Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


One month experiment: no self-nominations

I propose a one month experiment where no self-nominations are allowed. Some have previously suggested this rule, and it could improve our candidates, but I think we should do a trial first. Is anyone interested in this? How about May? --99of9 (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it could be an interesting experiment, although I could be a little concerned about friends nominating friends pictures. Do I understand correctly if the purpose of such an experiment should be to get more diversity in the FPs and get images from more creators - especially, the silent, yet highly qualified non-selfpromotive contributors? --Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Friends nominating a friend's image is fine if they genuinely think it's worthy. I would hope it would be unsolicited. I think it has a few possible benefits: more searching out of the silent ones, less rose-eyed/hopeful inferior nominations, possibly more collaborative investment of effort (e.g. improving an image before submitting), more warm glows when someone else picks out your work... --99of9 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I   Support the idea, especially the thought about helping each other and finding the silent ones. It might be a venue for recruiting more users as well, thus hopefully increasing standards. --Slaunger (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Neutral more of the same for the usual suspects is what we'll get, theres no need to restrict self-noms to get people nominating others images Gnangarra 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Neutral agree with Gnangarra. There is no reason people will suddenly go about and look for previously unknown contributors. They could have been doing this all along. I seldomly see one of my own images nominated by someone else, so I occasionally self nominate if I think an image turned out really good (usually with a fairly high success rate (knocks on wood ;-) )). And where would you start looking in any case? The only option I see is QI (where self-nomination is explicitly wanted). As much as aggressive self-promotion and bulk-nomination annoys me, What is the point of uploading great images if you do it secretly ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Comment Learning where to start looking is one of the things we DO need to learn IMO, since the role of this part of the project is to (find and) feature the best pictures Commons has. I have some ideas about where we might look, but I'm no expert, I think that would be part of the experiment. --99of9 (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  Oppose per Dschwen.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Neutral - As the others. Self-nomination has worked as a powerful stimulus for the previous generation of creators (I included). As with Dschwen, very seldom someone nominated one of my pictures here though I have 60+ FPs. I'm not really sure how things are now, as I do not follow FPC closely. I do not oppose the experiment, only think that the results won't probably be as expected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Question Since you see the outcome as obvious, can you please state your expectations? Are you predicting that there will be hardly any nominations? --99of9 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info -- Yes, that is what I foresee: it will kill the stimulus and strongly affect the number of nominations -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  Oppose Would remove the interest I have with FPC (and to contributing to Commons, up to a certain limit). I think we're killing a fly with a bazooka. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  Question Would you really be disinterested if someone nominated images of yours? --99of9 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
To answer your question, absolutly not, I would even be very glad if it happened (it haven't, yet). But, I think your proposition is highly impractical. For example, if I have an absolutly amazing image uploaded on commons, according to this new rule, I will have 2 possibilities : 1. Do some lobying for someone else to nominate my image, which becomes some sort of indirect self nomination and makes your rule almost useless or 2. Hope that some FPC active user will see my file which is a 1 chance in 6,237,659 as of now. If I do get nominated, lucky me! But if I don't which is likely to happen doesn't it goes against the goal of FP, which is to identify the best pictures of Commons? That's why I think that Mbz1's proposition goes in a better direction as for how to improve the quality of the nominations. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  Support kallerna 13:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  Neutral or   Oppose. Restricting self nomination will only increase abuse of relationship. eg: Someone nominates your images and you nominates his images. I believe that the problem cannot be easily solved. