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 :-) --Dschwen21:11, 30 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!. --Dschwen06:51, 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. TSP13:32, 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-Tul19:34, 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. InvictaHOG20:30, 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. TSP22:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Possible socks
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
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). --Dschwen22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
DUDE i don't even care about FP CROWN or the so called. I just thought that the image is nice and nominated it. I don't know about these users.
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. Arad23:35, 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. Arad23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have read the archive posts on the issue, and there seems to be no consensus on how much modification of an image is too much, and also whether that should be codified or whether it should remain so undefined, for lack of a better term. Cat-five - talk00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean modification of a given image by people other than the photographer, or modification by the photographer? It is common (and to a certain extent, encouraged) for people on Wikipedia and Commons to make edits to freely-licensed images here if doing so will improve the image's usefulness for the projects. -- Moondigger00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OTOH, FPCs that are edited (other than for brightness, color or contrast) may be opposed (if the edit is apparent, or done during a nomination period). Cases in point: the discussion about removing a duffel bag, people on front of a ruin, pink poles at the waterline... --Janke | Talk05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No one is voting
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
In the United States, this is the Labor Day weekend -- a long holiday weekend that marks the "end of summer" and last weekend before school in many parts of the country. Lots of users may be away for a few days and there's definitely an above-average number of wikibreak notices around. That may explain, at least in part, slow voting for a couple of days. Newyorkbrad02:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Arad's(?) Iran photos
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I too am a little dubious, and certainly support your view. There may be a simple explanation, but I agree with what you said. --Fir000205:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The images are scans the differences in image size is typical of scans. They lack luster of recent print images. The vehicle concerned appears to be a 1960's toyota landcruiser this vintage but the wagon version. I have some 4500 pix on the pc I know when each one was taken. Also got 1000's of paper and slide images upto 30 years old and I can identify a generalise time frame (month year) of when they were taken. Gnangarra06:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
FPs not promoted all the way
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Recently, I've found two FPs that did not go through the entire promotion process, Image:Pantheon wider centered.jpg and Image:MarsSunset.jpg. I'm concerned there are more, but I don't have time to comb through the archives and make sure. Perhaps we can get a group of us to do this? Maybe split it up by month so that no one person has to do more than 1-2 month's worth of nominations. howcheng {chat}16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What was the problem with those? They didn't show up on WP:FP? Might be easier to write a script/bot to comb through the archived noms and compare with WP:FP. --Dschwen17:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago21 comments12 people in discussion
Just so you all you know, we are running out of Featured Pictures for POTD. As it stands right now, we will run out of new images and have to start repeating POTDs before the end of October. I encourage everyone to step up and find worthy candidates. Thanks. howcheng {chat}16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Another option is to repeat older FPs (already have been used as FP of the day), perhaps only doing so a few times a week and showing new FPs other days. That's what used to happen before the Main Page redesign in February/March. --Aude (talkcontribsas tagcloud) 18:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Though, I suppose some older FPs here that passed say two years ago, might not pass now as standards here have changed. I think we should be a little more flexible, in regards to Commons (and maybe use FPs from there only 1-2 times a week?) Or put some of the Commons FP up for FPC here? --Aude (talkcontribsas tagcloud) 18:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer the repetition of FP's than the lowering of standards. If you are going to repeat old ones, somebody should take the job of going over the one's that will show on the main page and nominate for delisting if they don't match current standards(the FP standard was lower in the past). That way only our best will show. But of course the best solution is to go out there with your cameras, or scour free resources for pictures. HighInBC18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot that have been repeated. The ones that have only appeared as POTD once start in Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs 04. In case you don't know, FPs now get to be POTDs in the order they are promoted (generally). I know for a fact that since May 1, 2006 (when I started writing them), there have been no repeats at all, but before that date, some of the POTDs were repeats. So when we start running out, I will try to keep a good ratio of maybe 5:2 new to old per week if possible. Also, during my research I found a few FPs that never go to be POTDs so there's a few extra days' worth of buffer. (: howcheng {chat}22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
There are so many good candidates right now, it's just that wikipedians think that a FP is whether the one that they find cute and lovely or the one that they think is a FP in their opinion. If we put aside our prefrence and vote on quality, (not all voters ofcourse, some voters vote perfectly fine) we will have some good POTD soon. Arad23:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have an idea. Instead of telling existing nominators to step up, why not recrute more nominators? This could easily be done by advertising. Just like the encourager in the Featured Picture template that states " If you have a different image of similar quality, be sure to upload it using the proper free license tag, add it to a relevant article, and nominate it" This could be added to every POTD box, and will invariably end up on the main page, thus promoting our cause. Anyone agree? - Jack(talk)00:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I am concerned that in the rush for more pictures standards will be lowered. Inviting people at random(which a message on the main page does) will produce a huge backlog in voting and dilute the quality images attention. If an advertisment for more nominations is to be made, perhaps it would better to contact the people on this list: Wikipedia:Wikipedians/PhotographersHighInBC01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The only person that openly opposed the link was Dschwen. We really do need more noms, it barely takes any work to close a failed nomination. Bad nominations should only take a second of a persons time, its not a big deal. The people that complain about low quality nominations tend to not even be the people that close them. -Ravedave(help name my baby)02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I was an unregistered, anonymous contributer at the time of that discussion, but I would have been right there with Dschwen opposing the link had I been registered. I base that opinion on what I've seen on various photography forums I've either participated on or moderated. It's human nature to overestimate the quality and/or usefulness of one's own images, whether you're a snapshooter, hobbyist, or pro. The difference is that hobbyists and pros tend to produce reasonably good images (even if we're sometimes blind to the flaws in our own work), whereas snapshooters tend to produce a large volume of images that have no chance of being featured. -- Moondigger02:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
If we must have more pictures, then more nominations is fine, but lets go for quality nominations. The main page is like grabbing a handfull of pebbles when you want quartz. Lets start with the people here:Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers, that way we can not only get more nomination but more new photographs HighInBC02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There are loads of images on peer review, if we're looking for more nominations (though to be perfectly honest, I doubt that there are many, if any, images that would pass. --Pharaoh Hound(talk)12:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately not possible. His profile says: "... my photos are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5. " Note that non-commercial = not allowed on wikipedia. --Janke | Talk13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Featured Picture of Day
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I nominated a few pictures which are definitely FP so we're going to be OK for pic of the day when they are accepted. Arad21:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
I think we need to make a policy that before a Delist that is mostly about size that the nominator at least attempts to contact the uploader to obtain a larger version. We have too many good pictures that are nominated for size reasons without a single attempt to contact the uploader. AfD's generally ask a user to tag the article and work with it, if it's a workable article, we should asks the nominators to do the same.PPGMD15:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The image is not deleted, but it certainly should be standard practice to contact the upload when it is put up for delisting. HighInBC15:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about any particular delisting, I am talking in general. I believe that for a size nom, the delister should first attempt to contact the uploader before putting the Featured Picture up for delisting. If the major reason to delist is for size issues, you can wait a week or so, and let the uploader attempt to put a larger image up. PPGMD15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not during the delisting? If assurances that a larger image is forthcoming then the delisting can be delayed. Either way I am for finding larger images, but if we contact them before the delisting, how long do we wait for a reply? HighInBC17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This practice is used in Featured article review and seems like a polite thing to do before listing. Doesn't mean that we haven't been polite thus far, but now that it's been brought up it seems like a nice thing to do. InvictaHOG18:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, it's not only polite, but it saves editor time. It's better that an image simply doesn't come to delisting in the first place. PPGMD18:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I can't recall seeing a delisting nom for which the only consideration was size/resolution. Some of Fir's earlier FPs are only 800x600, but are generally left alone because they meet all criteria other than resolution. None of the current delist noms are there solely due to size, and I can't recall seeing one like that either.
For the most part, the biggest Nom reasons for 3 of the current delist noms is size, sure they mention other reasons, but size seems to be the one that they are hitting on the most. If the size issue was fixed it's unlikely that those nominations would even be up there. Asking to see if it can be improved is simply polite. PPGMD21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I can't recall seeing a delisting nom for which the only consideration was size. Otherwise people would be nominating some of Fir0002's otherwise fine images,+ some of which are less than 0.5 megapixels. My point is that when people look at featured pictures, I don't think they're nominating to delist because of resolution; I think they're seeing other problems that are obvious in the thumbnails on featured pictures thumbs or on featured pictures visible. Then they're noticing that the resolution doesn't meet requirements as well, and mention all of these issues in the nomination to delist. Just because most of these nominations mention substandard resolution/size does not mean it's the sole reason for the delist nomination. If somebody can point out a nomination any time in the past three-four months or so (since I've been participating) for which the sole reason was size or resolution, I'll concede the point. But based on what I've seen, this is a solution in search of a problem.
+Fir, I'm not trying to pick on you. I mention your images because some of them are perfect examples of images that don't merit a delisting nom despite being below the stated resolution requirements. -- Moondigger23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an un-needed complication and delay. I believe if the people ar informed at the beginning of te nom then that should do. If they post and ask for a few days to come up with a better pic, I have no doubt that people will oblige. Even if the pic gets delisted, it can always be renominated. say198804:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Which Pioneer Plaque?
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
Support original. One of the few artifacts of mankind that have left our Solar system. NOTE: It seems it is not in any article at the moment - some other version, perhaps? Needs to be looked in to. --Janke | Talk07:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, the line drawing is in the articles. What do we do when most people here prefer the original? Substitute it in the article? Maybe not the best option, a line drawing fits better there... --Janke | Talk13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The line drawing lacks the historical significance that the original has. The image itself is really only important due to it's historical significance. Not sure what to do about it's lack of presence in the article. HighInBC14:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in a sense it IS in the article, only another "version" of it. However, I would NOT substitute the line drawing with the color version in the article, but I would put the color one in POTD. Is there a true conflict, really? --Janke | Talk14:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
They seem to me to illustrate very slightly different things - one illustrates the plaque, the other illustrates the content of the plaque. So I'd put the coloured version in Pioneer plaque (if it is preferred in the FPC vote); but Information graphics, for example, might be better with the black and white version because it is only concerned with what is printed on the plaque, not with the form of the plaque itself. TSP15:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
I'm pretty sure User:NegativeNed is vadalizing on FPC. He opposes every image with jokes. It's OK if he likes to have fun and make jokes but FPC is not the place.
To the person who closes the nominations: Please do not count this user's votes on any of the nomination unless they are changed or are credible. Thank you. Arad03:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, vadalizing? Jokes? Don't count my votes? What is going on here? What exactly counts as a credible vote? You don't like my name? NegativeNed04:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far as to call your comments vandalism, but many of them are hardly what I would call 'credible votes'. Would you care to explain how this and this are supposed to be constructive comments? Raven4x4x05:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Anyone out there to close a dozen of nominations? If I knew how exactly, (because I don't want to ruin anything) I would do it. Thank you. Arad19:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
+6 / -3 NOT PROMOTED?
Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments11 people in discussion
I'm sure his only reason is because he didn't like the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arad (talk • contribs)
One of the supports was weak; I counted based on Support = 1, Weak Support = 0.5, Oppose = 1, Weak Oppose (there weren't any of those) would have been 0.5. Thus 5.5 vs. 3, which doesn't look like a consensus in favour to me. Even at 6/3 it's bang on the mark, and there were two comments (Witty_Lama and drumguy) which expressed concerns about the quality; consensus, as has been discussed here ad nauseum, does not come down to a simple vote count. I did not feel that there was a consensus in favour of promoting this image. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, as I voted, but I have done it transparently. Please refrain from shouting at me, Arad; I was responding to your request that someone clear the backlog of nominations. --YFB¿00:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
"I was responding to your request that someone clear the backlog of nominations." I didn't understand this part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arad (talk • contribs)
You requested (above) that if someone was about, could they please close some of the nominations, as there were a lot that had passed the 7 day mark. So I closed some, and got an earful. --YFB¿00:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly Arad, consensus is supposed to be more than just counting votes; a two thirds majority is a guideline, not a hard limit. You can see here that a promotion I made several months ago with a two thirds majority generated some controversy, so I tend to look for more than that myself. Secondly, accusing Yummifruitbat of bias against your nomination is inappropriate. We have a policy here of assuming good faith, so please do this in future. Thirdly, please sign all your comments on talk pages. Raven4x4x00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Consensus cannot be defined by any fixed percentage. It's a "decision" made by a group, hopefully a decision everyone in the group can live with. Thus, a rational explanation for an oppose vote makes that vote more important than just a simple comment like "boring". --Janke | Talk08:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
OK then, if 2/3 is a guideline, then if it's {+6/-3 = 6/9} which is 2/3 is good enough to be promoted. Anyway i REALLY don't care anymore and seriously, this wikipedia is frustrating as User:Zereshk said years ago. this whole thing if you put too much effort is a waste of time. just a little typo fixes now and then is enough. After this I'll just use wiki as a source of information. After all my nominations are closed I will never visit this FPC no more. It is frustrating with all these users thinking they are gods or something. If you find this message rude, then I'm sorry but don't warn for any reasons. In the end I should add that whatever you might think, I still believe that the nomination had the consensus in favor of it. Arad21:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I overreacted, but I'm really tired for this kind of discussion. So don't be offended by my comments above. Arad21:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a borderline case, which can be left to the closer's discretion. IMHO one more vote either way would have swung the decision, but I'm not going to second guess User:Hetar on this one. howcheng {chat}16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No offence but people here no have life to promote a +6/-3 and not a 5.5/-3. Who cares just promote it if there is more support than oppose. 66.36.143.21022:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
No offense, but learn how Wikipedia (and FPC nominations) work before you spout off about it. The basic idea is to try to achieve consensus, but since that's all but impossible in FPC discussions we aim for a supermajority. As has already been explained, we don't actually go by a straight vote count -- the person closing the nomination should take the various comments into account and make a judgement based on both the vote count and the comments. No matter what happens, though, a simple majority like you're advocating doesn't even approach the concept of a consensus, and so will likely never be adequate for Featured Picture promotions. -- Moondigger23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
First of all, a guidline is NOT a rule, therefore, a 2/3 majority does not automatically mean promotion. Anything around 2/3 is iffy and really can go either way. Now I support if people politely ask for reasoning behind questionable closings. As seen in the past the discussion can be useful. I see this closing as questionable, but I can also see this going either way. say198802:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Is your reply directed at me or at the anonymous IP poster? I never said a 2/3 majority means automatic promotion, or that it was a "rule." I pointed out that the pure vote counts matched the results in these two cases, if one were to use the 2/3 majority guideline, and that therefore I didn't find either of these closings particularly surprising. I actually explained that pure vote counts aren't the only thing considered more than once in this conversation, so your informing me of that seems redundant. -- Moondigger04:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I indented that liek that. It was directed at the people in general sho are saying "IT had two thirds so it should be promoted" etc.... not you. say198802:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The same thing happened to me, and the advice I got was good - that if I believed in the image enough, and sought to have it be considered for Featured status, I should give it some time and re-nominate it. It was good advice then and now. Don't let it get you down, just try again another day if it's something you believe in strongly enough. Be well. -- User:RyanFreisling@02:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
(Maximum) size of FPs
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The concern of some seems to be that very large images cannot be loaded well in a browser by people or at all by people with slower computers.
My response to this is:
Large images are not meant to be viewed in a browser, the wikipedia software automatically scales the images for use in a browser.
A warning at the top of the image page is enough to warn people
The Download high-resolution version button should do just that
A featured picture should be the best wikipedia has to offer and more detailed images are better than less
It is arbritrary, an old enough computer will crash on a 2000x2000 image, while the better computers of today can handle a 18000x18000.
Not making the larger picture FP will not stop people from clicking on it, only deleting the larger image will accomplish that.
The maximum size of files on wikipedia was increased from 8mb to 20mb, this coupled with the text of Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Rules_of_thumb point 5 seems to indicate that the bigger the image the more prefered it is.
Please give your opinion on this matter. Do you think that a very large image should be scaled down and then used as the FP instead of the large one? Or do you think the highest detailed version of the image should be used? If such a limitation is to exist it should be in this criteria page. HighInBC15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
In response to HighInBC's comments on the nebula image, I think some sort of maximum size should be proposed for the time being. I have what I consider to be a half-decent computer (Athlon XP 3000+, 512MB RAM) and I can't load the image in Firefox. That means that potentially a very large proportion of other wikipedia users will also not be able to view it. To non-computer-literate users it may just seem that the page is broken. Therefore it seems a little silly to have this as featured picture; until such time as we can expect the majority of users to be able to view the full-sized version, I think the large version should be linked from the 6k x 6x image. I see no reason why the large version shouldn't also be listed as featured, but with a note that the smaller version go on the front page. Having a warning that you might not be able to view the image doesn't strike me as ideal because it's unlikely that everyone will take notice of it, even if they see it. --YFB¿00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the quality of your computer, web browsers are not designed for large pictures. My computer is comperable to yours and I could load it, and the 385mb tif I created it from, on my computer using proper image software(photoshop). HighInBC15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, only just saw this part of your comments - surely that supports my point? Wikipedia is a website, i.e. designed to be viewed in a web browser. Doesn't it strike you as illogical to have listed as 'one of our best images' something that can't be viewed in a web browser? I maintain my earlier stance that this is a great image but we should, on the basis of your comments, supply access to it via a 'download this to view it in a proper imaging program (e.g. Photoshop), if you have have one and also have more than x amount of RAM, otherwise you're wasting your time' link, and keep the smaller image as the featured image so that everyone can view 'our best images' in a web browser? --YFB¿00:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
We should always have the maximum resolution file available somehow for those that want it, so I think it's a good idea to have an upper restriction on size for the actual file that gets featured. YFB's solution makes a lot of sense. ~MDD469600:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, always let people have access to max res, but I agree, keep the file size down of front page stuff. Now, whenever you click on an image, you first go to the image page, which has a downsampled image, click that, and you get full size - but, I have problems, too, with that humongous, but wonderful nebula. So, a medium-size FP having a link to an even larger one on the image page is a good solution. --Janke | Talk06:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
A special copy of the picture of the day is made anyways so it can be protected. Surely if it is such a concern then a scaled down version could be used for picture of the day, but that does not mean it should be a featured picture, as featured pictures are an example of our best. HighInBC15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Near Infrared Tree votes
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Hmm. Why? Sounds like it's a clear win for Edit 1. I don't see why it's invalid to support without offering an opinion on which of two alternatives is promoted. I think it's generally been accepted that only one variant of a proposed picture gets promoted, so I don't think it needs to be manipulated so that one of the alternatives turns into an oppose. TSP18:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it will make much difference, but as the nominator I have a strong preference for the original image. The image is already presented on the article in question as a diptych, and it was done simply by formatting them properly in the article. Edit 1 seems pointless to me -- doubling the size of the image to make a diptych that isn't needed. -- Moondigger22:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Other have strong preference for the edit, so it evens out. Did you notice that before I added the pasted together image everyone was oppose and there was much confusion, and after I added the edit the confusion dissapeared? The only way to force this to remain a diptych is to put the images together. Also if someone wants to see a larger version of the two compared they can't with the old way, but the combined image has a nice image page. Not like the "why"s really matter, the root is that there is ovbious preference for edit 1 and it was not promoted. -Ravedave(help name my baby)22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Recounted: 7 "support edit", 2 "support edit oppose original", 4 "original", 4 "support either", 1 "Oppose Original - Neutral Edit". To me that is definitly edit one. Even if the 4 eithers all went original there would be 3 opposes against it making it 5 to 7. Howcheng can you close? I would but I think I am too involved. -Ravedave(help name my baby)01:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
For those that state a preference, I have 6 prefer original and 8 prefer edit. I'm being kind by not opposing the edit, otherwise it would be 6 to 7. In any case, I don't think 6 to 8 or 5 to 7 could be considered consensus for either version, and suggest we just adhere to the closer's decision. I don't believe there's a precedent for overriding a closer's decision without consensus to do so. -- Moondigger01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Hrm you are right about the count, sorry about that! I will re-ask the four two remaining eithers. I feel very strongly that edit 1 should be the one promoted as it is ovbious that people don't understand the single picture, and the single picture is being used, such as here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-09-25/Features_and_admins -02:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I apoligize for the late reply. Though not truly a strong preference, I prefer edit 1. —Jared HuntOctober 1, 2006, 05:29 (UTC)
Closing nomination
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK, so I should probably know this, but the instructions don't seem entirely clear. Who is supposed to close a failed nomination? 1) The nominee 2) An admin 3) Someone not involved 4) Someone else?
I'm happy to try to do it, if I can, seeing as it's obvious my nomination failed. Please let me know here or on my talk page. Terri G15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can close a nomination. In cases where the nominee wants to close their own nomination, it should be blatantly clear as to the result (and it just seems more professional to let someone else close it if it looks like it's going to be promoted). Although it is not a requirement, controversial nominations or nominations that do not have an overly clear consensus should be closed by an uninvolved party. --Hetar05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Noise demonstration
Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Would someone with a tripod be willing take two pictures of one subject with a digitial camera in regular and really low light (hopefully noisey) to demonstrate image noise? I think a side by side comparison would provide more info than the existing picture. From the existing picture it looks like grey is a good color to demonstrate it with. -Ravedave(help name my baby)01:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few, one is shot in very dim daylight (2 sec), the other in bright artificial light (0.1 sec), the last with flash. All at ASA 160 equivalent. The difference in color balancing and light direction may skew the results slightly. No editing whatsoever has been done. Check the metadata for further info. I really don't see a very marked difference in graininess, even though the 2 sec. one is somewhat grainier. Later tonight, I may be able to get a shot at 10 to 20 sec. exposure - that should show some "hot" pixels already... Greetings, --Janke | Talk08:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
So, you want noise, eh? - here's one with a VERY long exposure, almost in total darkenss... the only light here is the very dim daylight (7 pm, dark outside!) that comes through the closed blinds, plus a little incandescent "leaking" from another room. I had to use a penlight for the camera to focus! The resulting image was so dark that I had to adjust the levels, and the metadata disappeared. This is still 160 ASA, but now you do have noise! Satisfied? (Of course, you have to check the images full size to see the noise... ;-) Also note the horizontal striation - a CCD artifact, and the loss of color saturation, typical in low light situations. The randomly colored noise is very mottled, typical of low-light shots. Also note how the noise (grain) covers the small details in the picture - for instance, you really can't see the tiger's whiskers anymore. --Janke | Talk 16:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC) PS: I was surprised to find no "hot" pixels, but it appears my camera makes a "correction pass", at least the display says it is calculating, for about as long as the exposure. It would be a smart thing to subtract a long, totally black exposure from the real one - thus erasing the errors from hot or dead pixels. Maybe the striations are an artifact of this process? --Janke | Talk07:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created a combined image and added that one instead to the article. . Janke if you move your images to commons I'll link them from my combined image. -Ravedave(help name my baby)01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No need to link (and move?) the original images, IMHO. But if you wish to do so, please feel free! I do think your combination shows all that's important... ;-) --Janke | Talk06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I just add that I'm not sure that Janke's image is the best example of noise in terms of digital cameras.. Yes, it is definitely a classic case of noise but to demonstrate it properly, the lighting should stay the same and the ISO should increase. From the example on the article, it appears that the colour balance also changes when extra noise is introduced. ;). I understand that Janke's camera has noise increases quite rapidly at exposures over 1 second, but not all cameras are quite that bad - the consistent factor is mainly ISO (sensitivity) rather than exposure length. I'll try to put together a better example this weekend if I get the chance. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Diliff, usually the contributing factor is ISO sensitivity. Although with your cam it may be a little hard to get some noise Diliff ;-)! --Fir000210:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree with you. ISO affects the noise more than exposure time (but that affects too). Since the original question was about low-light noise, I just made a quick test of that only. When you have a better pair of images, please feel free to replace mine! Or, maybe you could even do a series of ISO 25 to 3200? --Janke | Talk12:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: My camera is horribly noisy at 400 ISO (max setting) because of the small CCD, so I have limited the "auto-ISO" to 160... In my profession (animation & special effects) I very seldom use digital cameras, only 35 and 16 mm movie film, plus a 2400 dpi scanner... That's why I don't have, nor need, a high-end digicam. I am pretty pleased with the 2-year old 5 Mpx KonicaMinolta, though - smaller than a deck of playing cards, weighs less than 150 grams, no protruding lens, sliding clamshell lens cover, fits comfily in a pocket, i.e. an ideal "documentation" camera. I think the examples here are actually surprisingly good, considering the camera's small size. Even the Hawk Moth macro shot [2] shows what it can do (with the proper button excercises ;-) ... but, as Fir noted, the shadows are pretty noisy on that one, too! Greetings, --Janke | Talk13:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, sorry, I missed that section. I didn't realise those tags even existed... Thanks for picking that up. Next time, if you ever find a tag missing or similar, there is no need to announce it here; just dropping the closer a note would perhaps be better. Thanks again. Raven4x4x00:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I added another useful test image that will show whether your display has a properly adjusted gamma. There are some technical notes on the colortest.png image page. --Janke | Talk07:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not any adjustment on the monitor (which has a fixed gamma - read the tutorial linked on the test image page), it's in the computer system software. On the PC I'm using right now, there's a gamma setting very deep down in the hierarchy (sorry, can't give you the proper tab names, since they'e all in Finnish on this version of WinXP!), but not all PCs may have it. On Macs, it's much easier to find, among the "control panels". --Janke | Talk18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion
Hi!
I've noticed a couple of "very weak opposes" on FPC - I think it'd be best to define them as -0.5 where:
Support = 1
Weak Support = 0.5
Very Weak Oppose = -0.5
Weak Oppose = -1
Oppose = -2
And if sum of those votes is equal or greater than 0 it's a promote. Is that OK with everyone? Or should a Very Weak Oppose be counted the same as a Weak Oppose? --Fir000208:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think oppose votes should carry double the weight of support votes. IMHO "very weak oppose" is the same as "weak oppose". Also, it shouldn't be if the sum >= 0, because then that would imply a 50/50 split, which as we all know is not enough for promotion. At the very minimum you need a 2/3 majority. howcheng {chat}16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
oppose = -2? what? no way. I think all opposes should be -1 and all supports +1. If they are really that weak opposing then they should go neutral. Otherwise I plan on inventing super mega support ++ ( = +5)-Ravedave(help name my baby)17:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The reason for having "double weight" for opposes is simply a mathematical shortcut: If the sum is exactly zero, we have a 2/3 "supermajority", which at least so far has been considered the lowest to be called "consensus". If the sum is negative, nom is not promoted, since it has less than 2/3 support. As simple as that. --Janke | Talk17:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Very weak = weak, be it oppose or support.
