top of the project page) has been discussed a few times recently, and is taken to be two-thirds majority. The method of counting votes on both this and the Wikipe-tan does not follow any of what I regard as the accepted guidelines, and seems highly open to 'interpretation' by the closer. I think both this and Wikipe-tan need to be recounted. On another note, it would be a shame to see a valuable contributor such as you go Janke; do keep dropping by. --jjron 08:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on following discussion I retract my opposition to this promotion; I was unaware that consensus was so much at the whim of the closer to determine. --jjron 10:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any attempt to formalise "consensus = X%" is totally misguided. Consensus is necessarily a fuzzy interpretation based on *who* voted, *why* they voted that way, and how strongly they feel. Three unexplained "opposes" could easily be "overruled" by a single, strong, well-argued "support", depending on the context. It's not a game. It's not a vote. There are no prizes. Thank you. Stevage 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree that this needs to "remain" consensus. At the moment, there is too much vote counting, and oppose votes aren't counted on their merit. However, having said that, there is no way the lens was consensus, it was not even close. I also agree with Janke's second point. --liquidGhoul 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on what "quantifies" consensus, but I agree that there's no way the 85mm lens had consensus for promotion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

At Wikimania there were a number of folks who were pretty disillusioned with FPC for varrious reasons. .... I'd thought it was only me, but it appears not. Shall we fix it? Can we fix it? --Gmaxwell 13:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What were their reasons? --liquidGhoul 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think changes could better FP, but first we need to know the problems. As per the topic, sure no magic number should be used, and it is open to interpretation by the person who promotes/rejects it, but to promote it against the majority without reasons is obviously not following consensus. As for it to be consensus it needs a majority, because if not there is more consensus the other way. Give a reason and I may reconsider my opinion on this promotion being wrong. say1988 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

See my information on the Wikipe-tan if you want to see how I closed the votes, I didn't expect people to want me to mark every vote with what value I gave it as that would cause issues with misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and claims of favoritism. In terms of the major groups on the nom, I gave all the ones based solely on the ad-pic argument a fairly low grade about on the same level as the "i just don't like it" ones since neither is an FPC related oppose as is requested on the top of the page though I still gave them a value as they are still valid opposition to the nom, that may be why people don't see how I could have promoted the nom despite the opposition. If it is requested however I will go over the nom again and comment on each vote if that would make it easier for people to see my exact thought process. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for elucidating your rationale, as you have enabled us to see where you made your mistake. If you would kindly re-evaluate the votes that you discounted for being not "an FPC related oppose", since they are FPC related opposes under qualifications #3 and #7 at least. Thanks again. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm more than willing to do that and will if I get the time later tonight, but I do not think I made a mistake promoting that image as you state in your above comment, despite knowing that my promotion of the images would be controversial. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After reading all the comments on this page in regards to this and the other nom I am withdrawing my offer to go over it vote by vote for two reasons, A) there so far has been only one request to do so while other people have said there is no need, B) this is quickly degrading into a witch-hunt in my view which I do not wish to fuel. If you wish to see how I determined consensus read above. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and no you shouldn't need to go over every vote, but when you go against the majority you should explain your reasoning. Also if you entirely discount the not good and "ad-shot" I would say it is barely a consensus with 8-5. Then if you give the other oposes any value at all it is even closer. You can argue that some of the oposes are valid, Janke even quoted requirements he thought it failed. I still believe that this picture was improperly promoted.

See above where I explained my reasoning, in retrospect I should have put that on the nom to begin with but I did not think of it at the time, and of course you are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else, I may disagree with your opinion but I'll fight for your right to express it (to paraphrase a famous quote). Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 01:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Voltaire, but am I terribly misreading this discussion when I'm interpreting there is large doubts about that promotion? I think it sets a precedent which leads to too much influence by the closer. Arbitrary disregard for other peoples votes should not be encouraged. And whats the point in repeating previous reasons for opposing over and over again? The reasons given for support weren't any more substantiated either. --Dschwen 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if our article on Voltaire is accurate which I would hope it is then it's mis-attributed to voltaire but that's beyond the point at the moment. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no way this is a witch hunt, we just want you to understand why noone has agreed with your closing. The fact that everyone disagrees doesn't make it a witch hunt, and it doesn't make you wrong, but you should be taking into account what we are saying. An oppose vote which states "I don't like it" should be given the same amount of weight as a support vote. It says in the criteria: "Be pleasing to the eye". If someone does not like it, it is not pleasing to their eye, and therefore is a failing of criteria according to that person. Same as any of the other criteria. It is a problem that comes with something as subjective as pictures, but we have to live with it, or we will be getting keyboards and mice reaching FP status. --liquidGhoul 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that many people agree with how I determined consensus but I don't see the point of continuing this if the only thing that is coming out of it is people stating that they didn't like how I closed the nom (thus the witch-hunt analogy), I don't know what you all want of me, if you want to reverse my closing it isn't going to happen since I think my closings still have merit, if you want to try to get the status removed well check the section regarding removal of FP status right on the main FP stage for directions on how to do that. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason for you ignoring criterion 3 and 7? --liquidGhoul 08:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who the hell are you? You didn't close the nom. --liquidGhoul 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So you (whoever you are) are saying that a wrongful promotion will have to jumt through the same hoops to get delisted? What if I decide to add 100 pictures to WP:FP, will they all have to be nominated for delisting? Of course not. Speedy defeature! --Dschwen 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, who the heck is this Jtkiefer? Is this the same person as Thygard? Either way, the level of arrogance here (refusing to understand that consensus is counter to his/her prefered outcome) is upsetting. I'm redoing the nom closure to bring it in line with consensus. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This does not appear to be Jtkiefer's only sockpuppet account. See what's going on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jtkiefer 3. I second the idea that this FPC nomination be closed by someone else. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah HA! I thoguht pegasus was suspecious. Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Wikipe-tan shoudl be reviewed as well. as well as anything pegusis/thygaurd/Jtkiefer closed. -Ravedave 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'd been following the closure remarks and was pretty puzzled by the whole affair. Now it makes sense. It seems that the closures should be independently reviewed for consensus. InvictaHOG 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've closed the 85mm photo nom as Not Promoted. This is in-line with consensus as established during the nomination period and clarifications on this talk page. I would suggest that any other closures by Thygard and his/her clones be independently reviewed. I also note that he/she has closed nominations at least as far back as May of this year (as Pegasus1138) although the one that I noticed seemed to be closed in accordance with consensus. For the record, I regard these unstated sockpuppets 'suspicious', and wholly inappropriate for someone acting in an 'official' Wikipedia capacity (even something as 'official' as closing FPC noms). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Farther actually, check Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer. I entirely understand if you decide to strip the 85mm lens promotion (already done it seems) and the Wikipe-tan nom but I would urge against wantonly removing status from every nom I promoted as 99.999% were uncontroversial either way and about the same percentage involved only one of my nicks. Jtkiefer 20:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence the use of "at least as far back" in my comment above. Whether you "understand" or not is irrelevant, as you've made your position on OUR opinions crystal clear. As for rechecking all of "your" other promotions, we will look over all of them, although I am inclined to accept that most of them were uncontroversial as a brief sampling that I made seems to indicate that. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Replacing Images: Vote to ban or allow

Due to the current situation surrounding replacements, should replacements be entirely forbidden and banned from FPC? I now support this move to ban. A permanent notification would be added to the FPC Nominations page to inform nominators of the new amendment. Please list if you Support or Oppose the ban to permanently ban replacements.

• Support -- AJ24 20:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I support not allowing "votes to replace" unless the vote is for an almost identical image that has some key improvement (such as a higher-res photo of a painting). The proper process should be to successfully delist one image, then nominate another, or vice versa. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-08-09 21:11
• Support a blanket ban. Brian has a point, but there's too much "wiggle" room. If it's really that obviously identical but better... well, just add the new one to the delist debate and people will have no problem delisting the old one. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose But to a point. I certainly feel that if you have a near identical photo of higher quality than the existing nomination, it would be valid replacement nomination. Particularly with paintings. However what was happening with the cartoon horse isn't what I would have in mind as a replacement nom. --Fir0002 22:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Fir, let's use common sense here. Paintings are a good example, but also reshoots of the same subject under similar conditions (like a studio shot) with better quality would be a valid reason for a replacement nom. --Dschwen 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fir. Some images are similar enough that they should replace the featured image, if of higher quality. The monopoly board is an example of what I am thinking of here. I would suggest that this be done with seperate Nomination and nomination for delisting, and perhaps onward to deletion if it is replaced (as, why would we need a lower quality of the same image in many cases?) at the same time, with references to each other.say1988 22:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose and agree with Fir. It needs to be established that the replacement is of a near-identical subject. Common sense should prevail. We can refer to this discussion in future if need be. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The seriousness towards all replacements on the main page is not reflecting here. I see alot of users who "talk the talk, but cant walk the walk". More specifically, when the issue does not directly affect you, your criticism is profuse; but when it may eventually affect you, restraint is shown. By saying near-identical, you are allowing for so many, many loopholes. I personally never want this situation to repeat itself, it takes up way too much space and time, so following already-declared protocol (FPC) seems to be the only way to prevent repetition. Question. Do the majority favor placing a notification on the FPC Nom page warning (or forbidding) users not to nominate replacements? If I had seen one, I can promise you I wouldnt have nominated a replacement. -- AJ24 00:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point here. The fuss was not simply about you nominating an image for replacement, but ignoring a previously reached keep-consensus in a delisting nomination on the image image to be replaced. Again, let's not flood the FPC page with countless warnings and rules. Let's hope for common sense to prevail and as Diliff said it, just point to this discussion in doubtful cases. --Dschwen 00:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support unless it's a higher resolution of the same image or something similar, otherwise the first image should be delisteded first if it's not FP material or kept if it is and the 2nd image should be nommed with a possible reference to the first only for comparison. Thygard - Talk - Contribs - Email ---- 00:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per the loopholes AJ24 is suggesting. In my view, voting to "replace" one person's stylized Monopoly board photo with another is no less presumptive than what AJ24 attempted. "The same subject" is not sufficient rationale for replacement (a painting being the only exception I can think of). Outriggr 00:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, replacement is fine. It's not sneaky, people need to pay attention and vote accordingly. If a replacement is suggested people have the right to only support in part (as in "support pic but not replacement"). No rules are needed. Let people use common sense. BrokenSegue 16:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above comment. BrokenSegue said it all.Nnfolz 18:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
• Comment. It seems (to me at least) that a great majority of people agree here, regardless of having split Oppose/Support votes. A replacement that is "agenda driven" is a Bad Thing, and replacement is fine if it's really a simple "improvement" of a near-identical image. The issue seems to be that some people feel that not having a ban allows for too much leeway, and that others feel that having a ban is needlessly prescriptive. Anyone else agree? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no possible means of using "common sense" when there is no written statement or guideline on the matter. There is nothing to go by. Again, the use of "near"-identical. The only exemption to the proposed ban on replacements would be identical images: paintings or duplicates (quality would differ). The recent unwritten rule on the issue, which will continue to exist solely in this discussion, which is still a poor source to reference. If you are alleging that my nominate to replace was "agenda driven", please be more literal. If you were not, then excuse my guess. -- AJ24 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was not referring to you, but making a general statement that I thought reflected the views of people who posted their comments in this vote. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Written statements do exist to avoid agenda driven or otherwise innapropriate replacements, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV to name only 2. Existing policies apply to this area too. HighInBC 15:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's common sense that if a picture is promoted that outshines another and fills the same niche that the old one should be replaced. Common sense means that there is no explicit rule. So why do you need rules to use your common sense? We don't need to write out that rule because it's obvious. If people disagree with replacement they will just say so in the discussion, no need to put anything in stone. Where's the threat or urgency. It can't be abused because the participants won't allow good pictures to fall. A new section for replacements...we already have too many sections (remember when it was just 3? or even 2?). That section won't be used often and may confuse people (newbies already find it too hard to nominate things, they often ask for help here). What if I want some old picture removed and another added but people don't agree with the removal? Will I have to resubmit in the standard process? If not, then why not just keep replacements in along with the regular nominations (because the closer is going to have to make the decision in the end anyways). If so, then that section will just waste more time than filling two consecutive nominations. Don't make more bureaucracy. Keep it simple with no rules (the way things were before). Oh and yes I agree with Dante. BrokenSegue 02:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Alternative instead of an outright ban why not just have a section image replacement where both images are placed side by side and the reason for replacement is stated. Then it can be voted on Gnangarra 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with that is that the tough process of closing a nom becomes doubly as hard. -Ravedave 03:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless considerations are given for recropping, color correction, adding of text ect... to improve the quality of an image that has only small failings. I don't think it complicates the process, if you don't specify which version you are voting for, then you are reffering to the original. HighInBC 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood the meaning of the vote thinking it was to allow alternative edits to a proposed picture, it is not clear that this is a vote on replacing existing FPs. HighInBC 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Support - To replace a featured picture the existing delisting proccess should be used after the new image is upgraded. If the community finds the old one redundent fine, but it should not be streamlined. However, when a new image is from the same source but of higher detail this should be allowed(Image:Whole world - land and oceans.jpg vs Image:Whole world - land and oceans 12000.jpg). HighInBC 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it can handled on a case-by-case basis. howcheng {chat} 19:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, we don't need a black & white policy for this. ed g2s • talk 12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, sockpuppets

FYI: WP:AN/I#Jtkiefer and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Jtkiefer. User:Jtkiefer, User:Pegasus1138 and User:Thygard are one person. -Ravedave 18:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the ArbCom has completely failed to deal with this, I suggest that we hold an impromptu forum here and determine if we want to ban Jtkiefer from participation in these pages. I think we all need to agree to ignore his/her votes and his/her nom closures in the future. Anyone else? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 16:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While I find the whole sockpuppetery and weird interpretation of consensus extremely disturbing we shouldn't ban him from commenting on Nominations (as long as he doesn't get disruptive, which at least in the last few comments he hasn't been). On the other hand it would be best if Jtkiefer voluntarily refrained from closing any more nominations. --Dschwen 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Don't ban him from posting, but don't let any of his puppets close noms, and keep an eye for him using multiple votes. say1988

