Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 29

< Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Papa Lima Whiskey in topic Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35

Review of closure process poll

Latest comment: 14 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Apparently a second review of the FPC closure process has been undertaken with little prior discussion. The review was underway for eight days before I was notified of it. The opening statement discourages open discussion and implies that it is the initial part of a (secretive?) second phase. It is unclear where or how consensus formed to make such an important set of decisions this way. My first impression is to disregard the thing as lacking legitimacy, but quite a few people have participated. So perhaps I've misunderstood. Would someone explain? Durova412 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you need explained? There is an Announcement a little up the page. Showed up on my watchlist. Did you expect a personal invitation? Maybe you should explain where you get the secretive idea. Doesn't sound like AGF. --Dschwen 18:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, saw that. Looks as if one editor decided to start that with minimal prior discussion, and set up a two phase structure which discourages discussion without announcing the details of phase two. That has at least some of the characteristics of a push poll, and my first inclination was to disregard it as lacking legitimacy. Am willing to be persuaded if that impression is mistaken. Durova412 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
If you have a problem with being notified, I apologise. I felt that as a regular contributor, you should be invited to participate even though you did not respond to the initial announcement. While you're here, maybe you can tell us if there's going to be any news on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River because I was thinking of closing it as stale. Thanks. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. The principal concerns are of a different nature, though. Where did consensus form that another closure process review was needed and to structure it in this unusual way? Durova412 22:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In the above sections, you'll notice that dissatisfaction with current FPC processes is continuing. The last review was insufficient as there was no consolidation and it degenerated into a wide-ranging discussion that decided nothing. The present poll has clearly been designed to set out the principal issues and points of discussion for later (which everyone is welcome to add to). In any case, why would it require a consensus-forming process beforehand? I don't understand why you have an issue with this, nor how it could be considered secretive or underhand. Maedin\talk 23:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Any opening statement that specifically discourages discussion runs the risk of a chilling effect. Looks like one editor designed a process-heavy format unilaterally, and hasn't disclosed what the second half would be. Durova412 00:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
process-heavy, unilaterally, chilling effect, hasn't disclosed. Come on can you cram any more pejorative language into one post? PLW is making a good faith attempt to get some results here. The last discussion (which took place without me) didn't seem to work out so well either. It seems like a good idea to me to reduce the talk and with it the emerging of more and more only marginally different options and the resulting vote spread. Plus he asked for comments on the format of the poll. So it seems unfair to accuse him of a unilateral action. --Dschwen 02:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a disappointment to open a discussion with the candid willingness to be persuaded out of an impression, only to get castigated for expressing it. It does not take much reading between the lines, though, to conclude that customary editorial dialog is no longer welcome. Durova412 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I also wondered about the legitimacy of the poll, but I felt compelled to participate lest my opinion never be heard. I figured that no changes will be made based solely on the poll without discussion, so I might as well express my opinion. As I expressed above, I too have concerns about the poll. Unfortunately, no one responded to me there and it looks like your comments aren't going to receive serious consideration either. I hope, though, that you will express your opinions in the poll anyway. You've been a major contributor and anything you can add will be helpful. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Per the guideline Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, am leaning more toward abstention. Durova412 03:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
But no one is suggesting it as a substitute for discussion; it's an opportunity to realise where our topics of discussion need to focus. This isn't the decision-making process; you seem to be confusing this with the stage at which changes are implemented. Please explain how you actually see harm in this; as Dschwen mentioned, it's a good idea to reduce the talk for a moment and just gauge current feeling. At no point has it been even implied that this poll is binding, nor that it will contravene any part of the straw poll guidelines. It's no wonder users are so reluctant to step up and help make changes for the benefit of the community. I suppose you had a better idea and were willing to spend hours enacting it and making it user friendly? Maedin\talk 03:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Your so called candid willingness to be persuaded was unfortunately buried under a pile of bad faith assumptions. I don't see anything more disappointing than that. --Dschwen 04:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Maedin: discussions that begin with polls have a poor track record at this website. Often the questions aren't framed in a useful way, since the participants haven't yet clarified what the issues are. A more serious problem is that polls tend to line people up into opposite camps: it identifies differences rather than common ground and it structures discussion toward binary responses. Nuance gets lost, and viable third paths get overlooked.
  • Dschwen: this is the third time in this thread where you have sidestepped the substance of my concerns. Really, it isn't possible to reprimand someone into participation at a voluntary poll. An endeavor at civility would be more persuasive. Please be a model of good faith when you suppose someone lacks enough of it.
  • Durova412 04:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    Then please stick to the facts. Right now you are the one who is castigating people for pointing out your malign language. Four times you have basically repeated the same bad faith allegations, completely ignoring any comments which do not fit your view. And who is trying to reprimand you into participation anyways? You have the respect of the community as a productive contributor, but that does not mean that you should talk down on people like this. For me it is EOD here. If the other participants are willing to put up with this, then fine. --Dschwen 12:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Durova, yes, I can see how that is often a concern in certain settings and understand the potential conflicts outlined. If I may be so bold as to suggest that the more negative outcome isn't necessarily the path that polls must take and that this is one of them that won't? For a start, the poll allows for flexibility and nuanced camps, which, by the number of "don't agree with the question" responses, is being made use of. I've been following the poll so I've seen how it has grown and been shaped and changed by participator involvement (though granted it could have been more so!). Second, reading through the poll, I don't get the impression that there is any bad feeling present or even binary responses; I think the majority of respondents have also replied elastically and show a willingness to discuss the issues at a later time. The third thing is that, when talking time comes, we will already have a pretty good idea where to focus; e.g. "it looks like there's a misunderstanding on what quorum is and how we treat it; let's talk about it. Here's what's been said and voted so far. Why, and what else?" I guess the final point which I feel is important is that, historically, FPC has been a game of very few players, and that we've hashed the same tired issues again and again, or stirred up feelings with pointed remarks on nominations. Beginning with that same conflict and text-heavy contention discourages participation; less involved members aren't interested in inserting themselves into our drama, even when they hold an opinion. With a sigh of relief on their part, I think they finally see a flexible, open-to-all, non-scary poll that allows them to see the issues at hand, have a think about them, participate, and then be 1,000 times more likely to come along at analysis time and share their views, too. I don't know about you, but what I really don't want is another endless round-and-round debate between the same big 9 that goes nowhere (again). I think we could actually achieve something this way; give them a model that doesn't frighten off with tldr and vociferous arguments and then let everyone be heard at deliberation time. Okay, wait, one more thing (promise!), which is that if "discussions that begin with polls have a poor track record at this website", then "discussions for the sake of discussions, especially when trying to get something changed, have an even worse track record at FPC." The model hasn't usually worked for us, just as WP:NOTADEMOCRACY hasn't been popular here, either. Just time to try something new, a little different, and try to structure it so that multiple options and refinements can still come through. If you're still convinced that it hasn't worked or won't work, I guess the least that can be asked is for you to see that it's all been done in good faith. As I started the previous review that petered out so disappointingly, I'm obviously keen to see things change and am willing to try and back almost anything, and I do at least see this getting somewhere, hopefully, :) Obviously your participation can't be forced, though I think we all need and want you to be involved, considering the important role you've played within FPC so far. I don't want to blackmail you into joining in, but your abstention could throw a sour feeling on the proceedings which seems unnecessary. In any case, regardless, I hope you contribute when the discussion free-for-all opens up (and hope this isn't tldr; too!). Maedin\talk 08:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Forgive me for disagreeing but I don’t think we need another long discussion. We already had one, in which most issues were addressed in detail and people had the opportunity to express their opinions. Now it is more than time to reflect the results of that discussion into the written guidelines, something nobody had the guts to do last time. In my opinion that is what this poll is about (at least, that was my concern when I raised the question two weeks ago). Yes, we may have to come back to one or two more technical or controversial themes, like the image size. But the purpose of this poll is certainly not to start everything over again. It is significant how the results achieved so far eloquently confirm that most people agree on the two issues that triggered this initiative: the voting period and the concept of supermajority. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The current process gives the impression of being structurally flawed on several levels. Examples to illustrate that opinion will not be glowing. Those examples are about the process. To respond in terms of the proposer's good faith (or lack thereof) is beside the point. Thanks go to Alvesgaspar and Maedin for followup responses that were more on target. Those reasoned responses might be persuasive except for this: in this discussion one individual had a strongly negative response, and nobody pointed out to him that he was reacting to things that I had never written. I don't feel up to embarking upon another discussion where I'm left to fend for myself in that way. For several weeks I have had little time to edit; a notice at user talk states reduced availability. There was a death in the family yesterday. Good luck with your review, and here's hoping the concerns were mistaken. Durova412 06:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on captions