Damn my non-existent math skills! I get it now. The only thing is, I wouldn't want this to be a hard-and-fast rule, just a rule of thumb. howcheng {chat}18:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a rule of thumb. The closer has considerable freedom and can weigh the pros and cons discussed in text. --Janke | Talk18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that "very weak" should equal "weak" for both supports and opposes. If somebody's support or opposition is really that weak (very weak), then it makes sense to either pick neutral or weak. -- Moondigger17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Moondigger; I've rarely seen anything but "weak," normal or "strong" supports/opposes. Anything "very weak" should be considered neutral. And the vote should only be used as a rule of thumb, so if we end up with a 50-65% majority, but some good arguments for the image are made, it should be still promoted. ♠ SG→Talk13:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Featured pictures director
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I think FPC could be helped by the election of a featured pictures director (FPD) for a term of one year. I belive these would be the roles:
Remove personal attacks/noncivil votes. Make sure newbies feel welcome.
Decide if a picture is promoted or not (with absolute athority unless a re-nominated) and decide which edit is the best if there is no consensus.
Maintain and gatekeep the rules page (there have been many additions, few discussed)
Be the contact point when sock puppets are suspected
The actual promotion of the picture (adding to various pages removing templates etc) could be left to anyone, so the FPD would just mark the item closed and promoted/not promoted. I think having a consistant way of deciding things would be nice. It seems to work well for FAC. Thoughts? -Ravedave(help name my baby)17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty good idea, but I think a year might be too long of a time period for someone to commit to. Maybe we could start with term of one month that can be renewed? howcheng {chat}18:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the director should decide whether they are promoted or not, add the template, and then leave others to do the rest. Anyway, I think it's a great idea. NauticaShades18:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well personally I'm a little dubious, as although it's a nice thought I don't see any problem with the current system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! --Fir000208:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I support a person taking responsibility for the organization of this, but I do not see the need for any special authority. HighInBC04:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support having a featured pictures director for one month terms. It would make ending many nominations a lot easier, such as with close votes, controversial noms (Touched by His Noodly Appendage, which, by the way, I still don't understand why people thought of it as non-NPOV) and when there are a lot of versions to choose from (Supermarine Spitfire XVI).
However, we would have to lay some ground rules for special situations, such as when there is a conflict of interest (ie. FP director is the nominator or creator of a FPC or a version of a FPC). ♠ SG→Talk12:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Allowing this person to moderate and lead is fine. But giving special authority is not needed, as the individual can be lead by consensus. That way if a conflict of interest comes about it can be handled the same way all conflicts of interests are handled; by needing to support your decision with the facts at hand, in this case the voters. HighInBC14:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would say that the Spitfire edit debate is a perfect exampe of where a Featured Picture Director's decision would be useful. NauticaShades21:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedic Value
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
Encyclopedic Value seems to have become a pretty important factor in FPC, but is it barely mentioned in Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. I propose an expasion of criterion 5, explaining the boundary between art (black and white, soft focus, etc.) and encyclopedic pictures, as well as angles, (side on instead of straight on, etc). What do you think? NauticaShades17:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
This is hard to quantify. In some cases soft focus allows the subject to be isolated from the background, in others it is a fault. Similiar variation occurs in the other attributes you mentioned. Certainly it could use expansion, but hard and fast rules about these things will fail to account for the diversity of images.
Perhaps something along the lines of "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image."
I like the wording "It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image." It might also be nice to just mention that black and white, backlit, funky angles, etc. often prove less encyclopedic. It's certainly something which took me awhile to figure out! InvictaHOG09:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Add value to an article and help complete readers' understanding of an article in ways other pictures in the article do not. It is important that the encyclopedic value of the image be given priority over the artistic value of the image. While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
Opinions
I would support that wording. Perhaps the third sentence could be something like: While effects like black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
I have been bold and changed point 5 to the version you drafted, as there has been no resistence to the idea. Good work. HighInBC22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
First, I'd like to draw the attention of anyone who is involved in closing nominations to the revised instructions. These changes were made in line with the refactoring of WP:FP I did. Let me know if it's not clear.
Second, I noticed that a number of recent promoted images were not being added to WP:FPT. Please note that this is a crucial step because that's how I figure out what the order is when writing the POTD blurbs. Thanks. howcheng {chat}22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently some can, but not others. I guess the only way to tell is to try it and see if the animation looks right. howcheng {chat}03:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Pi-unrolled (animated) resizes fine. There is a thumb caching bug that may cause old versions to crop up in thumbs for a week or two after new versions are uploaded over the same filename; this propagates even to the image description page. But new thumbs, created by demanding a novel width, are displayed fine; and the problem does iron itself out in time. John Reid23:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
FPC Failed Template
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
I think it will just give a good but not FP quality image a bad rap. I mean I remember when people were discussing on the water article what should be the main image. And the fact that one of my images failed to become a FP (even though the alternatives wouldn't have) was used against it. --Fir000209:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a failed FPC template is necessary. Unlike failed featured article candidates, such an image cannot be improved by the community, though entirely different photos can be uploaded. ♠ SG→Talk12:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I disagree with SG. Images can indeed be improved by the community (although I understand the other argument). I think a template is useful but I don't think it should highlight failure.
By analogy, you never see on, say, an actor's resume that he failed to win an Oscar. Instead, he's proud to say he was nominated for an Oscar 7 times. The "failed"closed template should simply say, positively, that an image was nominated. Avoid all mention of failure; success is conspicuous enough by its absence.
To distinguish a closed nomination from an open one, the closed template should include a date. I'll take a crack at it. John Reid23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a HUGE difference between an Oscar and a featured picture nomination. Members of the Academy nominate actors and films, and then those with the most nominations are selected for voting; after voting, the winner is announced.
On here, ONE single person out of thousands of members nominate an image. Some images fail miserably, some are nominated in bad faith (ie. "42" as a joke a while ago). Why should those images have this tag?
And again, an image probably will not be improved to the point where it can pass FPC a second time around, because presumably, the first time it was nominated, all those involved in FPC would have attempted to make improvements to the image already. ♠ SG→Talk22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not see how this template would benifit the community. If for some reason this information was needed the image should always have the vote page in the list of what links here. However I do like John Reid's idea an await the results of his efforts. HighInBC00:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago29 comments9 people in discussion
I changed the promoted edit as per discussion here. Final tally was as follows:
Original - 2
Edit 1 - 0
Edit 2 - 6
Edit 3 - 3
Edit 2/3 - 1
Edit 4 - 8
Edit 5 - 0
Any edit - 3 --Fir000210:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Should it be taken into account that five voters (including the photographer) were explicitly opposed to promoting edit 4? --KFP (talk | contribs) 13:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well see I don't think so. Because for my part I would be opposed to the other edits, but I don't explicitly state the fact, because by saying that I support Edit 4, you can assume I oppose other edits (unless I say that I support 1 or more edits) --Fir000207:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not happy with this. You also cannot take into account AndonicO's vote, it was changed after the nomination was closed. chowells17:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I count 7 votes for edit 2, which is the same number as edit 4 if we ignore the person who voted after the nomination closed. I prefer edit 2 over edit 4, therefore I suggest edit 2 should remain the promoted image. chowells17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well to tell you the truth the nom shouldn't have been closed at that stage as I put it in the suspended nominations area so that people could have the chance to specify their preferences. Btw chowells, reverting all my edits without discussin it wasn't the best way to go about it. --Fir000207:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Well my 2 cents is that I put forward a pretty persuasive reason why Edit 4 and 5 are not the best edits. For the most part they were not rebutted (see talk page of the nomination), and that should be considered in the verdict, since it is not just about totals but about arguments for and against as well. I'll summarise again: There were artifacts added (presumably as an unwanted quirky side effect to the processing done) to the image in Edit 4 and as these were not present in the original (we're not talking about basic shadow/colour enhancement here, it was actual detail of the plane itself that was changed), I don't think the edits are encyclopedic, even if they were supported by some wikipedians. I suspect some of the supporters of edit 4 did not thoroughly read the discussion and based their judgement on a summary viewing of the image. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Likewise I felt I put up a pretty persausive argument why Edit 4 was superior. I didn't even start to point out the flaws in the other edits, merely defended mine. --Fir000207:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
As I said though, the flaws in your edit were such that they were unencyclopaedic and, if we were to take a hard line on the matter, should automatically be disqualified for that reason. I'm not going that far, but what I am saying is that given the two edits, minor aesthetic quibbles should take a backseat to the much greater issue of authenticity. As can be clearly shown, your edits have major elements not present in the original and are therefore not suitable to accurately portray the subject. As for your persuasive arguments about edit 4, can you summarise them? Because for all the talk, I didn't really see any persuasive arguments other than your claim that it "just looks better" on the candidacy talk page. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need to go through this again? What are the major elements missing in my edit? Everythings there! Unless you are referring to the cockpit as being a missing element - which really is bordering on the ridiculous. And yes the salient point is that not only did my edit significantly lift the shadows, it gave the image a heck of a lot more Wow factor - probably the key reason for making an edit! --Fir000222:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well no we don't, but then again, we didn't really discuss why yours was better in great detail in the past either. Lets just leave it as a difference of opinion for now. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)07:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Besides, voters for original and 3 should be asked to reconsider. This would be a perfect place for an elected Featured Picture Director. NauticaShades21:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well see I'd disagree. Because specifically supporting one edit implies you are opposing the other edits (for instance I would oppose the promotion of any other edit but the one I specified). And I would tend to think others would feel the same as there were several "strong" supports for Edit 4. In addition, when I had contacted the various users who hadn't specified thier preferences, Andonic replied a little late (premature closing of nom) with "I've changed my vote for edit 4, but I noticed edit 2, a slightly inferior edit, has already been promoted". Clearly there is significant support for Edit 4 --Fir000222:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh really? Can you point that precedent out to me - I didn't know about it. If so than be all means revert back to Edit 2, and I apologise for the trouble. However if not, I stand by the fact that the edit promted should be changed. --Fir000207:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
This might not mean much, but when I say I support a certain edit, it means I'm fine with the rest of them, also. I only oppose other edits when I actually oppose them. In case, I opposed edits 4 and 5. NauticaShades07:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Precedent is not policy, but it can (and should) be used as a guideline when policy does not address a given situation. I have only been paying attention to FPC for 4-5 months now, but in all that time opposes are only counted if they are stated as opposes. I have never assumed that support for an edit automatically means opposition to all other edits, and I don't believe others here have either. That's precedent.-- Moondigger14:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I'm fairly sure that nominations have always been closed that way. I certainly wouldn't want my support for a particular edit to be interpreted by default as all others being opposed. "Support edit xx" should just be an expression of preference for one edit. I will directly oppose others if, and only if, I feel strongly enough about them, such as with this nomination. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)15:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Just for the sake of argument, let's re-tally the vote according to Fir0002's understanding, in which votes for a particular edit are counted as votes against all other edits as well. Here are his own numbers, copied from above:
Original - 2
Edit 1 - 0
Edit 2 - 6
Edit 3 - 3
Edit 2/3 - 1
Edit 4 - 8
Edit 5 - 0
Any edit - 3
Doing so reveals that NO version of this image has consensus, since even Edit 4's 11 support votes (8 explicit + 3 "any edit") are easily offset by its 10 oppose votes (votes for other edits, which Fir0002 claims should count as votes against Edit 4). +11/-10 is well short of the 2/3 supermajority we use as a basic guideline. Previous precedent demonstrates that votes specifying support for a particular candidate image cannot be counted as votes against all other edits, otherwise it would be rare indeed for any image with more than one edit available to achieve consensus. -- Moondigger22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I know this discussion is more or less over, but I just wanted to tally with oppoose votes counting against edits:
Original - 2
Edit 1 - 0
Edit 2 - 9
Edit 3 - 5
Edit 4 - 5
Edit 5 - -2
Any edit - 6
We see here that edit 2 is the clear winner. On a side not, although Bridgecorss' vote actually supports edit 4, I put it as supporting edit 2 because he/she states their preference for 2 later on. Even if you put it back to 4, however, edit 2 still wins. NauticaShades14:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea why this is even being discussed. Overturning the closer's decision requires consensus to do so, unless the closer's decision was blatantly contrary to general consensus. The closer also has some leeway to assign weight to the various comments when making his/her decision. I didn't participate in the Spitfire discussion or vote on it. As an outside observer to this particular closing I believe it should be left as is. -- Moondigger23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I can understand wanting to discuss it, but from what I can tell he discussed it briefly on the closer's talk page, and then made the change before initiating the conversation about it here, where the FPC watchers might notice it and have a chance to discuss it. However I understand that your comment is probably meant in reply to my "Frankly, I have no idea..." statement. That said, the original closer made his reasoning clear as to why he promoted the particular edit he did, and nothing about it struck me as fishy. -- Moondigger04:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
FP director proposal
Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
Proposal: Election of a Featured pictures director for a term of N (to be decided) months to perform the following duties:
Decide if a picture is promoted or not (with absolute authority, unless re-nominated). Decide which edit is the best if there are multiple edits.
Remove personal attacks/un-civil votes. Make sure new users feel welcome.
Gate keep the rules page.
Be the contact point when sock puppets are suspected.
Prevent link spamming/advertising causing pictures to be promoted.
The election would be performed as follows:
1 week for nominations
2 weeks for voting
Nominees would be allowed a small paragraph explaining qualifications
Voting type will be approval voting, there will be no opposes
Candidate with the most support votes wins.
This poll will be left open for one week (unless someone proposes a longer period)
If the director will be the contact point for sock puppets etc, does that mean he/she should be an admin so that they can block the sockpuppet? --Fir000207:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the FP director should decided every time if it is not promoted or not, we should just call on him/her if there is a contested vote. NauticaShades14:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nauticashades. I will support having a featured pictures director, however, the first clause needs to be changed to something like this:
Nominations may be closed by any user, just as it is now. However, when a nomination result is contested or consensus cannot be reached, the featured picture director should be called in for the final decision (with absolute authority, unless re-nominated). ♠ SG→Talk22:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT... a democracy - I don't understand how this could possibly be better than the existing system. Discussions like the one above show that community consensus, achieved through consideration of each case on its individual merits, is more powerful than a single user with absolute discretion. Giving one user the right to a 'final say' either way would surely lead to more contested closings, not less, and probably also lead to the Director suffering an unfair share of the personal abuse that sadly we sometimes see here. The first three duties above are, IMO, bound to be more effectively carried out by the community than by a single user; "making new users feel welcome", for example, should be something we're all responsible for. While I can perhaps see a need for better oversight of nominations subject to 'hijacking' by interested parties who otherwise take no interest in the FPC process, I can't see how a single user would be better able to do this, either. I'd be sad to see FPC move in this direction. --YFB¿11:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly we fail miserably. How many times have you seen "Is this a joke?" etc said to new submitters? It is rarely, if ever, removed. I would say until now a large amount of chastising rude people has come from me and I am sick of doing it without the ability to flat out remove the vote. I have seen it far too many times. Also changes to the WIAFP page happen after 2 or 3 people agree on something, far below community support. Changes for the last few months [3] -Ravedave(help name my baby)14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, we are failing. I think what is needed is a concerted effort on the part of the 'regulars' to maintain a friendly, open environment and collectively to deal with rudeness/incivility promptly. Perhaps a discussion is needed about 'removing votes' - maybe a change to the rules to allow anyone to remove rude comments but to replace them with a note that an uncivil comment was removed and a link to the diff? Then the deletion would be transparent and open to reversal if widely contested. As far as WIAFP goes, I can't see any significant changes in the diff you provided that seem to go against what I understand to be the accepted norm - mostly they're just elaborations and clarifications of what was there previously (although I dislike the wording of the addition to the 'Add value to an article' section). Maybe we should periodically call a review of the WIAFP to ensure consensus supports the current incarnation of the page, make it 'task of the week' or something? I agree that FPC isn't perfect at present, but I just don't see that appointing a Director would significantly improve things - and it might just cause more trouble. --YFB¿16:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
.. I agree with much of what YFB said. Although there are the occasional issues with contested promotions, sock puppets and other issues, I'm not sure what the problem is with the current situation of it all being communally policed. I'm not wholeheartedly against the idea of this director, I just don't feel it is necessary. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Why do we need an extra layer of bureaucracy? There's not even a "There is problem X, hence we need an FP director" in the vote above. There would have to be a pretty major problem to introduce something like this. I don't understand the responsibility of "Prevent link spamming/advertising causing pictures to be promoted." - has this ever happened? If people would use common sense, and use the original meaning of consensus (rather than some numerical value), then this basically couldn't happen. A more relaxed system, like at present, where various clueful people share the responsibility is better. At worst, we could institute a guideline where someone can challenge the impartiality of the person closing the nomination, and insist that someone else do it. Stevage03:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose because I do not see an existing problem to be fixed. I also do not beleive any extra authority is required for this job. I would support a person who's job was to organize, but not to make any sort of final choice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do we bother having FPs from NASA, the US military etc?
Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
Can someone explain to me the value of having FP's that come from outside the Wikipedia community? The value of FP's created by Wikipedians is clear: it motivates people to produce more images, and draws attention to the best of our images, improving our reputation. But what's the value in stamping some NASA satellite photo "featured picture"? Is there any? Stevage03:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is, if it fulfills the requirements for a FP, mainly: being informative, encyclopedic, eyecatching and nice looking. --Janke | Talk05:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
not every subject can get self published images and FP from others sources(NASA, USGS etc) also encourages editors to find the best available images Gnangarra05:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Janke, that's a recursive explanation: an FP should be an FP because it meeds the FP requirements! But why do we want FPs at all? Why do we spend our time doing this? Gnangarra at least offers an explanation - motivating people to go and find more good images - but does it really have a major effect? Stevage02:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ask the same question of a Featured Article. Should the encyclopedia prevent a hypothetical article from being featured because we copied it from a public domain or GFDL source, and it was already a thing of beauty? –Outriggr§05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I see it, FP exists to encourage contributors of great images. Whether that contribution is a photo someone took themselves or a freely-licensed photo found from another source, it's still equally valuable to us. I don't see what we would gain by restricting FPs in this way. Raven4x4x11:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely. It is all about the image, not about the source. We can be more or less judgemental of an image based on how reproducible/unique it is. If it is a once-in-a-lifetime shot taken by NASA, why should we disregard it? Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)14:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyone who releases something to a compatable license is a wikipedia contributor. Remember our stated goal is to create an encyclopedia, forming a community is secondary. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this originally.
I couldn't agree with Stevage's original point more. And despite everyone disagreeing with him, I don't think anyone has adequately answered him.
Be Wikipedia's best work. It should be a photograph, diagram, image or animation that exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work. It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
Anything sourced from an external site, be it NASA, flickr, or whatever, is clearly NOT unique on the internet - it originates from a source other than Wikipedia. Therefore it should not be nominated and should not become a FP. Or is this criterion totally wrong?
Sure, images sourced from other places such may be useful for Wikipedia. By all means upload them and place them in articles, but it doesn't mean they have to be FPs (just as I have placed many useful images of my own in articles that would never qualify as FPs).
It begs the question of whether people are collecting and adding these images to improve the encyclopaedia, or just to put their name beside them, bump up 'their' FP count, and gain some vicarious glory thereby. --jjron15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can see both sides here. However in the end I think it comes down to this: We should feature outstanding pictures, period. A featured picture should make people take notice, and many of the NASA (etc) pictures do that. The vast majority of readers here don't care where an image came from -- they only know that they like or dislike them. Frankly, I think it would be strange to never have a Hubble image on the front page. It's pretty hard to justify featuring something like this and not something like this . (I'm not trying to pick on anybody here... just pointing out the juxtaposition.)
Besides, if bumping up one's FP "count" is so important to somebody, who cares? They can only bump their count if there is a consensus to do so, and their desire to bump their FP count up makes the encyclopedia better, IMO. What I'm saying here is that their motives don't matter as long as the result is to improve Wikipedia. -- Moondigger16:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I don't think it should be a criterion that it be unique to Wikipeida. In practice we don't use that criterion, I will propose it be removed down below HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Shuffle delisting
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have to register an objection to the delist nomination of the shuffle picture. It seems to be a backdoor attempt to get one user's desired result. Now I didn't vote on this one and I don't think I care either way about it, but my objection is purely on procedural grounds. The way I feel about it is, the picture had its due process: It was nominated and the nomination stood for a week and it passed with a supermajority of support, albeit just barely. IMHO anyone who has objections should have made them during the nomination process. I agree with Moondigger that the time difference between promotion and delist nomination is unimportant. I also agree that the pics should be judged based on their merits, but that should be during the nomination process.
In general, I feel that existing FPs, regardless of their time of promotion, should only be delisted for blatantly not meeting the WP:WIAFP criteria as they are written at the time of delisting. Purely subjective measures should not be the basis. In other words, we should respect the consensus of the users who promoted the image in the first place. The only basis for delist nomination should be that there's no way in hell the image would get promoted now if the nomination were to take place today. The shuffle pic is a borderline case, but it made it through the process, so let it stand.
I agree, I assume the person who nominated it for delisting was unaware that it had just passed. If the person was aware then I would see it as a bad faith nomination. Regardless, it is clear that it will not be delisted as people want to keep it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the person who nominated most likely knew it had just passed because they were one of the 3 oppose votes.--Andrew c23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Color adjustments
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I proposed color changes at the featured content "home base" talk page, Featured content color palette tie-ins, because the changes are related across multiple pages. I would like to see why changes were reverted here. I ask that the reasons also be given at the discussion noted above. Rfrisbietalk02:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well it would have been nice if we had been notified about it, for one. I think our main objection is that it's being imposed unilaterally here with most of the FPC regulars completely unaware of what you were doing over there. howcheng {chat}03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So, that was my procedural faux pas. I apologize. I mistakenly assumed all those pages were coordinated. I belatedly request you consider the proposal at the featured content talk page. Rfrisbietalk03:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the new color Rfrisbie (briefly) implemented, but I agree it should have been discussed here prior to implementation. I think a change every once in a while would be nice. -- Moondigger11:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, it actually means the voting has closed and they are awaiting someone to go through the closing procedure. Images are given seven days on the page (see the text at the top of the project page). I have certainly seen some closers discard any votes made after the seven day cutoff. --jjron14:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If that were the case, then what I think was AndonicO's original point would be valid, i.e., that the section is basically meaningless. As I said, I'm sure at least some closers disregard votes made after a pic goes into here. Anyone else got an interpretation on this? --jjron14:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case I have wasted some votes, as I often catch up voting on the decision time section. Either way it needs to be explained at the section heading. If it shows items about to close but that can still be voted on then the section does not seem meaningless to me as it lets me know that I am running out of time to vote on these. I have one question though:
Why would we not allow votes right up untill the listing is closed? I have assumed this is the case, this is how other xfd's and rfa's are done. It is ambiguos as is, and needs to be clarified. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, I never vote once a pic's in there as I've thought the voting is over. So you're right, either way it really should be clarified somewhere.
As I said, I took it that that was an 'unofficial' close of the listing as time to vote was up, to be finalised when someone gets the time to make the decision and go through the process (sometimes things will sit in there for several days).
IIRC, on commons FPC there isn't a "decision time" section, but votes made after the stated voting period has elapsed (14 days there) are rejected and not counted in the final tally. Personally, I don't think that's a good method -- dropping votes just because they came in an hour or a day after the "stated" voting window is contrary to the idea of determining consensus. This is even more true here, where we have a much shorter voting window. Therefore when I close nominations I consider all votes/comments registered prior to closing, even if some of them came in on the 8th day or later. -- Moondigger13:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, no need to be overly strict in this short voting period. And also, edits often come in within days (or less) of decision time. Voters need adequate time to adjust their votes, which may take an extra day or two. --Tewy22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why voting shouldn't continue until closed. That section isn't useless - it's a visual guide as to how much of a backlog there is on FPC. enochlau (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It actually doesn't worry me either way. I'm just saying I thought that was the end of voting, and I've seen some closers discount late votes, or make a comment along the lines of 'even counting late votes' in a close decision. I still maintain that the section does become a bit meaningless if voting isn't closed once a pic goes in there, though do see your points about it not being entirely useless. So, as we said above, there should be a note at the top of the section about its purpose so that everyone has the same understanding. --jjron10:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, this needs to be cleared up. Some text needs to be below the section heading to clear this up. Which to people prefer? (of course reword or add alternative as needed) HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, since the only dissenting vote was pretty neutral, I am going to judge the consensus as putting the words:
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination.
Nominations in this category are older than 7 days and voting is closed. They will stay here until somebody deterimines consensus and closes them.
Support. What the heck, I'm pretty neutral, but someone needs to support this. BTW, suggested rewording of other statement below (since that looks like what will be going in). --jjron09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Decision time means voting is almost closed
Nominations in this category are older than 7 days and may be closed soon. You may still vote, but do so soon.
Nominations in this category are older than seven days and are soon to be closed. Votes will still be accepted until closing of the nomination. (suggested rewording)
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Is there anywhere where you can request the stitching of pictures you have taken into a panorama? If not, can someone point me out to some reliable free panorama software? You could say this isn't the right place, and I would agree with you, but some pictures I have would have a chance at FPC if stitched. Thanks in advance. NauticaShades20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You could try my talk page, or Fir0002's, or Diliff's. I'll happily stitch panoramas for people who want it done (having said that, I don't have such advanced software as Fir or Diliff). Just ask (nicely) anyone who's uploaded panoramas they stitched themselves. --YFB¿14:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
A lot of cameras come with stitching software, e.g., Canon cameras typically include Photostitch. Having said which, at least as far as Photostitch is concerned, it only rarely does a good job. If you have Photoshop, that has an inbuilt stitching facility called Photomerge (access it by File>Automate>Photomerge...). However again, and strangely for Photoshop, not very good. A simple, reasonably good, and fairly cheap program is Arcsoft Panorama Maker. You can download an unrestricted trial version which runs for 14 days from their website - certainly worth trying out. --jjron15:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. Actually, I did have a Canon with PhotoStitch (which I had actually heard was quite reliabe), but the CD for it currently resides in another continent, which rules it out for now. As for the Arcsoft program, I'll look into it. For now, I have found a free program called AutoStitch which is practically the "first" 2D photo stitcher ever, but it still works quite well {First Try}. If I need a picture done professionally, I can always ask Fir, Diliff, or YFB. --NauticaShades16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty partial to the PTGui and Smartblend combination so my opinions are biased. I haven't looked at Arcsoft panorama maker in quite a while, but last time I did (2-3 years ago) it was clearly clearly inferior. I'm happy to stitch panoramas for anyone who is interested in supplying me with the originals. In fact, there are some panoramas out there that I'd practically beg to re-stitch, simply because they have a lot of promise but are quite badly processed. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)18:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
unique on the Internet.