I belive in punishing those who do wrong, so I would say we don't let him even vote for 6 months. -Ravedave 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Initially I thought we should disallow him from closing noms while counting his votes on individual noms. However, the more I think about it the more I'm coming around to the idea that we shouldn't tolerate such behavior. WP:AGF is kind of hard to do when a user abuses the trust that's been assumed from the beginning, using sockpuppets to cast votes and closing noms clearly against common/majority sentiment. I don't know whether we can realistically handle doing so, but I'd suggest not counting his votes for some period of time. -- Moondigger 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We're talking about someone who ignored consensus here in favor of their PERSONAL position (note that Jt voted in FAVOR of promotion and then closed the nom as Promoted AGAINST consensus) and tried to get multiple sockpuppets Admin status including multiple-voting for HIMSELF. This is not someone we want affecting the outcomes of these pages, IMO. We cannot assume good faith when he as much as admits he doesn't care what we have to say about his actions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a rule, like in AFD, one shouldn't close a nomination which one has nominated or has voted for, if only to eliminate any appearance of conflict of interest. howcheng {chat} 22:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has re-started at WP:ANI, and Jt has proposed what I consider to be a workable resolution. His suggestion involves a voluntary one-year ban from FPC and related pages and editing only as Jtkiefer. There are other stipulations as well (with regards to RfA and other pages), but they are not relevant to the issue at hand. I will admit that my earlier advocacy for a permanent ban was perhaps overkill, and likely a result of a visceral response to certain statements by Jt. Given that, I believe that this is a reasonable compromise, as it recognizes that his behavior here was inappropriate, but does leave the door open for a "reform" at a future date. Any other thoughts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an outright ban from FPC is in order. He should still be able to contribute to the discussions; there's no reason why his opinion isn't valid, but closing noms is another thing altogether. howcheng {chat} 06:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture peer review

Just to let you know there are a *lot* of images awaiting comments at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. Thanks! Stevage 11:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial concerns

Not really sure where to raise this issue, but just wondering how serious are people about not wanting to upload high resolution images for fear of jeopardising future commercial benefits from those images? It seems to me a fairly minor concern - it's pretty unlikely that at any site where you're selling your image that the potential customers would be aware that they could download them for free at Wikipedia. It also seems pretty likely you would be selling it with a border, signature and stuff, which would be more attractive to a customer. And especially if the customer is buying a printed poster, how much is the fact that they can *download* the image really going to put them off? Curious here....Stevage 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My only concern about uploading high resolution imagery (since I don't sell any of my shots) is that I like to have my original be higher-res or uncropped compared to my uploaded image, so that I could always "prove" that I was the author. I sometimes break my own rule and upload the full-res uncropped shot if I have several shots in series... as that would serve a similar purpose. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to something I said on the FPC page? I've been through this in various places a few times. I have sold images before - I don't mean snapshots off a web page. I have worked on paid assignment. I have had images that were copyrighted stolen and used for commercial purposes without my permission. It is my personal belief that I have a right to be paid for work I've done, and that others shouldn't profit from my work unless I grant them that right.

I have found Wikipedia to be a great resource and wanted to give something back, so I began contributing to articles, anonymously at first. Then I registered and have been contributing both photographs and text to articles. The resolution required to illustrate an article on a web page is not the same as is required for print advertising. I wanted to contribute images useful to Wikipedia and licensed for Wiki only. I was told I couldn't do that -- if I didn't license my images for all commercial use for anybody for free, then I couldn't contribute them to Wikipedia. Personally, I believe the justification (for requiring totally free licensing) is weak. I would upload higher-resolution images if I could license them for Wiki use only. But since I can't, I'm forced to limit the resolution to that which is useful to Wikipedia, but not terribly useful for print advertising. I realize there's no hard and fast guideline, but I don't feel comfortable with the idea that somebody could download high-resolution versions of my images and print them on a coffee mug, t-shirt, or travel brochure and sell them without reasonable compensation to me. Wikipedia has repaid me with useful information. An unscrupulous coffee mug vendor in Dubuque hasn't.

I have moved to a sliding scale, though. The more likely I believe an image is to be used commercially by non-Wiki entities, the less likely I am to upload it at a resolution above 1 megapixel. So most of my landscape images are 1 megapixel, and my astronomy/snapping turtle/turtle egg pictures are at 1.5 megapixels, since they're less likely to be used for non-Wiki purposes. I know that even a 1 megapixel image could be useful for some commercial purposes... but you have to draw a line somewhere. I would have preferred something in the neighborhood of 0.5 - 0.6 megapixels, but at that size the usefulness of some images to Wikipedia really is compromised. *Shrug.* -- Moondigger 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The free image policy is esentail to provide a free encyclopedia, not just free as in $0, but free as in free to use. I think you have the right idea by releasing lower res images and keeping the copyright on the full quality image. HighInBC 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing two different definitions of "use" when you say "free to use." An encyclopedia is a source of information. I can use it for that purpose -- as a source of information. I am perfectly willing to license full-resolution copies of my images if they would be used as a source of information -- for that use, in other words. However the Wiki-required licensing specifies that I must release my images free for any use -- not just as a source of information, but also for use on coffee mugs, t-shirts, travel brochures, etc. That's not a free encyclopedia -- it's a free commercial resource to be plundered by those who have no interest in the information itself and would have no intention of ever giving anything back to Wikipedia.

What's wrong with free noncommercial use? Why must I give my work away without limitation on who can use it, but visitors to Wikipedia are allowed to take it from Wikipedia and sell it? -- Moondigger 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Outriggr agree with Moondiggr. Contributing images to WP is a different ballgame. Nobody is likely to derive commercial value from the text we contribute (except perhaps in the aggregate), but a photo really stands alone as something of potential commercial value. If I were a brilliant photographer, I'd be very interested in licensing to Wikipedia, but not in opening up my work to everyone. As an encyclopedia, WP can benefit brilliantly from relevant illustrations, and it's WP's loss I think (I know—offset by certain philosophical gains which I admit to not having studied enough to understand the purported impact of). Outriggr 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Moondigger. I also sell photographs from time to time, and have lost sales through contributing to Wikipedia. However, there are a few other reasons why totaly free use is prefered here. One is the philosophical / doctrinal one, that copyleft licenses are always good and lead to unexpected future uses and benefits. The other is that it is anticipated that (sometime when) print versions of Wikipedia may need to be produced and printed commercially in order to achieve the best price/quality balance.

But that's OK, I similarly just upload lower resolution images that are fine for Wikipedia, less so for some 3rd party uses. Nevertheless I have had pictures taken from Wikipedia and used without attribution, and at least one used commercially at full page sizes.

We've had a trend for a while now with a number of editors agitating for larger image size and carping about cut-off subjects and other minor quibbles. Obviously prefering quantity of pixels, instead of looking at the quality of the image and its utility for the encyclopedia. The result is that FPC is going downhill, discouraging editors from contributing good images. I certainly don't upload nearly as many images as I used to, and generally can't be bothered to deal with FPC anymore. And again that's OK, I've never been motivated by notching up an FP count. But I have previously used FPC to encourage other editors to add more pictures and more recently I've seen some of them being treated shabily. That's not OK. -- Solipsist 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite see them being treated shabily, but it is only natural that pictures with low resolution get (and deserve) less praise. That being said obviously all (semi-)professional photo contributions are highly welcome and an important asset to wikipedia. Whether they also must be FPs is a different story. And what I don't quite understand is how other excellent contributors manage to upload high quality, high res pictures and still do commercial photography. And then there are entirely uncommercial contributors who manage to upload pictures which easily rival if not pass some semi-commercial contributions. --Dschwen 07:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion of 'shabby treatment' moved to a separate subtopic so it isn't lost in the middle of this one.)

I never said one couldn't upload high-quality, high-res pictures and still do commercial photography. I said that uploading high-res images increases the likelyhood that they'll be used for non-Wiki commercial purposes. As I said before -- I would be happy to upload high-res images if I could license them Wiki-only. That would cover print editions, etc. It would not cover the hypothetical unscrupulous coffee-mug producer from Dubuque. I also don't subscribe to the philosophical idea that copyleft licenses are always good, but that's a topic for another discussion.

This is all a matter of principle. I don't make my living by doing photography -- that would take some of the joy out of it for me, and it's the primary reason I don't do paid jobs anymore (and why I describe myself as a "photography enthusiast" on my user page rather than a pro photographer). It's never been my primary source of income -- I'm a professional computer geek by trade.

One last comment. Solipsist mentioned editors "agitating for larger image size and carping about cut-off subjects and other minor quibbles." I'm with you 100% on the image size thing -- it's a pet peeve of mine that people oppose FPC nominees that exceed the stated requirements. However I am kind of a stickler for good composition, contrast, brightness, saturation, etc. Average-quality images or those with certain flaws need not become FPCs to be valuable to the articles they're used on. If they're supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, etc, then I think the bar should be set kind of high. No disrespect is intended when I make such comments, and if there's some way that the photo could be improved, I'll mention it. -- Moondigger 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Moondigger and the others. I'm totally 100% happy for people to utilize my photos for non commercial purposes and help out wiki (and in a silly idealistic way humanity) by providing my photos for their articles. But as Moondigger says, the idea of people selling my photos for nothing, not even asking permissions strikes me as just plain wrong. I too would feel much more comfortable with uploading images (parituclarly high res images) if Wikipedia accepted a free non commercial license. I personally would upload more photos if there was such a thing. --Fir0002 12:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So would I. --Janke | Talk 14:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll mention it too. Best = Best HighInBC 12:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shabby treatment of photographers participating here

(Side discussion pulled from above so it isn't lost in the middle of the other discussion.)

Well I think that some of the treatment of User:JMcC on the Ventus2b Glider delisting nomination and followup talk has been pretty shaby. I originally worked with JMcC to ensure that the gliding images they were uploading were licensed correctly. In the process I was pleasantly surprised to discover that they were an active member of the gliding club where I learnt to fly, and so enlisted their help in writing a couple of other articles. That was good Wiki.

The current delisting process is a bit of a debacle, leading the contributor to express dispiriting comments like this. Hopefully the harm won't be too lasting, but I certainly regret having nominated the image in the first place. Some of the other recent delisting have been pretty dodgy too and probably overly motivated by concerns about image sizes. Unfortunately the first I noticed was the FP tag being removed from some of the images on my watchlist. -- Solipsist 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't so much one of treating people badly, but a problem of procedure. When permission is obtained in a situation like that one, two things MUST happen.

1: A casual "can we use this image on Wikipedia" does not meet the requirements to protect Wikipedia and the foundation from legal entanglements later. It is critical that the person requesting permission make it absolutely clear to the copyright holder that licensing an image for Wikipedia means totally free use for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, including derivative works, by anybody in the world, and that attribution will be permitted on the image page rather than on the image itself or in the captions used in Wikipedia articles.

2: Once such permission is obtained, it is not enough to simply state that fact in a discussion taking place on the FPC page or elsewhere. Complete documentation of that permission must be posted on the image page -- preferably in the copyright holder's own words, such as a duplicated e-mail.

Because such documentation was not evident, I was one of the people who questioned it on the delisting discussion. If my comments came across as treating anyone shabbily, I apologize -- they were not intended that way. But I wasn't accusing anybody of anything -- I mentioned that the copyright watermark on the original had been removed from the copy on Wikipedia. Since there was no documentation of who had done it or whether permission to do it had been obtained, and the existence of a copy lacking that copyright notice was directly contrary to the stated policy of the website the original was found on, I believe I was justified in asking about it. -- Moondigger 15:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

FP Criteria: an ongoing problem

There is still far too much ambiguity regarding what defines an FP. This is immediately obvious simply by comparing the criteria listed on the first paragraph of this page, with those at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. Here, the criteria clearly focus on how well an image contributes to its corresponding article(s). There, it's almost entirely about image quality issues. And the Wikipedia:Featured pictures has yet a third set of criteria ("shocking" etc). Because of this, you get all manner of opinions on whether a nominee should be featured or not, and it's all highly subjective and amateurish, because the criteria are simply not clear. You also get photographers who seem to put the promotion of their own pictures above the improvement of Wikipedia as a whole. These issues must be addressed and resolved if Wikipedia as a whole is to improve. Jeeb 19:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of our featured images have historically been material scavenged on from the web, so as far as encouraging the creation of new content which enhances the encyclopedia we have already failed. In addition to your valid complaints, we also see FPC abused as a little self promotion club where the work of users on the 'in' are almost automatically promoted while others are randomly subjected to death by niggling technical details which have little to do with the informative qualities of the illustrations. I almost think in order to prevent abuse we should separate FPC into 'good images' which present a lower bar and more regular objective criteria, and use pairwise comparison to rank the good (i.e. a simple toolserver app which displays two good images and asks the user to pick the preferred, for all N^2 pairs) taking the top rated N as featured images. --Gmaxwell 19:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Technological solution to a social problem. I agree about the self promotion issue in some cases, but lets face it, the people on the in tend to contribute pictures of a lot higher quality than the people from the out. Your are more likely to be a regular here if you are into photography (and thus produce better pictures). I like the idea from commons to create a Good Pictures (Quality images, based on mostly technical merit) page and it would be nice to have it as a prefiltering for featured pictures. As far as the Criteria go, you can always refine and refine them until they occupy 1000 pages. And if the rules were elaborate enough we wouldn't need any consensus discussions anymore, but I for one welcome the input and critical discussions. --Dschwen 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The lengthiness of the criteria or the quality of images submitted by photographers is not the issue I have raised. The issue is the clarity of the criteria, and whether they improve Wikipedia as a whole. There is also no relationship between the clarity of the criteria, and the amount of discussion that can or will occur for candidate images. You are arguing that keeping the criteria ambivalent promotes discussion. Yes, confused and subjective discussion. Jeeb 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course you are right, sorry, I misread your statement and was more focussing on Gmaxwell's post. The criteria should be unified and synced on all pages. My suggestion: gather them and post them here to be worked on and dicussed about in a central location. --Dschwen 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have two sets of criteria. However, I also think that FPC is ultimately unavoidably subjective. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as technological solutions to a social problem, suggestions for non-technological solutions are welcome.. But I haven't seen one... As a WMF officer said to me today "All that FPC has done for me is ensure that I never try." The claim that primarly featuring the contributions of the FPC clique is bogus: we've managed to create an enviroment that excludes people when we so desperately need more contributiors... Or do you honestly think we're better off with one Fir0002, than a dozen people like me [7] who have no featured images? --Gmaxwell 21:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think we are better of with one Fir ... than with two Firs. No, just kidding :-). Agreed, we need more contributors, but we do not need more FPs. I think the process as it is works reasonably well. Discussions are not jut nitpicking, but some get constructive and I personally have learne a graet deal (i think) from observing and reading those discussions. And if out contributors would only spend some time reading and lurking before submitting a picture the in picture preference wouln't be an issue at all. --Dschwen 22:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

'if out would only spend some time reading and lurking before submitting' ... Thats demonstrably untrue. In any case, our FPC process is discouraging people from contributing as per the quote above and the sentiments expressed by at least a half dozen people at Wikimania. --Gmaxwell 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats demonstrably untrue? Is it really? I recall the times when there was a WP:FPC link on the main page and FPC got flooded with - sorry - a whole bunch of crap. Consensus back then was to take the link off the main page and thus raise the bar to submission a little bit. And I seriously fail to see how my comment reflects an attitude discouraging people from contributing. Contributing and having pictures featured are two entirely different things by the way. And I refuse to accept the view that people are entitled to the right to have a picture featured just to make them happy contributors. --Dschwen 22:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only report my own experience and what I've been told. I've been told by several people that the arrogance and hostility exhibited in FPC has discouraged them from contributing their photography at all. As the result of an offwiki debate, I asked one of the participants (a long time FPC active editor) to select one of my photos which in his mind 'could not be opposed'. He selected the earwax photo, and I asserted that it would be opposed under the guies of our more subjective criteria in part because I'm not a part of the featured club, and in part because FPC is selecting images based not on encyclopedic merit but instead based on wallhangability. With Jeeb's barb I believe my argument is now complete, and I'm removed the listing before it could gather more insults and end up hurting my feelings. --Gmaxwell 23:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that Gmaxwell. Didn't mean to insult or hurt feelings, though I can see how it could be taken that way. My comment there was strictly based on encyclopedic merit, nothing else. I should have explained such instead of making a wisecrack. Jeeb 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That just leaves me baffled. First of all you are around here so frequently that I'd think you are not only in but almost inventory of this page. Secondly I really liked the earwax picture and think the withdrawal was premature. Oftentimes after a bit of discussion the votes swing in another direction. As for the hurting of feelings, I suppose you'll have to have a harder shell on this page, to which I feel ambivalent. On one hand I realize that I might come of rude sometimes and feel sorry for the contributors, on the other hand over-politely beating around the bush isn't very productive either. --Dschwen 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Aarrgghh! I keep getting edit conflicts... :(

A few comments. First, Jeeb wrote "it's all highly subjective and amateurish, because the criteria are simply not clear." You've just described the entire history of art criticism from the first cave painting until now. The process (determining which photographs should be featured and which don't make the cut) is inherently subjective, and can't be any other way without eliminating any criterion that isn't an objectively quantifiable measurement. Gmaxwell complains that certain images are "subjected to death by niggling technical details," yet those kinds of technical details are the only kinds of criteria that are objectively quantifiable. Esoteric considerations like "how well does an image improve an article" are not measureable -- therefore inherently subjective and subject to wide disagreement amongst those who comment on FPC nominations. Sometimes even well-defined, measurable criteria, on which everybody should agree as matters of fact are disputed. A classic example is when somebody opposes an image as being too low-res, despite the fact that it's clearly higher-resolution than the FP criteria specify.

Gmaxwell's suggestion of a toolserver app/ranking system is intriguing, but ultimately contrary to the Wikipedia 'way,' which calls for discussion of such matters by interested participants in an attempt to reach consensus. It's also more likely to fall subject to ballot-box stuffing and other ways of cheating than the current method, for which various tools and methods exist to sniff out sockpuppets.

I'm not offering a solution. I do think the current method, flawed as it is, works okay.

As to the basic complaint that the criteria listed in various places don't match -- we can try to get them synchronized, but we can't change human nature. I don't think people quibble over picture promotions because the various criteria listings aren't unified. I think people would quibble over image promotions even if the criteria were well-defined and unified everywhere they are listed, because ultimately such considerations are matters of opinion. -- Moondigger 21:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Be real, the "wikipedia way which calls for discussion" is used predominately for things where discussion is actually able to accomplish something. NPOV is applied in articles to determine purely objectively what the article should say. One aspect of FPC as it stands today is purely subjective and that component is mostly related to what goes on the main page, which is a matter solved via non-consensus methods for featured articles. I strongly disagree with the assertion above that only niggling technicalities can be decided objectively, there seems to be some confusion between robotic and objective. Criteria like "contributes materially to an article" can often be decided through largely objective means.

If we're going to admit that some or all of this decision is merely a matter of predetermined opinion then we should use a better system for pure opinion gaging than what we have today. The "vote disguised as a discussion" is terrible at fairly measuring opinion, although it can work okay for more objective criteria. --Gmaxwell 21:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we'll never see eye-to-eye on the question of whether "contributes materially to an article" can be decided through largely objective means. For some small subset of images, that's probably true. For the vast majority, it's totally subjective. As I mentioned previously -- if people can't even agree that totally objective matters like required resolution have been met or not, how can you ever expect them to agree on something that's not measureable?

As for the method. First, I think of it as a vote with discussion, not a vote "disguised" as a discussion. And it's just as useful for gauging opinion as anything else. The automated toolserver app you proposed does essentially the same thing -- collect votes -- but without the reasoning/opinions people give on the vote/discussions.

That said, I have to admit that I'm surprised that none of your images are featured. One or more of the ferrofluid images are obvious choices, just off the top of my head. But I hope you aren't putting too much importance on FP status. It may be a cliché around here, but an image need not be featured to be valuable. -- Moondigger 22:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Moondigger, you can avoid edit conflicts by composing your responses in Wordpad and then pasting them in when you are ready.

No wordpad on my Mac. ;^) Of course I could use a separate text editor, but I prefer to work on the Wiki page itself. I want to know when something's been updated while I was typing, even if it is frustrating to have it happen three times in a row. -- Moondigger 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there will always be an element of subjectivity involved, because FP selection is a process involving human judgment. The point is not to eliminate subjectivity, but to make the rules clear and uniformly stated, so that legitimate, inherent subjectivity is not confounded with uncertainty about what an FP should in fact represent. I would also disagree that judgements regarding the contribution a picture makes to its article(s) is inherently more subjective than judgements regarding picture quality. And even if it were, so what? The contribution that a picture makes to its article is extremely important to the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. The only road to evaluating that is for people to read the articles, evaluate the images, and then go through the process of discussion leading to consensus. Jeeb 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating images on articles for their suitability and/or utility to the article should happen (and is happening) on the articles themselves, and need not be done on the FPC page. It's a test of minimum acceptability, to ensure that the images on an article are appropriate. A featured picture is something else, IMO. If an image helps explain or illustrate a topic, then it's a 'normal' image, for lack of a better term. If it's so striking that it draws people to an article who would otherwise be disinterested in the topic, it should be featured. There are exceptions to that broad guideline, but it's what I begin with before considering the exceptions.

One more comment. The more I think about it, the more I believe "contributes materially to an article" should be a test of minimum acceptability, not a test of feature-worthiness. If a picture doesn't contribute materially to the article it's placed in, it shouldn't be there. -- Moondigger 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) -- Moondigger 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of illustrations which are pretty but not terribly informative. There is no harm in including them in articles, especially if excluding them would leave the article under illustrated. --Gmaxwell 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What images go into a particular article is a separate issue. We are discussing the purpose and rules of evaluation for FPCs. Yes, a striking picture can draw someone to an article, which is good. But the bigger goal is to improve the articles and Wikipedia as a whole. There are many, many articles that really could use an image to help illustrate complex concepts, and even a marginal quality image in such a situation is far more helpful than yet another technically perfect picture of a flower or landscape. Jeeb 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjectivness is an essential part of wikipedia, even consensus reqiures subjective decision. As for the state of the FPC instructions, I abstain from comment. HighInBC 23:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets make sure we're using the same languge. When we talk about purely subjective things, I think of a situation where we have two people who disagree on a matter and through no amount of discussion will they reach agreement beyond an agreement to disagree. I'm not sure if you're thinking of the same thing when you use the word subjective, but if you do I can assure you that Wikipedia firmly rejects dependence on that form of subjective. WP:NPOV is a immutable core principle which instructs us how to convert that kind of subjective situation into an objective one. When we talk about something objective, I think of something which can be substantiated by facts and measurements. Some of these measurements are quantitative and are things that a machine could reasonably evaluate.. things like "A Featured picture must be at least 1000px in its largest dimension" and some are qualitative, like "contributes materially to an article" where a machine could not measure them but reasonable people could discuss and debate and have a reasonable chance of reaching a true consensus. --Gmaxwell 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Later on today I'll collect all the different criteria into a big list, which will make it easier to pick which ones we think are relevent. I'll probably do that on Wikipedia talk:What is a featured picture?, which seems the appropriate place. Right at the moment I don't have anything interesting or insightful to add to that discussion, however I must take issue at claims of an 'in crowd' getting easier promotions. My impression was quite the opposite, so I checked on how Fir0002's nominations did over this month and last month. If there is an in crowd Fir is surely one of the founding members, but out of 27 candidates of his (including edits), only 8 were promoted. Hardly "almost automatic" promotion. Raven4x4x 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue, because it involves the quality of Wikipedia as a whole, should be resolved at the level of the entire community, through the policy forum of Village Pump, not just among FPC watchers. Jeeb 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• In response to a lot of stuff above and below this, why have I became the central example in a discussion I'm not even part of? And for anyone that's claiming that FPC has started concentrating on "hall hang a bility" you are talking gibberish. What is the primary reason my sunset FPC is being opposed? Why did my Great Alpine Road photo get opposed? Calm down everyone, FPC is fine and dandy - there is NO "IN", nor is there a problem with the voting. Making sub FPC pages is getting off the issue. The whole point of FPC is to judge any photo on its merits to see if it is FP worthy. --Fir0002 08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This is all getting too hard to follow, so I'm putting my responses to three different sections above right here.

Re: Greg's comments about "uninformative" images being placed in articles.

I think we have different definitions of "contributes materially." To me, "contributes materially" means "illustration is on-topic." Therefore a picture of a light bulb or Thomas Edison or a tungsten filament placed on a light bulb article contributes materially to that article. A picture of a shark swimming in the Gulf of Mexico does not contribute materially to that article. Any question of technical merit or beauty or feature-worthiness is irrelevant -- the light bulb, Edison and filament photos contribute materially, while the shark photo does not. Completely separate from that consideration, we can talk about feature-worthiness of any of those photos. If none of them are so striking as to draw a reader uninterested in light bulbs to the light bulb article, or if they have technical flaws that detract from their aesthetic appeal, then to me they are unlikely to have what it takes to be featured. That doesn't detract from their value on the article.

Re: Jeeb's comments beginning "What images go into a particular article..." and ending with "yet another technically perfect picture of a flower or landscape."

Who's putting technically-perfect pictures of flowers or landscapes on articles to which they're unrelated? Seriously. I don't know what you're getting at here. We're talking about what makes a picture FP material, and then you slip into "the bigger goal," which is "improving the articles and Wikipedia as a whole." I think it hurts Wikipedia's reputation if subpar images have "Featured Picture" tags on them, even if they are valuable to the articles they're placed in. So I'm a stickler for things like lighting, composition, color, saturation, etc. If landscape or nature photographers as a group tend to be more careful about such things than general snapshooters, it makes perfect sense that fewer landscape and flower pictures will have those kinds of flaws. I've got landscape pictures coming out the wazoo, so to speak, but the vast majority of them are not uploaded to Wikipedia because there's no reasonable rationale for their inclusion on any article I can think of. I uploaded five snapping turtle pictures despite the fact that they were taken with a point & shoot camera with over-aggressive in-camera sharpening (amongst other flaws), because they would be useful on various turtle articles. I don't expect any of them will ever be featured, much less nominated for FP status. That's expected -- however much they improve the snapping turtle article (and I believe they add significant value to it), they just aren't FP material.

I said no such thing. You might remind yourself that I framed the original issue and question. I was responding to your comment that the contribution an FP makes to an article should be considered as just a minimum acceptance criteria.

I said that an image should contribute materially to an article as a minimum acceptable standard for inclusion in the article. Note my definition of "contribute materially" described above.

That is simply your opinion of what the criteria should be for FP selection, and flies directly in the face of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.

It is not my opinion of what the criteria should be for FP selection. It is my opinion of what the criteria should be for inclusion of any image in an article -- any image used in an article should contribute materially to that article. Whether it contributes significantly or not is something that should be considered when evaluating an image for FP status. This does not contradict the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, which states that featured pictures "are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read its accompanying article."

One result of this...

One result of what?

...is that you get many excellent pictures of things that people are already familiar with, or that don't really add anything to an article, while many complex or unfamiliar topics go unaided by even a simple image that could do wonders.

I don't understand what you're saying here. A desire for pictures to contribute materially to an article as a minimum standard for inclusion in that article, and higher standards for images to achieve FP status is what I'm advocating. How do those ideas result in "excellent pictures of familiar things" or "images that don't really add anything to an article?" How do those ideas cause complex or unfamiliar topics to go unaided by simple images? If you point me to an article for which a simple image would "do wonders," I'll do what I can to find or make an image that contributes materially to that article. I can't promise it will meet FP standards, and I have no idea how the original topic you brought up (non-uniform standards for FP status in three separate listings) relates to the problem of articles lacking any image at all. Are you saying that people won't contribute any images to articles that can use them simply because the standards for FP status are (or seem to be) high? I ask these questions not out of malice, but because I think we're really having a communication problem here and I don't see how it all ties together.

It's not supposed to be a flippin' photo gallery. It's supposed to contribute to the information content of an encylopedia. Why is this hard for you to understand? Jeeb 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured Pictures Visible is supposed to be a "flippin photo gallery" of featured images. Images that contribute to the information content of the encyclopedia are (or should be) the accepted norm. Featured Pictures Visible is a photo gallery of those images that not only meet the standard for inclusion, they go beyond it and are featured because they either illustrate article content exceptionally well (contribute significantly rather than simply materially) or by being eye-catching to the point where users will want to read the accompanying article.

I'm not sure what else to say. Maybe there's just some subtle shade of meaning that one or the other of us isn't following. -- Moondigger 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Greg's comments about "subjective" vs "objective" criteria

I think your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are a shade skewed. "Subjective" does not mean disagreement. It means that which is being evaluated is a matter of opinion rather than fact. You and I might agree that a given photo is attractive. "Attractive" is subjective, even though we agree. "Objective" is not based on opinion, but on fact. "That picture is 1500 pixels wide" or "the white spots on the cow in that photo are blown out." "1500 pixels wide" and "blown out" are objective considerations.

The ultimate in subjectivity is "do you like it?" and that's the question most people who are voting on or discussing FP nominations are answering. -- Moondigger 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem we're trying to solve here!! There's much more to it than whether you like it or not. Jeeb 03:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be more to it. I'm saying that the reality of the situation is no matter how well-written, clear and concise the featured image criteria are, most people are still going to vote based on the answer to the simple question "do I like it?" People bend the criteria to fit the answer to that question, perhaps without even realizing that's what they're doing. It's human nature. -- Moondigger 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I see with the current "obviously" objective criteria (resolution, etc.) is that it's not always quite as objective as it seems. First of all, an image could be 2000x2000 and STILL be too low res, if the subject matter is not clearly visible. Sometimes you can have an image that just isn't high res enough to do a good job of illustrating the subject even if the picture is "big". The situation becomes even more problematic when you have a hypothetical image with nice composition (no real need for massive cropping) but where the "subject" takes up such a small portion of the (for the sake of argument) 1280x1024 image that it's still "too small". If people are really concerned about the need for more "objective" criteria, maybe we should focus on the "subject" of the photo being at least N pixels in a given dimension, rather than the shot as a whole. This would a) encourage proper composition/cropping, as "extraneous" stuff that's outside the subject matter won't help get you to the resolution requirement, and b) make it clear why sometimes pictures get the "need higher res" comment even though they "technically" meet the "minimum requirement". Just my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Image sizes

I created a page to help newbies with images sizes here and linked it from Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. It probably needs to be worked in better, but I am getting sleepy. -Ravedave 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal / solution to ongoing issue of treatment of candidates

Above is a rather complex discussion about the merit os the current FP proceess it includes the suggestion to use a format similar to Commons:Quality Images in evaluating the candidates. Quality images was established to create a resource/collection of higher resolution, technically good images and in doing this it would help contributors to improve the images they are taking and providing to Commons. It was suggested that QI would be a requirement for Commons FP but the project narrow source scope of PD Self images currently precludes this from such a position.