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I know we're currently in the middle of a closure procedure discussion, but I'd like to say that I think the way we deal with captions is a bit flawed. The caption we come up with here is nice, but what do we use it for? Usually, nothing. It's for our own happiness (or some other similar term). I would suggest that the caption that is proposed here be used as the caption on the image page when/if an image is promoted (and links to relevant articles should be strongly suggested). This would press captions to be more general, and make them that much more informative to the viewer. Captions on FPs have a lot of potential, but many times they don't come even close to it. So what do we do? Add a step to the closing procedure that has the image page caption updated to reflect the FPC caption.

Here's a few examples, images that were promoted last month:
1. Dirce Beauty Butterfly. Note how as many words were used to describe where the photo was taken as about the subject, in the image page caption:

  •  
    FPC caption: The Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce) is a butterfly found in Central America and northern parts of South America.
  •  
    Image page caption: Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce) 1758 Linnaeus (Nymphalidae). Taken at Botanischer Garten, Munich, Germany.

2. Dharmaraya Swamy Temple

3. NURBS surface animation; more information on how rendered than what it is.

  •  
    FPC caption: NURBS surfaces are a method for easily creating complex, aesthetic, or technical shapes in 3D computer graphics. With NURBS, a minimal number of control points (the small spheres) on each path (lines) influence the directions for very smooth, organic surfaces to follow.
  •  
    Image caption page: Animation of a NURBS surface. Modeled and rendered in Cobalt.

4. Cassiterite

  •  
    FPC caption: Chemical formula SnO2, cassiterite is a tin oxide mineral. An important source of tin, cassiterite is commonly mined, with major deposits in Bolivia, and its presence in the Democratic Republic of Congo contributes to the conflict there. High quality crystals are considered collectible and used as gemstones. Twinning is common, usually occurring at near-60° angles. Its lustre may be adamantine to splendent, and perhaps greasy on fractures. These bipyramid samples are from Sichuan province in China and the edge length is approximately 30 mm.
  •  
    Image caption page: Cassiterite bipyramids, chemical formula SnO2. locality Southeast slope Xuebaoding, Pingwu country, province Sichuan in China. Edge length ca. 30mm. Collection M.R.

No offense is meant to any uploaders or photographers by this, by the way. The images picked above were generally random. upstateNYer 01:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In no particular order:
  1. I often just poach parts of the article when writing the caption for noms. I know that some others do this, too. In those cases, no new information is being produced.
  2. There may have been an idea at one point that the caption at FPC would be used as the basis of the one for POTD - if someone has time to confirm this one way or the other, thanks! I can't really think of a good reason against this.
  3. The last two examples above have important information missing in the FPC caption - in one case, the exact locality of the sample; in the other, the identity of the generating program. Both of these are essential information and should not be simply overwritten on the image description page. There may also be a concern about the authenticity of the information given on the image description page, where inaccuracies could be introduced by third parties that weren't witness to the event, or, in the case of private collections, the owners and hence "acting chroniclers" of the work. I think this would be an argument for putting "our" caption in a separate template on the image description page if we want to go ahead with this.
  4. I think the general feeling will be that nominations should still pass or fail based on the image, not the caption. I'd also prefer not to bring content disputes to FPC nominations - some captions might contain claims that are contested. As long as they're just for our own happiness, people probably won't mind, but if our caption goes on the image description, it will seem to have more serious ramifications for people with a POV.
  5. Even Commons now links back all the way from image description pages to the usage of those images on individual projects, which means that interested parties can easily find the corresponding FPC and use any information given there.
  6. The one case where I definitely support updating the image description is where the uploader answers questions on the nomination that aren't answered in the image description or EXIF, e.g. was it stiched/focus bracketed/HDR/flash used/etc. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
So maybe not exactly blind copying of the FPC caption, but "improving the image description page with information from the FPC", since the FPC is not always superior. Jujutacular T · C 17:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that's pretty much what I'm saying. upstateNYer 21:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment, but I think it should be worded so that the onus is on the nominator, rather than the closer, to give the image the best caption possible in the article. And it's also on us as reviewers to check how the image looks in the article. If this is added to the closing procedure, it should be more like something to verify, rather than have the closer go about fixing captions all the time. Fletcher (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Addition to "not promoted" instructions

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

I propose adding the following line to the closing procedure, for nominations that are not promoted:

"If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing a note on their talk page informing them of the closure. Encourage further participation and don't bite."