Latest comment: 18 years ago26 comments15 people in discussion
Criterion 3 states:
It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
This is not in line with what we do. First, anything that gets to be FP is available to any website so even if it was a wikipedia original it is not unique to wikipedia. Secondly we often benifit from featured pictures from NASA and other external sources. The fact is that anyone who releases media that we use to a compatable license is either directly or indirectly a wikipedia contributor, but our very license requirements garuntees it will never be unique to this site regardless of source.
Disagree. I'd rather see our practices changed. To me an important part of FPs is to encourage original contributors. NASA images for example are allmost always without any competition and have a billion dollar budget behind them so we can expect them to comply with FP standards. Thus no need to clutter this page with them. If we motivate original contributors we might generate content which we wouldn't have gotten anyways. --Dschwen22:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I ask you, what is more important, a sense of community, or building the best freely available encyclopedia possible? The goal of this web site is to provide a freely available encyclopedia. If a NASA or any other compatible licence improves upon that ideal, that ideal helps Wikipedia and should be encouraged.
I say that the requirement that a featured picture be an original work of Wikipedia is a manifestation of pride, and that it is incompatible with the goal of providing the best possible encyclopedia within the copyright limitations put forth by it's founders. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)01:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Don't know when that "unique" got into the requirements. We're building an encyclopedia here, not boosting the ego of the rather few who can produce FP quality pictures. (IMO, FPC has come to that in a few instances lately. If someone needs ego boost, let them nominate on Commons.) --Janke | Talk08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Quality contributions to the encyclopedia consist of material made by, as well as found by, Wikipedians. By marking a picture as featured, we indicate to our readers that we think that this image is special, and contributes quite a bit - where it comes from should play no part. enochlau (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with most of the other agreers. ;-). If the picture is unique on the internet then great, but it shouldn't be a requirement. It is very difficult to get an image that is truely unique to the internet as just about every concept/subject has been photographed and published online at some point. The best wikipedia contributors can do is take the better ones under a freely available licence and arrange them in articles that are informative to the public. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)09:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment I would suggest reverting the change to the rules and letting this discussion play out for at least a few more days. I agree that we need more time to reach consensus. -- Moondigger18:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a note, that criteria is impossible to fulfill. Any images brought up for FPC must have a free license, such as GFDL or public domain (ie. NASA images). As such, these images can be reproduced anywhere, anytime, at no cost; therefore, these images CANNOT be unique -- that is the whole point of having free featured pictures. ♠ SG→Talk18:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it's quite possible to fulfill. Gmaxwell's picture of earwax was certainly a unique contribution, and something you probably wouldn't find easily on the internet, much less under a free license. Now that the picture has been contributed, your argument applies, but after the fact. Nevertheless, I "agreed" because of the fundamental notion that we are here to build a free encyclopedia without regard to the context of the contribution. I am definitely for the idea of encouraging users' own contributions, but I don't think removing one vague line from the FPC criteria is going to affect that. To put it another way, If Martians arrive and deliver the sum of all universal knowledge with infinite-resolution images under GFDL, we add it all to Wikipedia and call the project complete. Unless they're evil Martians. –Outriggr§01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please people do not panic. I have reverted myself. Remember nothing is permament here, and if consensus changes then so can the rules. I was being bold, and making what I saw to be an uncontreversial change.
If people think it should stay the way it was until further discussion occurs, allright. It was always my intention to change the rule based on the consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree per my comments in "Reopen Discussion" section and Dschwen. I think we should be encouraging people to contribute their own unique images, not just to scavenge around other websites. (It's irrelevant whether the original images Wikipedia users upload are of something that's been photographed elsewhere as Diliff argued, the user's contribution is a unique image of it). To me this unique on the internet statement indicates the image originated on Wikipedia regardless of where it ends up, not that Wikipedia is the only place it exists, as ♠ SG for example is taking it.
Let me put it another way. To me a FPC is a way of saying "hey, if you want to find a great photo of xxxx with good information about it then Wikipedia is a good place to look". If all we are doing is featuring pictures from other websites (and it is heading that way), then what are we saying? We're saying, "hey, we can't get our own good images, but sometimes we find them somewhere else. Why don't you head over to that site and see what else you can find?"
Remember I said above I'm quite happy to have pictures on Wikipedia that are found elsewhere, as many of them are great (some people seem to think we're arguing against that). I just think that actual FPs should originate with Wikipedia. Let NASA et al make their own FP pages if they want them. --jjron10:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As SG mentioned above, the second an image is released on a free licence, it is automatically not liable to be unique as it can be re-published anywhere. I don't really think that an image has to be unique or even ORIGINATE on wikipedia to be FP. Why should it? The whole point of wikipedia ISN'T original research/knowledge, it is a summary of the world's knowledge. We're just compiling it in an encyclopaedia. Why shouldn't we feature content that originates elsewhere? All the articles essentially originate elsewhere and we feature those. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no original wikipedia work, it all comes from other sources(including editors), we cannot have wikipedia only pictures. It is part of our stated goal that all text have an external source(no original research), images have enjoyed an exemption from that policy. However I think if a picture is previously published by a reliable a source that makes it more encyclopedic than one taken that has only been seen on wikipedia, for the same reasons we want our text contributions to have an external source.
Not saying a NASA picture are more reliable than one taken by a wikipedian, I am saying that they are just as valid for our goals.
Jjron says "hey, if you want to find a great photo of xxxx with good information about it then Wikipedia is a good place to look", I agree, if we have the best photo of the Orion nebula in existence then yes we should send people here.
Why not just go to NASA to see the picture? Well, we have taken the information from NASA and dozens of other sources, and compiled it into a wonderful article that has pictures from a variety of sources. The reader can copy and use text and images with confidence. It seems your argument is that if we don't demand it be unique, then it won't be unique? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Um, I don't think that was my argument, but maybe it was because I have no idea what you mean. Didn't I say I took unique to mean originating with Wikipedia? I'm not going to keep repeating my arguments, but I have a couple of further quibbles with what you've said:
Your preference for non-wikipedian photos: "...if a picture is previously published by a reliable a source that makes it more encyclopedic than one taken that has only been seen on wikipedia". It's this sort of thing that makes me feel like I'm wasting my time contributing my pictures. And quite frankly, I find it disturbing the number of contributors I've seen basically abused on FPC, and as best as I can tell probably driven off the project, because they've put up often quite good pictures that maybe can't compete with the photos from these high budget organisations that other people have dug up and nominated. Once you've lost these people, you've lost them and any further contributions forever. (I'm not saying I've seen you, or necessarily anyone else commenting here abuse them, but it happens often enough).
"...we have taken the information from NASA and dozens of other sources, and compiled it into a wonderful article...". I have a strong suspicion that most voters on FPC probably don't view, and certainly don't read the articles of the candidate pictures. If you seriously think that most of these are wonderful articles, then what can I say. There's this pedantic examination of the pictures by many (a little bit of grain, the slightest blown highlight, the tiniest amount of artifacting, any lack of sharpness) that gets jumped on straight away, while how it really helps the article, and the nature of the article itself is usually ignored. I recall one picture a couple of months back that I opposed as it was contradictory to the text in its article (which the nominator agreed with me about when I pointed it out), but if I recall correctly I was the only one to oppose, even after I had raised this huge problem. It's like we're serving Dom Pérignon pictures with Big Mac articles. And this brings into doubt many of the other claimed purposes of an FP and the supposed criteria for FPCs. But I digress, and have wasted enough time on this. --jjron10:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I thought when I said Not saying a NASA picture are more reliable than one taken by a wikipedian that I was making it clear that I did not neccesarily prefer previously published pictures. It was never my intention to abuse you, sorry if you felt slighted.
In regards your second point, my statement that wikipedia collects information and presents it in a valuable fashion was not me trying to defend the FP proccess(don't really see the connection), I was addressing your comment hey, we can't get our own good images, but sometimes we find them somewhere else. Why don't you head over to that site and see what else you can find?.
As for how dedicated photographers are treated, I don't see how this relates to demanding an image be unique. One of the criteria is the best that wikipedia has to offer. Often, and I mean often, the best are images taken by helpful contributors like yourself. But also we benifit from other sources.
I am sorry if I addressed your concerns in a fashion that upset you, but I do not really see the benifit from excluding these images. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. I think you have unintentionally said exactly why I would disagree with this, HighInBC. A FP should be the best that wikipedia has to offer - not what NASA has to offer. FP's should be work produced by wikipedia, by wikipedians. It should show why Wikipedia is better than Brittanica - certainly not because we've managed to pull a couple of shots from NASA. I would ideally like a seperate FPC page (or maybe a subsection on WP:FPC) for non wikipedia related photos (which do not grace the main page) - has anyone else noticed that the FP list is split b/w wikipedian and non wikipedian images? --Fir000221:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. See, I read "the best that Wikipedia has to offer" to mean the best pictures available on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. howcheng {chat}21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I do not think that we should limit FP to just ones created by wikipedians. Because wikipedia allows free/open source content, FP should follow suit. I also like that we do seperate out what images are local and which are outside images in the FP list. I think doing that is enough. If we limited FP to just local content, there would be a lot of topics that have articles and pictures that would never be considered for FP.--Andrew c00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems that the consensus is that the requirement be removed. What do people think? Has the discussion been going on long enough? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I am going to remove the requirement:
It should represent what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet.
Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion
We don't have many portraits as FPs. I propose a 'portrait drive' to seek out WPs best portraits and pictures of people and to nominate them here. Anyone in? -Ravedave(help name my baby)16:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that voters will complain that a large part of the face has blown highlights though. --Tewy20:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Other will complain about low DOF. This grain/focus/blown highlights obsession is rather stupid IMO. Ericd21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
They're not obsessions; they're guidelines that make sense in the context of featured pictures. You don't (well, not usually) feature pictures that contain significant flaws; we should strive to compete on a professional level with Britannica, which means striving for excellence in our photos as well as our articles. That said, we do take historical significance and non-reproducability into account, and will promote images to featured status that contain certain flaws when appropriate. Each person has to weigh the perceived historical significance and non-reproducability against the impact of the flaws in a given image. We must also remember that no matter whether an image is promoted to FP status or not, it can be valuable to the articles it's placed in. As to the general question -- it makes sense that there aren't many featured portraits here, as those subjects with the required notability to have an article written about them aren't typically available for portraits taken by Wikipedians. I think it would be a mistake to promote subpar portraits to FP status simply to increase their numbers. But I would support the promotion of portraits truly deserving of the FP tag. -- Moondigger22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well not exactly a portrait, but I'm really happy with my photo of Rui. It has everything to be an unfeatured picture : black and white, grainy, blown highlights, lack of detail in dark areas, narrow depth of field, slightly inexact focus, a bit of motion blurr and even a bit of flare of the lens. Ericd21:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Black & white is no obstacle to featured status. I agree grain shouldn't be obsessed over as much as it is around here, as it can sometimes (though not always) add context and mood to a photo. Blown highlights are only acceptable to me in rare circumstances, when they improve the artistry of a photo. Motion blur is sometimes acceptable, though rarely; ditto for lens flare. It all depends on the context, and of course all of the preceding are my opinions only. (Though I would guess that quite a few of the regular contributers here agree with most of it.) As to the Rui photo -- the only way to know if it's feature-worthy is to nominate it. At first glance I'd probably oppose it, but I believe I'm pickier than most around here. There are plenty of featured pictures that I opposed when nominated. -- Moondigger22:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of things that increase artistry tend to decrease detail, which is, in mo humble opinion, far mroe important here. Plus I just hate blown highlights. say198819:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Detail, is very important for some photographies, landscapes or objects for instance. For other kind photography its not that important. An out of focus background is widely considered as a good thing for a portrait. For street photography, action photography, sports photography in many case having out of focus areas is what makes the photo understandable. Having full DOF fron 0 to infinite will often make the picture look flat and encumbered. Motion blur also not absolute evil in many case it can suggest motion.
As of today I think there is only eight featured pictures by Wikipedians that are portraits or people photography. It seems very few to me. Most of us don't have access to celebrities, but this seem an insufficient explanation to me. Is there so few Wikipedians that bring a camera to a concert where there is someone worth to be pictured in Wikipedia ?
Note that getting excellent concert photos is difficult; just bringing a camera to a concert isn't going to automatically result in a FP quality image. -- Moondigger21:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Or is that that the rule and the taste of the voters is biased toward landscapes and static picture.
As we are in an encyclopedia it is important to give a "fair" image of the subject. Someone suggested that encyclopedic value sould be preferred to artistic value. IMO its hard to dissociate. What does it mean for a portrait. What's a good encyclopedic portrait ? Is a mugshot more encyclopedic than Yusuf Karsh's portraits ?
I prefer to stop there. The more I look to FP and FPC the more I think there's something going wrong there and after six month questioning myself I don't think this is an ego problem.
I would say an encyclopedic portrait would depict it's subject well. It would preferably have realitic color, and not have overly distracting portions of the image. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Portraying the subject in a realistic manner. If it was the members of Kiss then makeup would be appropriate. If it was an image of a famous person in their Halloween costume, then the makeup would not be so encyclopedic.
Sharpness is good, if based on actual information and not artificially introduced. I would say the one should not reduce sharpness or remove blemishes.
In short I would say the common sense and an understanding of the foundation goals is what is needed in making these decisions on an image by image basis. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Responding to the Civil War Generals. I was looking through the historic FPs, and noticed that there were no American Civil War era photos. Living on the same block as the JEB Stuard monument in Richmond, VA I'm literally surrounded by Civil War history. It got me thinking to why there weren't any Civil War photos as FP. I think starting with Generals might be a good idea. Not exactly a general, but I ran across Image:Mathew Brady 1875 cropped.jpg and was considering nominating it (not sure if the dust and scratches need editing though). In summary, I'm all for get more portraits and more historical photos (especially Civil War stuff) up for nom, however this also butts up against the issue about using wikipedian only images.--Andrew c00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion
I was closing the Upper Thracian Lowland nomination and I was promoting the fourth edit (ie, the original), when I noticed that the supposed author (User:Evgord) had uploaded a new, smaller version over it (1024×819 instead of 2477×1982). As far as I now, once he releases this image under that size, Wikipedia has a right to use it and therefore he cannot make it smaller. Furthermore, this change was done after most (if not all) of the participants had voted, which otherwise would definitely have affected it. For these to reasons, I reverted to the larger size and promoted it, leaving a note on his talk page. Was this justified? Please tell me if (and where) I went wrong. NauticaShades14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. Yes, in that the license he released the image under was applicable to the image file he uploaded. Since free licenses are irrevocable, then Wikipedia does have the right to use the larger image under the original license. That being said, it's usually not good practice to piss off our contributors in this manner and we should respect their wishes if they don't want the large version available for any use (I know Moondigger certainly prefers not to). Since you left a note on his talk page, we'll let him decide, I suppose. As long as it still meets the minimum requirements, I'm all for letting the smaller version stay, although I'd certainly prefer the larger image. howcheng {chat}17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fair, but on a technicality, if people supported the edit and the edit is changed, then that would basically invalidate the promotion. It may not have passed if it were smaller and the only fair way (albeit long-winded and frustrating, i'm sure) would be to re-nominate it and see where the cards fall again. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)17:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
A few comments. While I understand that free licenses cannot be revoked, I don't think it makes much sense to force a contributor against their wishes to adhere to licensing policy on an image if that decision was made in haste or if they weren't fully aware of the ramifications of licensing it in that way. There's the law, and there's common sense, and I believe common sense should prevail in this particular case. That said, I don't believe the image should be promoted to FP status right now, as the voters were voting on a different image. Either the nomination should be left open and voters informed to decide whether they want to change their votes, or it should be closed unpromoted and re-nominated separately. Third, while it is true that I tend not to upload very high-resolution pictures (most are 1 megapixel), there are exceptions. Certain of my images are 1.5 megapixels, and one of my images is about 11 megapixels. Also, I don't think I have ever overwritten a higher-resolution image with a lower-resolution image, but I made sure I understood all the licensing terms as well as I could prior to uploading anything. -- Moondigger19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The author must be unfamiliar with featured pictures. You aren't supposed to edit a featured picture, period -- even if you're the one who took the shot. If you want to do that, you'd have to re-list it at FPC or PPR, with your edited version as a separate image. ♠ SG→Talk18:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but in this case the picture was modified prior to it becoming featured, (presumably) because the photographer had second thoughts about licensing a full-resolution image under a totally free license.-- Moondigger19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The large size upload has a copyright symbol in the summary, but a free licence is also stated. This is so controversial that I think we need to educate the uploader, and allow the withdrawal of the large image, which would thus lose its FP status. --Janke | Talk20:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Contributors may not retract their work after releasing it. The larger image was released for our use, and it is not unkind for us to use it even against his wishes. Remember, our goal is to provide media that is free to use. Unless it was a sincere mistake uploading the larger image under that license, and not simple changing one's mind later, it is not rude or wrong to use the large one. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It is absolutely rude (and unkind) to use his image against his wishes, no matter whether it's legal to do so or not. -- Moondigger21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, he has not made any statement that I know of that he does not want us to use his larger image. Secondly, if he did it would be an unreasonable request, unless as I said before it was a sincere mistake uploading the file with that license. I do not think it is rude to refuse an unreasonable request. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)23:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
His intention seems clear, by the fact that he uploaded a lower resolution version over the top of the high resolution version. It might be unreasonable if the higher-resolution image had been here for some substantial amount of time, but it was only there three days before it was overwritten and was only supplied in the first place because folks here requested it. Having second thoughts about releasing an image under a particular license a few days later is not an unreasonable thing, even if legally speaking he has no recourse. From a commonsense point of view, if he wants to withdraw the higher-resolution image it makes sense to allow it. We're more likely to attract subsequent images from the same photographer if we don't alienate him by being stubborn over a particular resolution on one image. What's rude, unkind (and frankly, stupid, if we value his contributions) is telling him "too bad, if you didn't want it licensed that way you shouldn't have uploaded it. Since you did, we're perfectly within our rights to keep it against your wishes."-- Moondigger01:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest, in the lack of any specific complaint from him, that the highest quality image avaible under a compatable license be used. In defference to the human being who uploaded it, a message regarding your concerns can be left for him. If he makes his objections clear then I will not object to losing this featured picture in the name of kindness.
I am not trying to be rude to this person, and made it clear if it was a mistake I would accept the recall of the license. I just don't think wikipedia can afford to have people change their minds about contributions. What is in question here is motive, if he makes a legal agreement but misunderstood it then it is not valid, but if he made a legal agreement and then changed his mind then we are doing him a favour by obliging, not avoiding rudeness.
Wow, I didn't know this would trigger such a large discussion. I, for one, am willing to leave everything as it is, until Evgord talks to us and maybe explain what has happened. It could be that it was just a mistake (though I sincerely doubt it). In any case, we could explain the liscensing issue and about it changing the FPC nomination completely and he could make his own mind up about what resolution he wants to have, granted the smaller one won't be an FP. On a side note, he says something about WP:FP here, on his blog/webiste. Can anybody read Greek? Forgive my ignorance, I assumed it was since it was a picture of Thrace. I can't but I think it is talking about this very incident. NauticaShades07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The language is Bulgarian, not Greek. I wrote in my blog this picture has been nominated as FPC and it's GFDL licensed. For the size I've just decided 1024 px width is better, but I don't mind the bigger size too. Evgeni Dinev08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain why you decided that 1024px is better, because the original small size was one of the reasons that people were not so keen to support the picture. For all the talk, it seems to me like it comes down to this: Either the size is increased back to the full size and it stays as FPC, or it remains at 1024px and is removed from FP. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, at the smaller size, the birds just look like dirt. It's only at the large size when you can clearly see they're birds. howcheng {chat}16:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yep, Howcheng's reason is exactly why we cannot feature it as 1024px. I'm going to agree with Diliff and say that either the image be kept at full-resolution or be delisted from FP. ♠ SG→Talk19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
FPC Archive Titles
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Historically, it used to be Featured pictures candidates. I think the archives just never got moved. I have no opposition to this. howcheng {chat}19:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but I think it does change the result (2/3 majority). Also, you forgot to count my vote (which, of course, applies to both versions). It should then count 7 support and 3 oppose. - Alvesgaspar19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
6/3 is a 1/2 majority, not a 2/3 majority. Also, I recounted it, making sure to include yours, and found it was actually less than I had thought. Let me go over the supports quickly:
I’m sorry to disturb you again. First of all please forgive my ignorance: I did not know that a weak support only counted ½ vote... But I still don’t think the result is clear enough. Two of the oppose votes (Adrian Pingstone and Samsara) were given before edit1 was published and were based on problems that were later solved (at least partially). These votes (and perhaps the support vote of SudLover, if we want to be straight) shouldn’t count. May I suggest that the picture returns to the section “Older nominations requiring additional input from voters”, in order to clarify the consensus? - Alvesgaspar23:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Firstly: a math lessen: 6 to 3 is a 2/3 majority as 6/(6+3)=6/9=2/3
Second: there is no rule as to promotion/not being promoted. The 2/3 majority is a guidline. Noms on or near that line are at the discression of the closer, who I hope doesn't close it the way (s)he voted (as that could lead to questions).
Third: I believe that any vote that does not specify which edit should apply to all versions.
Fourth: If you change your vote, strike out your old one, NauticaShades.
Fifth: Nautica, how come gren's vote is only 1/2? I see no "weak" specification.
Sixth: I really don't know whether overturning this should be done.
Lastly: If there is a question of what to do, I believe that the first course of action should be to contact Adrian Pingstone and Samsara to get their view on the edit.
Thank you for your help (and specially for the math lesson...). I took the initiative to contact SOADLuver, Adrian Pingstone and Samsara. The first, added a "Strong Support" to Edit1; the second clarified his position with a "oppose" to either; the third did not answer (see Wikipedia:Featured pictures candidates/November-2006. This way I think the question should be solved (6-3 or 7-3 if the "strong support" is still accepted). Up to the closer now... :-) - Alvesgaspar08:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
My math mistake, sorry about that. I also fixed my miscount of gren's vote. On a side note, I did not strike out my old vote because it still applied. I oppose the original, whether the I support the edit or not. As for the vote change, I suppose it does change the consensus. I'll promote in then. Just know that one shouldn't actively campaign for their own picture too much, especially after it has been closed. NauticaShades14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, I put the wrong name there, SOADLuver has votes in two spots, without striking out. Sure it was just clarification after closure, but still confused me a bit and makes it appear to have extra support. say198818:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Photographer of the Year 2006
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion
I found this interesting: [4] Out of all of those photos I would say only a couple would make it past FPC. The snake is not that good. Fir & dliff you guys should nominate some of your pics next year.-Ravedave(help name my baby)05:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There are some cool shots there — most of them would not make it past FPC because of image size or because they have too shallow a DOF. Also.. the servers on that site suck. Something that always amazed me about the Wikipedia is that it has ridiculously fast and efficient servers even though its a free organization. drumguy8800CT10:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Also many of them only show a part of the animal, which would be insufficiently "encyclopaedic". Of course, they're trying to do arty, not encyclopaedic, so it's not really a fair comparison. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up Ravedave! But I dunno there is some sensational photography there - but then again a tour around the world is a prize well worth having a shot at!! --Fir000222:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Fir0002. Pretty much every photograph there is leagues ahead of what we usually see in FPC. Non of these are captive animals. Most of them bring something fresh to the genre of wildlife photography. The difference is they are mostly being judge on photographic quality rather than encyclopedic value. Filling the frame and breaking the borders is often good in pure photographic terms, but not so good for encyclopdias. There are a couple of shots that I think are dubious, and their 1st place is a surpise, but does give a very different view of a fairly conventional subject. Check out National Geographic or the BBC wildlife photographer of the year, if you want to be punching it out with the big boys. -- Solipsist23:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The cat picture is a fantastic illustration of the texture of a cat's tongue. (You know : Why is a cat tongue so abrasive ?) But of course it can't be featured because there are out of focus areas...
Ericd23:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If that picture had a free license and it was up for FPC, it would pass. Why? The picture isn't about cats, it's about cat tongues -- a subject it clearly illustrates, I might add. ♠ SG→Talk19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Delisting
Latest comment: 18 years ago37 comments12 people in discussion
I've noticed around the Delist area the some people are voting "Keep" for pictures that very visibly don't meet WP:WIAFP anymore, on the basis that is it "revising" or "erasing" the past (such as here). Personally, I think that this kind of arguement should be done in a voting area (it's bordering on WP:POINT), and should be done here or at the Village Pump. So, I've decided to bring this discussion here, to let these people be heard, and maybe let the delist process be more fluid without people debating this issue while voting. What do you think? NauticaShades09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree with you there. There may be exceptions where a FP is just below the resolution requirements but is otherwise quite a good image. For example, if consensus decides that we should only accept new FPs that are 2000 wide pixels or above (unlikely for now though, I'd imagine), I don't think we should automatically delist the 80% of them or whatever it is that are 1800px wide or less. But given exceptions such as those, I can't see why we should keep FPs that are obviously below our standards. If we wouldn't support its nomination now, it seems only reasonable to vote to delist it unless there are exceptional circumstances. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, NauticaShades, for the opportunity for explaining my reasons. In my opinion, there are three aspects which should be considered in this debate:
1st – To give the status of FP to an image is to recognize its excellence. This is similar to attributing a prize. Removing the status is like taking the prize away, which could be considered a useless humiliation to its author or nominator.
2nd – The collection of existing FP is a repository of images considered to be the best in Wikipedia. These pictures can be used to illustrate an article, as examples of quality images or just for the pleasure of looking at them. In this context, it seems to make some sense to permanently adjust that collection to the actual standards. But is it really necessary? Aren’t the users capable of recognizing the evolution and choose exactly what they need?