In the case of Wikipedia FP to start I suggest that FPC be such that self nominations are excluded. This will eliminate the view that an In crowd obtaining a near automatic/rubber stamped inclusion and that outsiders are subject to a number of rather meaningless harsh critisms to prevent their images from being included. The Picture peer review become the place for self nominations and that if another editors believes the picture meet FP criteria then they do the nomination. This will give the ego boost to the contributor that someone actually likes their image. Also the reviews recieved from the WP:PPR are more likely to be the meaningful technical issues which the contributor can address as the people reviewing are able to be more detailed and refer to examples. Images nominated from here are added to Wikipedia:Good Image Gallery with a single paragraph description

This leaves FPC citeria unchanged only the nomination process, then the image is given the more subjective review. If you like FIR002 new upload you can nominate directly to FP, if FIR002 wants his new uploaded to be FP he puts in WP:PPR and from there someone else nominates it. Gnangarra 06:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I've been wishing for an exclusion of self-noms for a long time. The ideal case for FPC would be that someone reading an article stumbles upon a great picture. The picture should be so good and so fitting, it should draw attention from regular readers and not members from the in crowd. --Dschwen 08:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is a "self-nom" someone's own creation, or actually any file that the person uploaded to Commons/WP? Outriggr 08:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

self-nom would need to be the uploader of the image whether they took the photo or sourced it from elsewhere. Gnangarra 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it will slow things down to begin with, and we may have problems with picture of the day (how big a buffer do we have?), I like this idea. Might entice me back to FPC. --liquidGhoul 09:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are about 50 days' worth of buffer as of right now (i.e., there are 50 FPs between today's POTD and the latest promoted FP), but unless we are promoting 7 FPCs a week, that number will consistently shrink. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the Peer Review serves as a staging ground for self-noms, then I guess it will work... but I expect that FPC activity would slow considerably. One thing to keep in mind is that, while this proposal is in part meant to attract some people to FPC, another group may be equally repelled (i.e., those who have contributed or found high-quality content and want to straightfowardly be able to nominate it).

My reading of the recent issues is that tone of feedback and the existence of an "in" group are the biggest issues with FPC. If there is an "in" group, they will consort to nominate each other's items—what is gained? Tone of feedback seems completely separate and is a social issue, here and everywhere else. Finally, in the purest form of "no self noms" (that is, no PPR), a user has to both a) know about FPC and b) "stumble upon a great picture" for anything to happen at FPC. This, in essence, diminishes the very users who are most informed about the existence of a potentially feature-worthy image: those who contributed it. Blocking self-noms = losing information, obviously not desirable for an encyclopedia. I don't see why blocking self-noms is the best answer to these issues, so I disagree with this proposal. (I have no stake in this; these are simply my thoughts.) Outriggr 12:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, users have shown a lack of interest in "two step" processes; look at the lack of activity in article peer reviews. Users are implicitly saying, give me one level of process, not two. That's why PPR is slow, too. The danger is that tying the FPC to a slow-moving wagon may not speed up the slow-moving wagon. Outriggr 12:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Although I've recently had a self-nominated image promoted, I would definitely support such a system. WP:PPR is woefully under-visited at present and I'm sure people have been put off contributing when their images have been ignored for long periods on peer review - even if the comments are 'probably not feature-worthy', at least there's likely to be some constructive criticism which would help people to take (and thus contribute) better pictures. --Yummifruitbat 12:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm generally opposed to any additional rules unless necessary. And in this case I'm convinced by Outriggr's argument that this would perhaps even increase the influence of the "in" crowd, if indeed such a crowd really exists. Good pictures should be able to be nominated by anyone, even the uploader or photographer. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the first questions I asked when I began participating here was "Is it bad form to nominate one's own images?" I was told that not only was it acceptable, it was common. Since then I've participated pretty heavily here, and even though I've only done self-noms twice, I think it makes sense to allow them. I think Outriggr and Stephen Turner are correct that disallowing self-noms would increase the influence of the "in" crowd, if one exists. (Though to be honest, I wonder who the members of the "in" crowd are supposed to be. Seems to me most of the frequent participants here tend to disagree more often than they agree.)

That said, I agree that the Peer Picture Review page gets too little traffic. I was participating there for a while but over the past month or so I haven't. (To be fair, I was on a Wikibreak for two weeks, but upon returning I basically had forgotten about PPR). Maybe we can brainstorm some ideas to increase traffic there even if self-noms remain allowed. -- Moondigger 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The best way to increase traffic to PPR is for all of us (the mythical "in crowd" at FPC as well as those poor souls who are members of the "out crowd" as well) to just go and LOOK at it every day, just like we do with FPC. We'll find something to comment on, I guarantee. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Banning self nominations is senseless and has no constructive purpose. Probably the most pointless suggestion to appear on this page to date. --Fir0002 08:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to give me some evidence of the existance of this 'in crowd'. Personally I'm neutral on prohibiting self noms (I can see the merit of both sides), but I just don't see the problem that it is trying to solve. Raven4x4x 08:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This rule is not needed. I don't see people abusing the self-nom procedure and even if they did existing rules are enough. As to the in crowd, they have to follow the same rules as anyone else. I oppose any ban on self-nomination of pictures. HighInBC 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rant on this entire ridiculous, hard-to follow debate: If there is an "in-crowd" (I'm obviously not convinced), it is because there are some people who consistently submit work of of very high technical and/or encyclopedic merit. I myself have had some FP nomiations not go through. In all cases, it was because they were just plain crap. I didn't notice the faults when I submitted the pictures, but after a few days it became clear that there were problems. Please do not make self-nominations impossible. When someone creates excellent work for Wikipedia, they have a right to be proud of it, and they certainly should be able to submit it to other Wikipedians' scrutiny. If self-nominations should be made impossible, this would inevitably lead to an informal, quid-pro-quo type of arrangement, where the frequent contributors would be watching each other's work and subsequently submitting anything they deem halfway decent, in hopes that the favor will be returned. Way to get rid of the "in-crowd"...

Oppose restrictions on self-nominations.

Protest the anti-elitist currents here ;-) Seriously, we should not be trying to make life harder for our most talented contributors and most insightful --if sometimes very direct-- critics.

Opine that, ultimately, many of the pictures submitted and discussed here could be considered "art". The discussion of art never has been and never will be purely objective. I would not want to contribute to the FPC that is being proposed here. mstroeck 22:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor inclination to read this discussion or the above sections. I'd just like to say that I don't feel there is a elite group here, it's just a smaller group than FAC. I see no need for reform or policy changes. Self-noms are fine (why should they be banned here but permissible at FAC?). PPR is an issue though. It's underused. The main problem is that not every picture is featureable, unlike articles. With some pictures, nothing can be done. That's why I thought the 2-day comment period was better (edits can be made while it sits there). Putting pictures on PPR doesn't save any of our time and the bad nominations we were spared of because of PPR just had to be handled elsewhere. The real problem is that PPR is inherently less useful than PR and nothing can be done to fix that. BrokenSegue 20:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ferrofluid

Gmaxwell's shots of ferrofluid are quite striking. I'd like to nominate one for FPC, but since he has (at least) five of them, I'm not sure which one I should nom. Any thoughts? Link. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 15:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to nominate one last night, but ran into the same problem. I'm leaning towards the one with the edge of the glass plate and the magnet beneath it visible. -- Moondigger 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

These are the two I was trying to decide between:

"Large Spikes" - More visually striking

"Under Glass" - Shows the magnet

-- Moondigger 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The left one is going through FPC on commons. -Ravedave 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The left one shows the spikes much better, and would be my pick to get through on commons, though I believe the right one is more encyclopaedic. Also, is there not a better place to discuss things like this? Peer review maybe? say1988 02:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus = 2/3?