I consider this fairly non-controversial since it has been taking place a bit already. What does everyone think? Jujutacular T · C 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think there should be a message left after non-promotions. Silence implies not caring. I'd suggest making a template for this, makes for shorter instructions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Taken from a note left by Makeemlighter: {{NotpromotedFPC}}. The instructions could read:
"If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing {{subst:NotpromotedFPC|Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image name}} on their talk page."
Jujutacular T · C 23:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I was using that for nominations that I closed early per WP:SNOW. I'm not necessarily opposed to notifying nominators of non-promotions, but I'm not convinced of the necessity. Don't nominators monitor their nominations? Makeemlighter (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the idea behind "If the nominator is not an FPC regular...". I believe we should be encouraging as many new people to participate as possible. If someone new nominates an image, a disappointing result (whether WP:SNOW closed or not) may discourage them from future participation. Jujutacular T · C 03:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds fine to me, then. A non-promote takes very little time, so I don't see this as a burden. I'd say get a few more opinions and then implement it. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've ask a few more people to comment. Feel free to ask anyone else. Jujutacular T · C 05:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I have added the line to the the instructions, unless anyone brings up an objection. Jujutacular T · C 07:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually have only just come past and been having a look at it, and although I may be a voice in the wilderness, beyond whether it's necessary, I personally don't especially like it. It seems a bit of a 'kick in the guts' to me for someone whose nom has failed to then have it announced for all on their talkpage and to be continually reminded of it. Perhaps this is just an alternative take on whether or not it will encourage or discourage them to try again. Having said which, at least the wording in the template itself is fairly positive. However the wording in the instructions is possibly a bit wishy-washy - "If the nominator is not an FPC regular, consider placing..."; so the closer has to decide whether it's a regular or not, and then to just 'consider' placing the template on their talkpage? If it's going to stay maybe that could be tightened up? --jjron (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I worded it as "consider placing..." because I thought there might be instances where the note wouldn't be appropriate, but I didn't have anything specific in mind. I do understand your sentiment thought. What would you suggest? Jujutacular T · C 07:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Perhaps not the best person to ask since I don't especially like the idea at all. However I'd say a few decisions need to be made: (i) do we really want/need this? (ii) if we have it, under what circumstances would it be inappropriate? (iii) should all non-promotes get it, or only the uncertain 'non-regulars'? Without answering those it's hard to say any more on how the wording could be changed, because depending on the answers you almost have to leave it as is, or something quite similar. --jjron (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Well, to answer your first question, (i) yes I believe we do. Myself and four others above expressed the desire to include this in the instructions. (ii) Its use is appropriate when the closer believes that the nominator feels discouraged by the nomination, and has not nominated a picture before. If the closer is unsure about using the template they should default to not using it. (iii) All non-promotes should not get it, as this would definitely have the potential to be harmful. A stack of templated "I'm sorry your nom didn't go so well" messages on someone's user page would be terrible. All in all, I believe our closers have the common sense to use this when it is appropriate. Perhaps we could change the wording from "If the nominator is not an FPC regular..." to "If this is the nominator's first nomination..." Jujutacular T · C 15:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I'd say two others were keen, with another two more not objecting after a bit of a push, but anyway... I'd also say PLW for example was suggesting wider usage, like for every non-promote? In the manner you're proposing it here it sounds OK, with the default being not to use it they think it may be non-beneficial, and without it being overused. I don't know if you'd say it's just for first nominations, but how else to word it, 'If the nominator is new to FPC...'? Not really sure. What you've said here makes for greater clarity, so it's a matter of getting that simply into the instructions. --jjron (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Latest comment: 14 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

Note: Discussion has now moved here and here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Summary of the poll

While PLW is busy in real life let’s make a short summary of the poll. Two groups of issues are listed below whether a clear consensus was reached or not (please feel free to correct or add useful information). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Group A (clear consensus, no further discussion needed?)
  1. Nomination period should be: fixed, 9 days
  2. What to do in case of no consensus or no quorum: close the nomination normally keeping the possibility of re-nominating
  3. Minimum nr of votes for promotion: 5
  4. Quorum refers to: overall number of (!)votes
  5. Outcome should be determined on the basis of: vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count
  6. Majority is understood as: at least 2/3 of the !votes
  7. Pixel resolution should be: strictly the dimensions of the image
  8. Withholding EXIF info is: OK
  9. Weak support or oppose counts: ½ of a full !vote
  10. Delisting period should be: fixed, 2 weeks
  11. Nominator’s support should be: considered
  12. Creator’s support should be: considered
  • Group B (no clear consensus, further discussion needed)
  1. Minimum image resolution should be: 2Mp
  2. Not uploading the maximum resolution available: is not a problem
  3. Criteria: should be: the same for all categories
  4. When FP size criteria are raised: old FPs can stay (marginal majority)

Conclusion, Next step?