3rd – The collection of existing FP documents the evolution of FP standards with time, mainly due to technological improvements and the growing number of high quality photos and illustrations being downloaded everyday to Wikipedia. I can easily imagine someone writing an article on this subject, or just looking at old FP images to better understand that evolution. To permanently revise the FP collection is like killing this memory (or, at least, making its access more difficult) and could be considered as harmful to the Wikipedia project.
Per the reasons given above, I propose:
1 – That delisting a FP should be considered as an exceptional measure, only applied to obvious errors of judgement, recognized by a large majority of reviewers. These errors may be the result of a poor quorum or a less rational snowball effect.
2 – That the date of promotion should be part of the FP template.
In my opinion, if a featured picture is to be delisted just because it no longer measures up to the standards, and not because it is a bad picture, then maybe there could be a template created that says that "this picture was featured at one time, and is no longer featured because technology has changed since it was featured and so this picture is not of high enough quality". That was not a very graceful sentence, but I think it gets my point across. What I am basically trying to say is that because technology is increasing, the standards much change, and so after a while, some featured pictures won't be able to measure up after awhile. The reason that the pictures in question are delisted is not because they are bad, but because they are outdated, and this should be stated. Gphototalk18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nautica Shades, but I think that we should have "Former Featured Pictures", like for featured articles. It would only serve to have a list of pictures which formally passed the criteria, no longer do, but are still visilbly better than the average picture/to not humiliate the photographer as much. | AndonicOTalk | Sign Here19:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not frozen in time. As we get more content our standards go up, and what was FP material before often does not meet current standards. A vote that does not take into account the featured picture criteria should be given due weight, as in not much. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, FP could stand a little cropping but according to clearly set policies, however, I would bypass delisting as much as possible, especially when alluding to technical standards of quality. I agree with Alvesgaspar that those images consitute the memory of wikipedia and are a landmark in the evolution of wikipedia, thus valuable. One way to handle the issue is to display the images in a chronological manner, thinking that (but not necessarily so) that images with quality issues will go by the wayside over time, much like keeping old photograhs in a closet. At the same time, I believe that FP guidelines should be updated with objective criteria for selection as much as possible, recognizing the subjective aspect of photograhy judging. Such guideliness should include issues like encyclopedic relevance, technical quality, comparison with existing material, and other considerations. The guiding principle would be to select better images from the beginning and thus avoiding delisting practices in the future. --tomascastelazo21:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with the idea in your last sentence is that in the future, more people will have better cameras. Thus we will have access to much better pictures. Our very best images may seem rather poor in the future, and barring any historical value may get delisted. I certainly agree with you that Fp could use some cropping though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
As somebody who's been doing photography both professionally and as a serious hobby for a very long time, I find it amusing that people here (of all places!) are assuming that new cameras or better technology means better pictures. When somebody cooks an excellent meal, you don't tell them that they must have great pots and pans. Likewise, great photos are great not because the photographer has a great camera, but because that photographer has vision, talent, and knowledge.
The vast majority of featured pictures here are good images, but barely a quarter of them would pass muster of a photo editor at a respectable magazine. This has almost nothing to do with the technology or quality of camera used. It's things like lighting, exposure, and composition that would knock most of them out, though there are other reasons.
All things being equal, of course photographers prefer better gear, and some will have the knowledge necessary to exploit newer gear to its fullest potential. But a good photographer equipped with a 50 year-old camera can produce far more feature-worthy pictures than 99% of the snapshooters uploading their photos to Wikipedia, the majority of which are using brand-new 21st century technological marvels to take photos.
I agree that standards are changing for the better, and that images should be delisted when they no longer measure up. However that has very little to do with technology, and a lot to do with the participants here developing a more discerning eye and having more and better images to choose from. We should have NO qualms about delisting pictures that don't measure up. It reflects badly on Wikipedia when substandard images show up on the front page as featured images. -- Moondigger00:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Whrn voting for delisting (something I've not been doing lately), I would pay less attention to the resolution than to the other (current) FPC requirements. Why delist a picture of, say, 800 px width, if it fulfills all the other requirements? As Moondigger says, a great picture is more about the photographer's vision than the actual technology used. --Janke | Talk05:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree with Moondigger that better technology doesn’t mean necessarily better pictures and that most problems with modern photos still have to do with basic things like composition, framing, shooting position, lighting and exposure. But I don’t agree with Moondigger when he says we should have no qualms in delisting. Of course it reflects badly on Wikipedia when a below standard picture shows up as POTD. But remember that such picture is a very recent one, which means that we only should blame ourselves - the reviewers - for its promotion. I believe, for the reasons I explained above, that a “witch hunting” for bad FP will cause more harm than good. Remember that we don’t have here a real “peer review” since most of us are not specialists in Photography. Instead of trying to correct past errors, we should try to improve our own judgment with the help of more knowledgeable people, like Moondigger and others, who will guide us in “developing a more discerning eye”. Alvesgaspar09:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But still, you feel that removing a FP is humiliating the photographer? I don't really think that is the most important thing. This is not a vanity site. Yes, photographers receive credit and attribution (as per the licence typically) for their images, but otherwise they are contributing to the project and the quality of the project is of prime importance, not their self esteem. Besides, most of them would probably recognise that the standards have improved and strive for better photos rather than cry at their computer for their lost FP. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think that is the most important thing, but it is an issue to take into account. As we all know public recognition is a very powerfull stimulus for quality work (I wouldn't call it vanity). But I would rather reinforce the main point of my argumentation: that it is more useful and constructive to look into the future, trying to attract better contributions and judge them with a "more discerning eye", than to repair the errors of the past. Please note that I'm not against delisting pictures, specially when they are recent and don't meet basic quality critera (other then size), but I believe the process should be used with most caution Alvesgaspar11:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
But I don’t agree with Moondigger when he says we should have no qualms in delisting. Well, then we'll have to agree to disagree. It does not matter to me whether an image was promoted to featured status yesterday or two years ago. If it doesn't measure up, we should have no qualms about delisting it. Leaving substandard images featured hurts Wikipedia. -- Moondigger16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend you Moondigger, but what you said above about equipment not being important IMO is patent nonsense. You can't get good macro shots without a decent lens/camera. You can't get low noise night shots without a good camera. You can't do portrait photography without a decent flash setup. You can't take decent panoramas without manual control. For sure photographic skill is important, but saying the equipment is unimportant is like saying Michelangelo could paint the sistine chapel just as well with a pack of crayolas. Why do you think that "historic" (photos taken 50 yrs ago) have to be given leeway on technical quality? A happysnapper with a Seitz D3 a decent lens and a round the world ticket is going to come home with a heck of a lot more FP worthy images than a skilled photographer with a Kodak DX4330. No matter how talented you may be, there are things that are impossible to achieve without the correct equipment - I mean why do you use a DSLR? Oh btw I agree with Alvesgaspar on delisting images --Fir000209:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Fir, someday you may come to realize the truth of the matter. It took me a long time too. The example I gave, about a talented photographer taking pictures with a 50 year-old camera being better than most Wiki photo contributors with 21st century cameras, is true. We give historic photos a bit more leeway on the criteria not because it was impossible for a 50-year old camera to make technically excellent photos (a patently false assumption) but because most 50-year old photos that have historical value were not taken by talented photographers. They were taken by people who may not have been super photographers but who happened to be in the right place at the right time. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and others made absolutely amazing photographs (from both an artistic and technical perspective) with 50, 60, 70 year-old equipment. They're not featured here because they're not in the public domain. Those amazing 50 or 75 or 100 year-old photographs that are in the public domain are often poorly-preserved, another reason why we relax the criteria a bit for them.
As for Michelangelo -- his tools (paints, etc) were incredibly primitive compared to what's available today. Furthermore, how the heck could you possibly say what he could have achieved if he were limited to Crayolas? Are you saying it would be impossible for him to create great works of art with crayons? If so, you're simply wrong. It wouldn't look like the Sistine Chapel ceiling as we know it, and it may not have lasted through the ages, but you can be damned sure it would have put to shame anything you or I could produce with the very best 20th century paints and brushes. If the crayons in their typical form didn't suit his needs, he would have found a way to make them work -- maybe by melting them or mixing them with other chemicals available to him. He was a truly great artist not because of the tools available to him but because he had the talent, skill, and knowledge necessary. He also carved marble with laughably primitive tools compared with the high-carbon steel tools sculptor's have now, yet "David" is a crowning achievement of western art.
Your other examples are equally wrong, because you're approaching the question from the wrong perspective. You're confusing the tools needed to achieve a particular goal (macros, for example) with "feature-worthy." A talented photographer will make better macro photos with a 60 year-old camera capable of taking macros (with a lens on a bellows, for example) than the typical Wiki contributor would with a 20D and an EF 100/2.8 macro lens. (Of course, a typical Wiki contributor wouldn't actually buy a 100/2.8 macro in the first place.) Ansel Adams and others made amazing low-light photographs with 60-year-old gear. Your statement that you can't do portrait photography without a decent flash setup is patently absurd, and frankly I don't know how you could even think it. If you really think that, check out some of Avedon's or Eisenstadt's portraits from 50 years ago. And the panoramas requiring manual control example is irrelevant -- it's the newest gear that often lacks manual control, not the gear of 50 or 100 years ago. Are you honestly trying to say that the reason why 2 year-old FPs don't measure up to current FP standards is because the 2-years-ago contributors didn't have cameras with manual controls?
Note that I never said modern equipment wasn't good. I'll repeat something I said earlier, but which you seem to have missed: All things being equal, of course photographers prefer better gear, and some will have the knowledge necessary to exploit newer gear to its fullest potential. But new gear does not equal more featured pictures. In the hands of those without the talent, training, or skill, it just means higher-resolution, better-saturated junk. -- Moondigger23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I haven't actually seen any Ansell or Weston originals, but the scans (done on a high end scanner) all have grain and certainly are not techniquely excellent. And I never said old equipment was unusuable, I said poor equipment was. Mark the distinction. Both of those photographers would have been using top line (for that day) film cameras. Don't twist my words. Michelangelo could do something great with dirt and spit, but I'm saying he couldn't have produce the quality of the Sistine chapel without correct materials/equipment. You are putting way to much emphasis on that point, which just maybe, might have been written as an exaggerated illustration?
And again you talk about my other examples being wrong because they are taken in the wrong perspective, while utterly ignoring them. Don't you think that stuff like macro capabilities go under the definition of "equipment"? "You're confusing the tools needed to achieve a particular goal (macros, for example) with "feature-worthy" - well maybe the goal is to become feature worthy, a goal that is just as impossible to achieve without correct equipment as taking a macro shot without correct equipment. Have you ever tried to do a portrait shoot with a PS camera with it's little Xenon flash? For sure it's possible but you'd want damn good natural light or a studio (costing thousands of dollars). And again you are giving examples of photographers who had studios and f/2.8 lenses and high end film cameras. And yes I am saying that some 2 year-old FPs don't measure up to current FP standard because the cameras did not have manual control (I know my old Kodak LS633 didn't). And I see you convieniently leave out my happysnapper-with-good-cam vs skilled-with-PS-cam illustration.
Do you honestly think that this Image:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006 temp.jpg (which is what you would have gotten from a mid range PS cam 3 years ago) would get featured now? Even though it shows great photographic skill?