How long has the sentence "Consensus in Featured picture candidates is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support." been around in the intro? It's news to me - consensus is *supposed* to be a fuzzy thing, based on who's voting and what their arguments are. It's *not* a hand count. Stevage 14:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long it's been there, but it's meant to be a rough guideline, given that 2/3 majority means twice as many "supports" as "opposes." In fact no simple vote count could be construed as a true consensus, unless it was unanimous or nearly so. You might notice that references to "consensus" on the FP tag have been removed for that reason. -- Moondigger 14:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-proposal

I recently proposed Image:Solar sys.jpg for featured status, and several of the oppose votes were due to lack of moons. If I upload a version with moons should I start a new page or put the old one at the top again? --WillMak050389 04:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the proper protocal, but I don't think moving an existing section to the top is the way. I would submit it as a new edit on the existing on without moving it, though there may be a better way. HighInBC 05:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Make a new page and link to the old discussion in the intro. Its too much of a mess otherwise. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. --WillMak050389 05:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Linking to FPC discussion

Someone made the comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures that it would be good to link to the FPC discussion on the page for image itself, so people can see *why* it's a FP. I like the idea. Anyone else? Stevage 08:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There already is a link to the discussion, in the "File links" section. For example, see Image:Windbuchencom.jpg. In the "File links" section, each of the pages in which the image is used is listed. One of them is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Winter, which is the link to the FPC discussion from when the image was nominated. -- Moondigger 12:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but it would feature more prominently if it was mentioned in the actual image text. Also, I've found the existing 'file links' method of accessing the FPC history a bit problematic when it is currently POTD as it includes any page that has the image as part of a template (eg people have a POTD template on their user page). It gets a bit messy when you have to dig through pages of links to reach it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 13:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not arguing against the idea. I pointed out that a link exists on the image pages because I missed it myself for the first few weeks I was participating here. If it would be useful to have a separate link outside of the file links section, then I don't think making one requires much discussion or debate. -- Moondigger 13:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be fairly uncontroversial, I think the big issue would be how the best way to do it (I suggest what I mentioned below) and if and/or how we should deal with old FP's in terms of should we hunt down old FP's to add the extra info. Cat-five - talk 09:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to do that I think would be to add an extra option to the FP template allowing for a link to the discussion. Cat-five - talk 07:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How would that work exactly? You would have to specify the link as a field on the template? If that is simple to implement, I'm all for it. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to add to the {{Generate POTD T}} template and its siblings, but I always subst those templates in when making the POTD pages, so if we want to put them in retroactively, we'll need AWB or something similar to accomplish that. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

...but we're not talking about POTDs are we. We're talking about the {{FeaturedPicture}} template, right? Checking the template now, it appears it already has it. If you do {{FeaturedPicture|discussion page name}} then it works by linking the word "identified". See Image:Lange car.jpg where I just added it. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking of, though it might be a good idea to make the link to the discussion a little more obvious then that. Cat-five - talk 20:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody help with upsampling & sharpening?

Friends - This is a personal request; I have a photo that a magazine editor wants to publish as a full-spread cover on the magazine, but it was taken long ago with a 2 Mpixel camera. I know that some of you have some pretty amazing software available to do upsampling & sharpening - would you be willing to help a fellow wikieditor with this? Thanks in advance - and drop me a line, please! --Janke | Talk 04:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Janke, I'm willing to give it a try, but I don't think a 2 megapixel image will suffice for magazine-quality full page reproduction, even upsampled. Is the editor aware that the image is only 2 megapixels? Drop me an e-mail at my registered address if you want to discuss further. -- Moondigger 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about amazing software but I'm pretty good with Photoshop - email me and I'll give it a shot --Fir0002 05:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is renomination allowed?

FPC

I recently nominated one of my pics as FPC, and it ended up getting quite a poor response due to some minor problems - blown highlights, not included in articles. I soon corrected these, but there were no voters thereafter and finally the nomination failed. I wanted to know if it is allowed to go for a renomination as there were no votes after the reupload? -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 07:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Renomination is allowed, but it's usually a good idea to wait a while between nominations. To be honest though, I'd be very surprised to see this gaining support, as there's simply not enough detail in the subject: it seems mostly a photo of some nondescript clouds and some dusty ground with a shrub growing on it. The mountains aren't nearly prominent enough. Sorry. --Yummifruitbat 08:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Its nominated on the commons too and isnt doing too bad (FPC), which is why i thought id give it a try on wp. It was the absence of votes rather than oppose votes that surprised me here -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 09:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember Commons requirements and voters are very different than WP. Also the lack of votes is probably just do to what Yummifruitbat said would likely cause it to fail. It looks like it is just a generic image of a desert. I know that is why I didn't vote either way for it. I didn't have any fellings about it at all. I forgot it was even nominated. I do advise to at least wait a little while. Maybe some new contributers will come or some peoples' opinions may change, but if you really want to, go ahead. say1988 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Grazer Town Hall

Am I the only seeing what could be some sneaky vandalism in one of the lower right windows in this image? Zerak-Tul 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The only not so sneaky vandalism I see, is posting an insanely huge pic full size on this talk page. The window qualifies as art :-) --Dschwen 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to accuse; posting the image was a mistake that was quickly fixed. Raven4x4x 00:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy... ...yeah I'll make sure to throw in a few more smilieys nex time. Apart from that, the history surprises me. No edit conflict, yet when I posted my reply the image was definately still big. Instead the diff says I just capitalized the I in image. Weird!. --Dschwen 06:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The image in the window seems to be a banner that coincidentally falls exactly in front of the window. It confused me for a while, and I thought it might be image vandalism because of the way it is clearly in front of the banner pole (so not actually on the window), but seems to fit the dimensions of the window. However, the same image can be made out on two other banners to the right of that one; they're side-on, though, so not as visible. TSP 13:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice spot TSP :) Still uncanny looking though, and sorry about the initial posting of the image here, forgot that formatting Zerak-Tul 19:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if the banner was split horizontally in the middle with the bottom part left/right and the upper part flipped head-on. InvictaHOG 20:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think more likely it's on the border of two images (remember it's a stitched panorama), with a face-on view fading into a side-on view. TSP 22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible socks

Anyone else a little suspicious of QAZ, 66.36.155.198, Babayi who have suddenly popped out to rescue the Baghe Eram Shiraz from opposes? --Fir0002 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm pretty sure now that they are socks of Arad, the did the same thing with the "Arge Bam" nom --Fir0002 22:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not cool. The user contributions are quite a give-away. Even with the greatest benefit of the doubt plus extra assume-no-evil I'd guess they are at least meatpuppets. My suggestion would be weighing those votes a little less (or not at all, even if that is begging for in-crowd conspiracy theories again). --Dschwen 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks incriminating to me. Too bad that the FP crown is so glamorous that it distorts the process. SteveHopson 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I ask the admin to remove these votes if possible, it's probably one of my friends at school who wants to support me. I'll tell him to stop because it's truely unfair and I understand. Thank you for watching these pages. Arad 23:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

not sure who they are but I agree with above Arad 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Feel free to contact me if this goes any further. Arad 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I took the votes of these people off the page, as i felt guilty for what they've done. Arad 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not allowed to ake the votes off. Arad 00:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)