I'd really like to see something come out of this poll, there is some clear consensus for change in some areas. Can we narrow down which is a uncontroversial change, and agree to make those changes? Then discuss the less clear stuff? — raeky (talk | edits) 07:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this - how about a second phase where we list the items in the two groups Alves outlined above, with areas for discussion of each. Items with "clear majority" (Group A) will be implemented unless further discussion deems the consensus isn't clear. Items with marginal majority (Group B) will be discussed further, with the hopes of reaching a consensus on the issue. Jujutacular T · C 07:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I would endorse Alvesgaspar's summary and raeky's proposal with the minor alteration of also leaving the "what is quorum" item for further discussion per (a) the "neutral votes" thread below, (b) the general confusion caused by the poll question (mea culpa), and (c) the problematic edge case brought up by Snowman in his poll vote. I have prepared proposals for this and another item on the list (spoiler: in favour of 2MP->1.9MP). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • IMO, disregard poll as invalid. Durova412 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You've not been able to point out any actual concrete problem with the poll. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please go ahead with phase two, PLW. As for the definition of quorum, I see no problem. The 2/1 majority has always be understood here as the proportion between the # of supports and opposes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with the idea that some of the poll results (even the virtually unanimous ones) need further and/or final discussion before being made 'law', but it would be silly and counterproductive to disregard it completely. Nothing will ever get done if we don't simplify the process. Infinite and wide open discussion gets us nowhere as previous attempts have shown. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I think the problem with the discussions we've had so far is that they have tried to cover every issue we have at once. It's too much to ask for people to follow several simultaneous discussions. Jjron's proposal to change the minimum number of supports (see this) is a good example of how this can work. His proposal followed the results of an earlier discussion and gave two days for discussion before implementation. Something similar would work here: introduce a proposal for change in one of the areas (please not all at once) and set a discussion period. (Two days might be too short since we didn't discuss anything during the poll.) The key here is the discussion. I won't go so far as to say I agree with Durova about the poll being invalid, but I think it's at best incomplete without a discussion. Finally, I'd like to note that every time we have these pushes for change, some incident brings them up, there is a lot of furor and plenty of calls for change, but then everything dies down. This leads me to question whether we really need change or if we just need to be more careful with a few close noms. Makeemlighter (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • But we already had a long discussion, where most of the issues were addressed and people had the opportunity to express their opinions. The present poll is, in my opinion, nothing more than a summary of such discussion. There are some specific points where a clear consensus was achieved and that could be reflected into the guidelines immediately. Why everything dies down? Maybe because there isn't much action in FPC at the moment or urgency to solve the present problems, and nobody wants to be the 'bad guy' and change the written rules. I really think it is more than time to be bold and proceed with the next step: implementation of the already decided changes. As for the rest of the issues (resolution, etc.), let's continue the discussion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Please now see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results. I'm confident that we can come to a shared interpretation of what the consensus was at the poll, and implement changes once we've agreed on a version. I'm also confident that any fine-tuning of the wording of the instructions and criteria can be done once we've committed ourselves to a course of action and taken some first steps. That said, I'm sure it's worth keeping Makeemlighter's suggestion of individual, microscopic proposals at the back of our heads as a last resort. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

?????

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What did I do wrong? I thought i transcluded it right? Here is the link to the page. Can somebody please fix it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barrack_Obama_Portrait Sorry! And thanks. --Iankap99 (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You did it right, but you made a spelling error in the title of the nomination which you didn't re-produce when you transcluded, :) I added an r to Barack which fixed it. You might want to move the page to Barack Obama Portrait, though...if you do, just fix the transclusion to take out the r again. Maedin\talk 21:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a million :) --Iankap99 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Maedin\talk 21:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Two easy closures waiting

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here are two that have been sitting there for too long now:

All of the other noms with similar expiry dates have been closed, some of them by me. There's no point in letting these remaining ones gather dust. I'm "involved" with both of them and can't close them unless there's general consensus that it's okay for one of the participants to close them - I see both of them as promotions. If you'd like to close one of these and haven't closed a nom before, the instructions are at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Closing_procedure. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No consensus?