Note that I never said skill wasn't good. I'll repeat something I said earlier, but which you seem to have missed: For sure photographic skill is important. But skill without decent equipment does not equal a FP. I mean, how many FP worthy images do you think you could take with a el cheapo Kodak DX4330? --Fir000210:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Moondigger. I think many people today stare themselves blind on equipment, always wanting the newest, "best", most expensive, i.e. "look what I have"-stuff. I've taken my best panoramas with a 1960s version of the Russian Horizont, and the sharpest photos with a Sinar bellows camera. As for the artistically best, well, they certainly don't depend on the equipment. PS: My KonicaMinolta X50 point&shoot does excellent macro down to 2", provided you use it right. --Janke | Talk06:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This discussion on technology versus artistry is all very good, but it is somewhat straying from the intitial point of the discussion, which is the delisting of pictures. In the rush to provide detailed arguements on talent vs. technology, some people have forgotten to voice their opinions on the real issue at hand. Personally I think that wanting to keep them for historical purposes is a bit ludicrous if there is already a category for old FPs, which if anything illustrates the evolution of Wikipedia better than a simple gallery of assorted Featured Pictures. Furthermore, it is an embarassment for Wikipedia when poor quality images featured years ago are showcased on the main page. I don't oppose the repeats in POTD, as this helps FPC stay caught up with POTD, but the problem is that it features pictures that were promoted when standards were a lot lower. Since repeats are inevitable, how is is justifiable to keep images featured that are clearly inferioir to current standards (and not just by size), for historical purposes, when {{FormerFeaturedPicture}} does this perfectly? NauticaShades11:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why are we so obsessed with FPs? So what, if a substandard FP is shown on the front page now and then? How many people will look at that image in full size, anyway? They'll more probably look at the article. Wikipedia is a source of information, not a photo contest! That's what FPC has become, in fact. --Janke | Talk12:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe we could have a compromise here. For me, the most important thing to preserve (more than the "self esteem" of authors and nominators) is the whole picture of FP evolution, easily accessed by any user. So, instead of having a collection of former FP, we should maintain a collection of all FP (actual and delisted), and also the actual revised group of FP. This last collection would also serve as a provision of POTD. I also insist on my other suggestion, that is, including the date of promotion in the FP template. Alvesgaspar12:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I think I have been misinterpreted. I did not mean that a better camera suddenly makes a better photo. What I mean is that more and more people can afford good cameras today, this means more photographers. More photographers means that there will be more skilled photographers. The price of getting a good kit is dropping, and using digital you can snap pictures without the cost of film and you can learn faster. Also more existing photographers are coming to wikipedia, The images we are getting are getting better and will continue to do so. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and as for delisting (the subject at hand), I say we put them up and see how people think. In other words the system seems to be working fine as it is. A vote that disregards the current standards should be counted as a vote that disregards the current standards. Just ask NegativeNed what that entails. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I understand you wrongly. But are suggesting that if someone's vote is not "good", that person should be excomunicated? Looks ridiculous this way doesn't it? Alvesgaspar16:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You understood wrongly, or I explained badly, lets forgive each other hehe. I don't know where excomunicated came from, NegativeNed is an editor in good standing, those blocks on his page appear to be callateral blocks(because of the IPs he uses). What I meant was his votes were not given much weight, not becuase they were not good, but because they did not take into account the criteria we have all agreed one. I should have been clearer. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The whole picture of FP promotion can be observed by comparing Former FPs and the different FP thumbs. As for self-esteem, I can hardly imagining a nominator or author getting upset because their picture was delisted. If anyting, it might encourage to strive for better pictures. I dob't claim to have been at FPC for a long time, but I have never seen an author complain that their picture was delisted. As for the amount of people looking at the full size photo, I'm sure more do than we think. Besides, if we assume this then we should just be promoting pictures based on their thumb quality. As for date of promotion on the FP template, I'm sure this could be done, but it would take some wotrk to add the dates for all the old FPs. At any rate, can we all agree that while the current system is in place and this discussion i unresloved, people don't vote oppose on delistings because they don't agree with the system. This is like opposing an FPC nomination becuase you don't think there should be Featured Pictures. NauticaShades15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The idea that actual guidelines also apply, in any retroactive way, to past FP is not supported by existing written agreements. There is nothing in Featured picture criteria or in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ Nomination for delisting clearly stating, or even implying, that the delisting process should be based on those criteria. Rules can be changed, but while they are not, the system cannot be invoked that way. The more I think about the subject the more I’m convinced that delisting old FP is a senseless and useless task. However, and for ethical reasons, I’ll restrain from using my vote in the delisting section until this question is settled. Alvesgaspar18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I haven't participated in delistings for quite some time myself. Sure, I don't mind if some crappy, 3-year old 200x150 px image is delisted, but it's a pity if an otherwise good and encyclopedic image of 800 px width is, just because the arbitrary size requirements today. I think one should weigh the criteria, with the most points for encyclopedicity and information content, the least for size, provided it is big enough to convey the necessary information. A 400 px image of a burning match is enough, while you need lots more for a cityscape. --Janke | Talk18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree, that if the image is not replacable(event such as a comet), then size limitations can be waved as it in historical images. But for a burning match, that can be delisted and redone. The reason behind size limits is that people may want to order photographic prints of these images, and without enough pixels they will look terrible. If it is a but under 1000 and is a great image I will ussually vote to keep. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I did not explain myself clearly, when I said "The guiding principle would be to select better images from the beginning and thus avoiding delisting practices in the future" I meant that, let´s say, starting today (as an example) FPs should be selected in such a manner as to prevent the inclusion into FP of images that do not meet certain standards. These standards have to do with quality, value, technique, etc., etc. These standards are independent of the medium in which they were recorded. I totally agree with Moondigger in his discussion over equipment, etc. And it is precisely the technological divide that is often at the center of this controversy. Like Moondigger, I come from the "Old School", and I observe an over reliance on technological advances as if they alone are able to bring about "better images"; I also detect a certain arrogant predisposition to invalidate all non digital, as if photography had been reinvented and made all previous work irrelevant. It is precisely here that the "technical discussion" is born. In are words such as "noise" and "fringing" and "sharp" that often disqualify images as if "noise" and "fringing" and "sharpness" (or their absence) were an absolute necessity for quality. The criteria for evaluating photography have shifted from aesthetics, talent adn relevance to technical aspects of the image (file) or capabilities of equipment. Better cameras do not mean better pictures nor better photographers. And this is something that will rattle the cage of all the digital photo newbies: As much as as they love the marvels of technology, good old analog photography is still much better than the most advanced digital technology. And I am fully into the digital age!!! So, in sum, let´s bring in the standards of selection based on criteria that is independent (aesthetics, talent, encyclopedic value, etc.) of the mode of capture in tandem with technological issues available (pixel dimensions, etc). At the same time, I propose keeping all past FP as a historical memory. Keeping them will show us the progress and evolution of wikipedia. Nothing is born grown up. Even bad FP can be good for something.--tomascastelazo19:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I completely disagree that analog photography is still much better than the most advanced digital technology - unless you are comparing large format film photography to P&S compact digital camera photography. Top of the line DSLRs have been evaluated on many occasions and compared to high quality 35mm film. Resolution on cutting edge DSLRs is as good, if not better than film, while noise/grain is FAR superior on DSLRs. Sure, I concur with you that technology maketh not the photographer, but to say that film is still objectively much better is quite wrong. And that doesn't even begin to bring into the equation digital techniques such as mosaic stitching, instant feedback, the ability to shoot as many frames as the flash card/battery will allow. All these factors make digital photography light years ahead in terms of flexibility and result. Thats not to say there are no longer reasons to shoot film - of course there are, but they're mainly aesthetic, not functional reasons. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)11:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Fir0002 obviously you've never seen a print from Ansel Adams. A lot of Adams pictures on the Net come from NARA scans of negative. High end scanner or not I find the quality of these scan much inferior to Adams prints (maybe a low-end operator ?). Like this one for instance : Media:Adams The Tetons and the Snake River.jpg that badly needs some dust removal.
On the other hand Julia Margaret Cameron prints are not that good (even by victorian standards). If compare you her prints to the prints of Lewis Caroll the difference in quality is really significant. But despite the technical flaw of her prints Cameron is among the most important photographers in the history of photography. Ericd21:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No I have not had the pleasure of seeing Ansel Adams' work or for that case any other great photographers. Pretty much the only stuff I have seen is a few pix by Ken Duncan. So I can't tell how high quality the original prints Ansel produced, but the scans show clearly how the image could have improved (for use on Wikipedia) if it was taken in a digital format. --Fir000204:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delisting (I believe the phrase is "Time out!")
Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Interesting discussion - I can't help think it might have wandered a little from the original question though. I think perhaps we should try to extract a few key points.
We already have a category and a template for former featured pictures. Nomination closers should take care to ensure these are used. For historical purposes, it might be useful to add a promotion (and delisting?) date to the template.
As NauticaShades pointed out, opposing a delisting because you disagree with the current FP criteria seems similar to opposing a promotion because you disagree with the principle of Featured Pictures. In either case, such votes should be disregarded.
Where an image would be difficult or impossible to recreate (e.g. historical events), the FP criteria may be relaxed - iff there is a consensus to do so in that particular case.
Delistings on the basis of size alone are controversial. It seems unlikely that a blanket cut-off point will be agreed upon here - common sense should take precedence over hard numbers on a case-by-case basis.
Featured Pictures is not a photo contest and promotions are not prizes. However, as previous discussions here have shown, the non-collaborative nature of photography means that people often derive satisfaction from having a picture promoted which is distinct from that experienced, say, in having an article promoted to FA. We should be careful that delisting is not perceived as a humiliation or admonishment of the contributor. Equally, we should not refrain from delisting on the grounds that this is like retracting a prize - it isn't.
Featured Pictures (and by association, POTDs) are supposed to represent the best that Wikipedia has to offer. It seems nonsensical that we should retain FPs to which this no longer applies, just because it once did. Having clearly-substandard pictures on the main page is counterproductive - it neither showcases the quality of our current content, nor encourages the contribution of new high-quality images.
For images with no "mitigating circumstances" (i.e. not taken during an amphibious landing in 1944 etc.) we should strive for the best encyclopaedic representation of the subject, irrespective of medium. The perceived ease or difficulty of capturing an exposure using particular equipment should not be a factor in determining its performance against the FP criteria.
Most of the FP criteria are subjective - it would be almost impossible to find a useful objective metric for the properties we look for here. Everyone will have their own interpretation of the criteria; some will be more demanding than others. This is perfectly acceptable; the result of each nomination will be determined by consensus.
Slagging matches and long-winded diatribes don't help in reaching a consensus - what they probably will do is discourage "non-in-crowd" participants from getting involved here. We also need to be careful that oppose/delist votes are not condescending, disparaging or downright rude; is it really so terrible if someone nominates a snowball candidate?
Yes, I think you did miss some important points, and that your summary does not reflect with accuracy amd fairness what happened in the discussion:
You only refer to one of the confronting positions, the one supporting the actual status quo. The idea that “delisting a FP should be considered as an exceptional measure, only applied to obvious errors of judgment, recognized by a large majority of reviewers” is not given any relevance, although it was supported by a significant number of users (Tomascastelazo, Janke, Fir0002 and myself), some of them with lengthy and careful statements. I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this is a wild and inaccurate extrapolation from what really happened in the discussion.
The idea that current FP criteria are retroactive and apply to old FP is not supported by the agreed texts, as I have pointed out in the discussion.
The principle that there are “good” and “bad” votes, and that the closer has the wisdom (and the authority) to disregard some user’s votes according to his interpretation of their intentions, is arbitrary and dangerous, even for a non-democracy like Wikipedia.
My proposal of the creation of an “historical FP list”, co-existing with the “actual FP list” could be an easy and elegant way out of this discussion. However, it was not even considered in the present summary.
First of all, it is not dangerous for the nominator to disregard votes that are in bad faith or simply disruptive. It is clear that sometimes votes should be disregarded; for example, if someone voted oppose on a bird nomination because they "don't like birds", that vote shouldn't be counted. As for the historical FP list, I don't see how this is much different than the exisiting cateogy for delisted FPs. In fact, someone who wanted to know what pictures were delisted would have to compare the 'historical' and 'revised' versions, instead of just consulting a straightforward list. NauticaShades 09:41, 20
I agree with pretty much all of what YFB has said. While a number of users do think that FPs should only be delisted in exceptional circumstances, it certainly appeared that a greater number did not think that. There will always be differing opinions but I think YFB was summarising the majority view where possible, not expressing all points of view equally. Also, (and I don't see how it could be expressed any simpler here) the page states that FPs should be the best that Wikipedia has to offer. If it is no longer considered the best that it has to offer, I can't see how it CAN remain a FP. And the only way to determine that is by consensus - in other words, putting it on the chopping board and seeing what people think. You will always be free to vote to keep images, but you should be careful to judge all images on current standards, not historical standards. I'm fairly sure that was consensus but if need be, I suppose we can discuss this further and run a pool to further confirm this consensus. Diliff | (Talk)(Contribs)10:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, you're right that I committed the cardinal sin of not making my summary entirely from an NPOV. I did try to write it from a common-sense point of view and to reflect the apparent opinions of the majority - by which I mean, at a quick tally, Moondigger, Diliff, NauticaShades, Howcheng, AndonicO, HighInBC, Gphoto and myself. In response to your points:
We already have a system to identify former featured pictures, and a complete history of the featured pictures page (it's a Wiki). We're not losing any historical information by delisting - we're just ensuring that the pictures that end up on POTD are the best Wikipedia has to offer.
The 'agreed texts' seem fairly clear - the "What is a featured picture?" page isn't called "What is a featured picture and what standards did we previously expect?". I think retroactive application of these criteria is implied in the title of that page and in the very existence of a delisting procedure - the delisting section is headed "Here you can nominate featured pictures you feel no longer live up to featured picture standards".
For as long as I've been here, there's been a strong consensus in favour of disregarding votes which obviously do not judge an image by the FP criteria. HighInBC gave NegativeNed as an example. The closer's discretion in tallying the votes has been thoroughly debated here.
Your historical FP page would seem to have merit if there were not already a former featured pictures page and template; if we were to rely on the template to distinguish the delisted images in the historical list, you'd have to look at each image's page in turn to find out if it was still featured. It just seems like a messy and redundant solution to a problem that is already solved.
Thank you, YFB, for your clarification. Before giving up my crusade, please allow me two last (and short) comments:
- There is a list of former FP and a list of actual FP, which are complementary. If we want to make available the whole picture of FP evolution, we have to work with both (in two separate windows, I guess). What I am proposing is a list with them all, which will substitute the list of former FP. Please see the solution adopted in Commons.
- Interpreting the hidden intentions of a voter is a tricky job, especially when he doesn’t help in clarifying them (which happens in most cases). On the other hand, it would be illegitimate to disregard the negative votes of someone in a delisting process just because that person thinks (and has expressed that thought before) that delisting should be carried out with most caution.
In response to your second point, a vote(and I use the term loosly because we don't vote), is taken on the basis of it's arguement. If the person has hidden motives, but provides a good arguement, fine, that arguement is all that will be considered. If a person votes but does not clarify his position then that voter has made no position to consider. As for dates on past FP templates, each image has a What links here area that should have it's nomination and delisting linked to it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)15:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
and not something like this 
. (I'm not trying to pick on anybody here... just pointing out the juxtaposition.)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Macrogl_Stellat.jpg){kind=link}