Latest comment: 14 years ago40 comments9 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Sambar deer Cervus unicolor.jpg. Looks like a clear promote to me. 7 supports and 3.5 opposes. Can anybody please let me know what is going on? --Muhammad(talk) 03:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly borderline, but I would agree with you. However we are both involved parties. Let's wait for an outside opinion. Jujutacular T · C 03:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
7-3.5=3.5, and 3.5 is less than 5, so traditionally that would not be a promote... — raeky (talk | edits) 04:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a minimum of 5 supports and a 2/3 support/(support+oppose) to promote. --Muhammad(talk) 05:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I was tempted to close it as "no consensus" earlier in the evening, but I thought I'd give it a little extra time. Since PLW saw a lack of consensus as well, I'm comfortable with this result. I guess it's borderline, but seeing as how everyone opposed had the same reason (lighting), I think there are legitimate concerns that led to a non-promotion. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
But why would it be closed as no consensus. There is a 2/3 majority support. Seems like a clear promote to me and I am starting to get irritated by the awry closures of my nominations --Muhammad(talk) 10:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
From the poll we have a strong consensus that a weak vote is 0.5 of a strong one. We also have strong consensus for "6 Supports and 3 Opposes" and "8 Supports and 4 Opposes" being promotes. Using linear interpolation I'd therefore suggest the nomination in question is a promote too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
And we also established above that the consensus from the poll is not to be implemented yet. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
To be implemented yet or not, that was the norm even before the straw poll was put up --Muhammad(talk) 13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would have promoted the picture but the truth is the (purposeful) ambiguity in the guidelines justifies this kind of decision. What we have to do is to proceed with the discussion and reflect the consensus in the new guidelines as soon as possible. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed that we have to proceed with the discussion but IMO this a promote and necessary changes should immediately made to reflect that. It has always been clear that 2/3 support is romote provided the minimum 5 supports are attained. --Muhammad(talk) 17:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this how this is going to be left? A nomination with clear consensus not promoted because the closer didn't want to? I am seriously reconsidering my contributions to FPC if the process is abused like this --Muhammad(talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't do closings but I had also thought our existing custom was 2/3 supermajority, with the 5 minimum supports. I also thought a weak oppose was a 1/2 oppose. Is this wrong? So, I would have thought this one would be a promotion (disclosure, I supported). Is anyone disagreeing with the math? Or are were any !votes invalid? Our process can be debated, but whatever it is, surely it must be applied consistently? Fletcher (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding, even among regulars. FPC is NOT a vote count. For as long as I've been around, it has not been one. And I hope it stays that way. Closures are based on consensus, just as things work throughout the rest of the encyclopedia. The 2/3 supermajority is nothing more than a guideline. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand that. But if the guideline is not going to be followed, there should be a reason given. It can't be applied haphazardly from nomination to nomination, depending on the whim of the closer. Fletcher (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Flesher. Even accepting that the 2/3 majority is just a guideline, it's not legitimate to replace consensus by an arbitrary decision of the closer, based on his personal opinion. I propose to revert the decision and promote the picture (even agreeing that lighting is not good). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • My last statement wasn't clear enough. I meant that the supermajority helps the closer determine consensus; it is not itself indicative of consensus. A 2/3 supermajority IS NOT consensus. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Even accepting that a 2/3 majority does not represent a clear consensus for promotion (with which I do not agree), better deciding in favor of the majority of opinions than on the arbitrary opinion of the closer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Unless there are valid reasons like sock-'puppeteering', the FPC main page states "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support" --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Yeah, it's pretty silly that we have that. The important part is the "generally" and a bit later: "If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis." Makeemlighter (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
            • So now that's silly because you don't like it? And if the decision is made on a case by case basis then this should have been promoted. All the supports were from well established users while a few of the opposes were from the newbies. Like it or not, this is a promote and I wonder why the one responsible for the mess is not owing up or defending himself. --Muhammad(talk) 07:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
              • Silly because that's not how consensus works anywhere else on the encyclopedia. For this nom, as I said earlier, since there was a legitimate criticism from several reviewers, I would have gone with "no consensus" as well. I'm really not trying to be adversarial at all. Please don't think that I am. It's unfortunate that the close cases lately have all been your noms. I guess the thing to do at this point is to re-nominate that image and see what happens. Or, I guess, re-open it for further review. Not sure what else there is to do about it... Makeemlighter (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
                • Admittedly it has not been formalised yet, but it seemed like the initial conclusion that we reached in the last poll was that we'd like, for the sake of simplicity, a 2/3 majority to be the default method for determining consensus, with wiggle room in the case of particularly good reasons for support/opposition that can shift the nom in the other direction. I don't think that some opposes with 'legitimate criticism' should override the 2/3 of the supports unless, as I said, the reasoning is particularly strong. Otherwise, any remotely legitimate opposition would effectively act as a veto. After all, it could equally be argued that the support votes were equally legitimate. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Also agree. The last poll made clear what the present consensus is on the definition of supermajority and the way to reflect it on the outcome. Knowing that the guidelines will be soon adjusted according to such consensus, doing otherwise is rowing against the flood and the opinion of the majority. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Okay, a few things. First of all, this is why I was concerned above about implementing anything without a discussion first. The straw poll did not allow for the discussion we need. To Diliff's point about whether the opposes with legitimate criticism should override 2/3 support: you suggest that shouldn't be the case unless the reasoning is particularly strong. Shouldn't we insist upon such strong reasoning for the supports as well? In this nomination, we have legitimate criticisms from the opposers and less than strong reasoning from some of the supporters. Look at the support again: of the 7, 1 has no reason, 1 says only "nice", and 1 comments only on composition. That's over 40% of the supports lacking compelling reasoning. I'm not suggesting you ignore those supports; rather, I think in these close cases we should weigh every vote carefully. Really, this is what consensus is all about. To Alvesgaspar's point: this is what I've been arguing against all along. The opinion of the majority is not necessarily consensus. And the results of the straw poll are not necessarily consensus either. WP:Consensus specifically says that quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a majority or minority. Anyway, as I said earlier, these are the sorts of discussions we should be having before we implement any changes. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • So the results of the straw poll are not valid either. Why do we then even bother to have FPC votes? Why not just let you (pardon me) and PLW choose which ones you want to promote? I am sure Noodle snack can speak for himself but if I were to scrutinize the votes and choose carefully, I would take the opinion of an experienced photographer like Noodle snacks, Diliff, Mila or Alves over a newbie's. --Muhammad(talk) 10:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • This violates the spirit of the Free Encyclopaedia. Nobody should be "more equal" here, not even the closers. And the allegation you're making singling out two of the closers (why aren't you helping out btw?) are not particularly substantive. I've recently had two nominations go up in smoke with fairly questionable opposes, and I didn't raise a complaint about it; I've also encouraged everyone to contribute more to closures - if you choose not to, that's entirely (100%) your private problem (not to mention you're harming the community, but I'll let that be your private pleasure...). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It is just the two closers who I referred to who currently refuse to abide by the 2/3 majority. Both the straw poll and this discussion clearly show what we want consensus to be. What right do the minority then have of enforcing their will on the nominations? I am not closing nominations because there are people doing it but if this is the current method, of closing a nomination as not promoted when a majority support is there, I wouldn't mind closing the nominations where I would prefer to vote oppose. --Muhammad(talk) 12:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I've always thought that we should have better reasoning for support votes, if not for consensus then at least for a bit of courtesy, so yes I agree with you. But given that our current voting convention doesn't really put much importance on this, you can't assume that just because a support vote doesn't show good reasoning that the voter did not have good reasoning. And it's a lot harder to fully justify a support vote than a oppose vote. An opposer only has to mention an issue with one of the 8 criteria for their vote to be 'valid', whereas technically a supporter would have to explain why the image meets each of the 8 criteria to be equivalently valid. To expect that is obviously ridiculous, so we have to assume that the supporters have read and applied the criteria to the image when they vote. I agree that vote counting alone isn't ideal for determining consensus, but we can't easily weigh up the strength of most votes, especially in light of the inherent weakness and general lack of detail of support votes that I mentioned above. For that reason, vote counting as the primary method of determining consensus is the only one (IMO) that:
      1. Gives everyone a fair and equal voice, and
      2. Doesn't require mind-reading skills. ;-)
    Sure, in extreme cases, where an opposer brings up something fundamentally wrong with the image and this isn't addressed or acknowledged by any of the supporters, that might be grounds to ignore the supermajority, but otherwise, it's too messy. And yes, I realise that this is best discussed as part of the review, but I thought it was important to bring up here too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The belief that support votes should have a detailed rationale can be led ad absurdum by pointing out that for a perfect picture, you'd have to comment on every technical and other aspect of the picture - bokeh, DOF, aperture, exposure (duration), composition/framing/cropping, ISO, suitability of subject, suitability of background, justification of EV. I believe both "support per nom" and "support" are perfectly good reasons. If people want to be more specific, let them, but note that this frequently leads to protracted arguments whose purpose is none but to expand the text length of the nomination to a point where further commenting is discouraged by the burden of having to read through a big chunk of text first. The nomination may then fail simply by not reaching its minimum number of supports, regardless of whether there's any *real* sizeable opposition to the nomination. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You've taken a reasonable scenario and taken it to the extreme though. Nobody (especially me) suggested that a perfect picture demands a perfectly detailed support. All that needs to be demonstrated is that an image above the levels we require. The point I was trying to make was that it is easier to demonstrate that an image fails one or more of the criteria than it is to demonstrate that it passes all of the criteria. Therefore, all things being equal, a closer would find it easier to see the strength and legitimacy of opposition than support. By the way, you're ABF to suggest that contributors argue with the intention of preventing further comments. It might be the unfortunate result on occasion, but don't try to insinuate that it's a deliberate ploy to stifle opinion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree; if someone just says "Support" it can be inferred they agree with the nominator's rationale. An Oppose needs a reason, but Opposers can also cite someone else who did give a reason. Too bureaucratic to force people to retype a reason someone already gave.Fletcher (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think that every support vote must have a detailed rationale. But once someone raises a concern with the image, whether through an oppose vote or a comment, the supporters should address those concerns. As it says under How to Comment: "Recommendations added early in the process may be disregarded if they do not address concerns and/or improvements that arise later in the debate. Reviewers are advised to monitor the progress of a nomination and update their votes accordingly." When opposers have legitimate criticism and the supporters do not address those criticism, the scale toward non-promotion. In a 4-2 (or 6-3, 8-4, etc.), legitimate criticisms which are not addressed push the nomination toward failure. And don't say "but the majority..." because the FPC page specifically directs voters to monitor nominations and update votes and warns that votes may be disregarded otherwise. So yeah, "support per nom." is fine, but if someone points out a problem with the image, you'd better comment on it. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  • As I have tried to explain earlier, during the first big discussion we had some months ago, we usually do not take decisions by consensus here because such model is disproportionate to the objectives of FPC and would have been impractical to implement. But the process you are defending here isn’t 'consensus' either. By assuming the power of judging the validity of the reviewer’s opinions and considering, or not, their votes for determining the outcome, you are acting like a dictator versus his senate. Yes, such model is still defended by a few of us but rejected by an overwhelming majority, as clearly revealed by both the last discussion and the recent poll. It isn’t justified by the letter (or the spirit) of the present guidelines either. Going back three or four years ago, we realize that the tendency is a relatively recent phenomenon, having reached its peak with MER-C, whose closing options started to be strongly contested by the users. Running the risk of repeating myself over and over again, the model you are trying to implement, in which the closer is the dictator and the reviewers are his senate, has not the support of this community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The best way to deal with this concern is the for the closer to follow the 2/3 guideline by default, but if some !votes are invalid or are notably more persuasive than others, the nominator gives a rationale explaining why his or her judgment differs from the norm. (When the outcome is a foregone conclusion it shouldn't be necessary to give a rationale.) The closer has to make a judgment - or nominations are never closed - but the judgment can't seem arbitrary or suspicious to other contributors. Fletcher (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess I probably should have said at some point that I agree with the >2/3 in general. But the noms right at 2/3 are questionable. Those are the ones I'm really talking about. I resent the implication that I have consistently ignored the 2/3 guideline. What I have done is, on occasion, close as "not promoted" nominations with 2/3 support. Anything >2/3 has passed. 2/3 has long been a grey area. What I am suggesting is that we actually think about the closing decision rather than automatically promoting or not promoting an image with exactly 2/3 support. Very early in the FPC days it said near the top of the page that 4-2 was a non-promotion - that's exactly 2/3 support. And for quite some times it has said on the FPC page that decisions about close candidacies are made on a case-by-case basis. Some 2/3 noms will probably end up passing and some will end up failing: it all depends on the nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I've noticed that WP:SNOW has recently been invoked in closing a number of nominations. Commons FPC lays out exactly when WP:SNOW can be used. I don't know if the Commons definition was used in these cases or not, but I certainly think we should have exact boundaries for what constitutes a valid WP:SNOW closure and what doesn't. Notably, I've never seen a WP:SNOW-closed promotion, and that's a reason for concern. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I think it's because in practice, SNOW often gets used to minimise distress to the nominator/author, and because the image in question is just so far below our expectations of a FP that we deem it pointless to continue. It's far less likely that we'd worry about giving a nominator/author an inflated ego, and it's also less likely that a nominated image is just so overwhelmingly good that further judging is pointless. This is especially true since a flaw noticed late in the nom might bring down what looks like a certain promote, whereas with many 'SNOW' noms, we know in advance that no amount of work can bring the image up to FP standard. So I don't really think it's much reason for concern - there are good reasons for the difference. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
  1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
  2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes.
Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. However, as I alluded to in my other question, I feel that our current system works fine. Unless you can point to some specific instances where this rule would have improved the process, I don't feel a concrete rule is needed. Jujutacular T · C 05:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree here. I'm not crazy about adding rules like this. And I'm also not convinced that modeling our system after Commons (in this instance and in others) is necessary or even wise. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I generally speedy close when the nomination has a bunch of oppose votes and no supports. With even a single support, I'm inclined to leave it open. This, of course, varies depending on nomination. For what it's worth, we do have something of a standard: "If you think a nominated image obviously fails the featured picture criteria, write Speedy close followed by your reasons. Nominations may be closed early if this is the case." It's just that people rarely call for speedy closure (maybe they don't know they can). The outcome of these nominations seems obvious, though. There's no reason to run them out to 7 days when they'll never pass. By the way, this is one of the many reasons why all these strict guidelines that have been proposed are not great ideas. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Announcing the Reviewer Summary script, used to summarize information on reviewers

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This script was originally suggested by User:Mike Christie to be an extension of the Nominations Viewer script. However, this new script requires a different set of functions from Nominations Viewer, so it had to be written from scratch. What the script does is, when used on a Featured Log page such as the one for successful Featured Articles, it shows the Reviewer Summary table, which summarizes all the editors who edited the nominations found on the current page. See the script's documentation as well as the screenshot below for more information. The table's information can be easily copied to be used in discussions, as well (see the first point in the screenshot below). Hopefully the script will come in handy for analyzing nomination reviewers, etc. Gary King (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 
Reviewer Summary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2010

Neutral votes

Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all. I've a question for everyone. How do we handle Neutral votes? In the past, I've essentially considered them an oppose since they water down the support. By that I mean, 4 support, 1 neutral, 1 oppose is only 57% support while it would have 66.6...% support without the neutral. So, the neutral vote would prevent the nomination from reaching the supermajority. If you follow +1 -2 and call neutral 0, however, the neutral vote is essentially meaningless. In this case, though, that person's opinion does not factor into the closing decision at all, assuming strict closure by vote counts. Which one of these situations in preferable? In my preferred alternative, where 66.6...% noms are determined by strength of argument, this problem disappears since you can ignore neutral in calculating support percentage and then just weigh the arguments. Since this alternative is not at all popular, we should probably decide which of the above treatments of the neutral vote we like. Thoughts? Makeemlighter (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the latter - making the neutral vote essentially meaningless to vote counting. In my mind, if someone is writes neutral, they are trying to have no negative or positive effect on the nomination. It could be likened to simply commenting rather than voting. Jujutacular T · C 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, neutral votes should count for the quorum, but nothing else. NauticaShades 13:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I always took neutral to mean just that, i.e., it doesn't count either way. In essence it pretty much means the same as a 'comment' to me, not even sure it should contribute to reaching quorum, or even whether that's here or there. But I would certainly say it shouldn't be taken as a de facto oppose. Where neutrals can, and often do come into play, like with comments, is that they can sway other 'voters' in their votes, so if the argument in them is made well it may sway others to commit to either a support or oppose based on the opinion stated. In fact sometimes neutrals/comments state opinions, usually negative opinions, better than the actual !votes themselves. Seems to be a bit of a push back to vote counting here though. --jjron (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. Besides, nominations already need two thirds support to pass, it seems a little unfair for a non-vote to effectively water down the support. But if you look at the poll, we've already leaned back towards vote counting as the primary method (not the only method). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Somewhat off topic, but I was unaware that oppose votes counted as -2. Can someone clarify this for me? Cowtowner (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. There are two ways of looking at it. You can calculate the total percentage of supports and promote any nomination with >66.6...%. Or you can add up the supports and opposes, giving the former +1 and the latter -2, and promoted anything with a positive result. Since an oppose is worth twice a support, you need twice as many supports to hit 0, which amounts to 66.6...% support. Promoting nominations with positive results thus equates to promoting noms with more than 2/3 support. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. It didn't seem logical to me that an opposer got two votes! Cowtowner (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
A few comments...Neutral votes counting for quorum seems sort of odd since they would then be disregarded in deciding the result. As far as neutral votes swaying other voters, this relates to the discussion we had above regarding the FPC page's suggestion that voters monitor nominations and update their votes. That's a different discussion (that we probably need to have), so I'll leave it alone for now. As for the fairness issue, there are two hidden assumptions there, namely that a neutral vote is a non-vote and that being neutral does not alter the support percentage. I'm not so sure a neutral vote is a non-vote since the voter could just have easily called his vote "comment" instead. I agree, though, that calling it a de facto oppose is going too far. This leads into the second part. Should neutral factor into calculating support percentage? Again, it seems to me that it should since "neutral" is a vote and not just a comment. Calling neutral 0 in +1 -2 would eliminate that problem but still renders neutral meaningless. And all of that sidesteps the issue of how the neutral voters argument weighs into a close call nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I'm not sure that's it's really here or there if you count it to quorum, e.g., if a neutral takes it to five votes and the other four are supports, well it now has quorum but still doesn't have its five supports (or have I missed something about this while I've not been around?). In terms of swaying voters, often it won't change existing votes, it's usually more a case of swaying later voters. I think if you want to treat it differently to comments you'd need to be explicit somewhere about terminology - i.e., define when someone should use 'neutral' and when they should use 'comment', otherwise you are likely attributing a vote to someone that they didn't want to make, and it seems that if anything it's going to function as an oppose. Also creates the issue in vote counting of it working differently in percentages and the counts, as you've outlined, so again for that reason I think you have to discount them. When making a close call I'd say all statements are considered, whether called comment, neutral, support, oppose, the original reason, or just part of a general discussion - they're the tough ones. OK, I spose here's my take - I use 'comment' if I just want to say something about the image but will possibly not be voting or haven't come to any real decision; I use 'neutral' if I feel I want to make a vote, usually a support, but there's possibly some fixable niggle that's not necessarily enough to make me oppose, but that I feel I want changed before committing to a support, e.g., a crop, or fixing up a diagram (like with that heart one); if it's fixed to my liking I'll probably change to support, otherwise I'll leave my neutral or perhaps even oppose...so take that as you will, but I'd say I generally wouldn't want you to turn my neutral into an oppose or I would have stated that myself. --jjron (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a requisite number of supports? Is is the same as the requisite quorum? If so, what on earth is the point of the quorum? The idea of a quorum is the required number of voters present. Let's take a hypothetical nom: This nom as four support and nothing else. Clearly the majority supports promotion, but the quorum (five voters) has not been reached, so there is no promotion. Now let's imagine there are four supports and one neutral. This time there are five voters, so the quorum is reached, and there is also supermajority support for promotion. So, the closer could go ahead and promote. I'm quite sure (don't quote me on this) that legislative bodies count all their members, even those who abstain from voting Yea/Nay, towards a quorum. The roll call happens ever before anyone casts a vote. Of course, here in WP:FPC, we have to take our 'roll call' post facto, but I'd consider abstain votes in a legislative assembly as similar to Neutral voters here. It's a little confusing, but I think this is how a 'Neutral' should be differentiated from a 'Comment'. NauticaShades 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Quorum is a confusing term that came into use even though there is no quorum on FPC in the literal sense. All we have per the instructions passed down to us, is a minimum number of supports. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in simple terms quorum is the minimum number of voters, but looking briefly through recent discussions I'm not sure many people understand that. I'm probably responsible for introducing the term when I was closing noms that only had a few voters and I was giving a simple reason for why it failed, even though it say may not have had any opposes. What I was getting at above is that it's really neither here nor there whether a neutral counts to quorum, as a nom needs to garner five supports, not just five voters. It's not good enough to have a majority of supports in that five votes (otherwise 4S, 1O would pass, as would even 3S, 1O, 1N), it needs to get five supports minimum, at which time it will have quorum anyway. Yes, neutral could be considered an abstain vote, another term that is occasionally used. --jjron (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Adding EV vs. spamming

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA red line rerouted, Jjron (talk · contribs) called into question my recent addition of the nominee to several articles and noted that it was consistent with my activities in two other current nominees Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Night‎ and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Demetri McCamey signals a play‎. He mentioned the term DOF, with which I am not familiar, and alluded to spamming. I personally, believe that each nominee belonged in many more pages than it was in. If I were to put any of thes images in an article like Illinois or Cook County, Illinois, that might be spamming, but I think these images improve the content of each of the pages by adding a high quality image that depicts something not already seen in the page. I mentioned that at one time one of the picture review processes use to make some distinction about images being on a page for 30 days to establish true EV, but I see no mention of such a consideration any more.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the articles listed at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA red line rerouted and I found the image placings to be fair. I think the danger exists when a nominator place an image in an article that is already laden with images, or when the nominator removes other images to make way for his own. If we were to promote an image that was placed in this manner, it would constitute editorial decisions, which I believe to be outside of the scope of FPC. However, at least in this first nomination that I analyzed, all the articles benefited from the added images in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 04:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
DOF = Depth of field. NauticaShades 11:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems. (Focus in that image is only on the very front of the train, so DOF is too narrow). --jjron (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
My point is we need to be careful to avoid article spamming (not just TonyTheTiger) and that voters should not confuse number of articles an image is used in for EV, or be misled in this regard. A check through the page shows that images Tony has nominated tend to be in an unusually high number of articles on average (are they perhaps just particularly high EV?), but on a closer examination many of the articles seem to be getting the image just before or during the nomination. We had a similar discussion last year when he was submitting heaps of images to PPR and was having a bit of a tendency to overuse some of them, especially in response to EV questions (see the archives). Jujutacular talks about the train nom for example - could a picture of a train be used in six articles? Sure, it could probably be used in twenty. So the question then is should it be used in so many articles? And that is the gist of what I'm getting at, how widely these images should be getting spread. Re the thirty day limit, that was at VPC where it had to be in one article for at least thirty days, so I'm not sure of its relevance to this discussion. --jjron (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Basically, I have gone through commons FP to find some of the best pictures that have not been nominated for FP here on WP on behalf of WP:CHICAGO (I am director of this project). Since these are FPs on commons they are high quality images and worthy of consideration at some level. For example, the nominee that I have listed that is on the most pages (13) is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/CTA Night‎. This is a fantastic photo that finished 12th in its category of over 100 images in the commons PotY contest. It is probably a higher quality image than every other image in every page it is now in. Even in long articles where I added it somewhere in the midst of the main body, it is still contributing examplary photography of a highly relevant subject. Going forward, I will be running out of commons FPs, but hope to be able to put forth other promising Chicago images. Unlike last year when my personal point and shoot submissions at PPR, I am submitting high quality images this year. I think on a case by case basis you should evaluate EV. However, before I nom a picture, I consider articles where it would add EV and place it in those articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Joint nom of image and crop

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

If I want to nominate both File:Michelle Obama official portrait crop.jpg and File:Michelle Obama official portrait headshot.jpg, should I do it as one joint nomination or two simultaneous separate nominations?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the community is unlikely to make both of them FPs, but others may feel differently. I would open a single nomination. Jujutacular T · C 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Please just pick one. Personally I would prefer File:Michelle Obama official portrait.jpg as I don't really see the advantage of cropping out her fingers below the knuckles, but maybe that's just me. Fletcher (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The one you prefer is not being used anywhere. Each of the others is being used in at least 4 articles on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't check that. I might oppose the crops, but you are free to nominate. I do think it's not good form to nominate multiple versions of the same image, though it's not against the rules AFAIK. It would be more typical to submit one as an alternate version within the nomination for the other. Fletcher (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
What is the meaning of alternate version in this sense?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It means one or the other image would be selected, but not both. You don't want to do this a lot - or add multiple alternates - because it's frowned upon to try and force people to pick one image among many, and it complicates the !voting process. However, it's common for an edited version to be submitted correcting flaws in a nomination, and there's no reason a nominator can't do this if he or she thinks the alternate might be an improvement. Fletcher (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes people even support both- for instance, some people supported both images at this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Not quite: although Mostlyharmless at first supported both, he amended his comment to only support the original. I don't see anyone else supporting both, and only the original got promoted. Fletcher (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As you say, he supported both originally, showing that people can. It was an off-hand example because I knew it happened there; there will probably be better examples. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another crop consideration

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
 
 
  • United States presidential election, 1988
  • United States presidential election, 1984
  • Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1984
  • Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1988

    • For an image like the ones to the right here that are included in many articles in multiple versions, does the fact that another version is also popularly used, affect the candidacy of an image?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    To reiterate jjron's comments above, EV is not about an image's popularity on the encyclopedia. It just needs to significantly illustrate one article. (See the footnote at WP:WIAFP #5). Now it may be that some reviewers would prefer a different version of the image if one is available, but I shouldn't think the use of a different version in the encyclopedia should hurt a nomination's chances, as long as the nominated image contributes significantly to an article. Fletcher (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    Given that footnote, could you comment on my argument at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Municipal Flag of Chicago‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

    How should I think about EV

    Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    I have been trying to think about EV for some upcoming nominations. I am not really sure I understand the meaning of the term. Is something that is essential to a low importance article like the main image more important than a middle of the article image in a high profile article. How much does it matter if the image could be replaced by a large number of similar photos?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

    It's a matter of how the image is used- if it is used in such a way that it adds heavily to the article, no matter the "importance" of the article in question, then it can be considered to have a high EV. For instance, an image used in a taxobox/infobox, providing it is used correctly, can usually be assumed to have EV. For instance, an image of a mushroom species in the mushroom taxobox. Clearly, the mere fact it is the best image we have at the moment does not automatically mean it has sky-high EV- to continue the example, an image of a badly damaged mushroom may well have a lower EV. As for an image further down the article, a good shot of the mushroom's gills could well be an addition to the article that could be considered to have high EV- providing the gills are discussed. There is no "automatic" EV for a picture of the gills, but, if there is sourced discussion of the gills that could benefit from illustration specifically of the gills, then an image of them could be considered to have a high EV. Without that discussion, a random additional image of a part of the mushroom not discussed, purely to illustrate that part, would almost certainly not have EV. Does this help you to understand? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    Sort of, but that does not help me understand an example that could be replaced. For example, at slam dunk you could use any image of any player dunking, but at the infobox image of a person could not be replaced by another person and if that person is dead, it is less replaceable. How does that effect EV?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
    EV does not have to do with the potential for replacement. Potential for replacement is an argument used to weigh technical merit only. When several images have the same EV and are mutually interchangeable, technical merit is used to decide between them. Some contributors will also invoke "wow", which has no official formula, and is generally considered to carry smaller weight. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    PLW is correct. If an image is near irreplaceable, we are often a little more lenient with regards to technical imperfections. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    As I try to get a grasp of the relevance of EV, could you comment on my argument at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Municipal Flag of Chicago‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_29&oldid=1146788088"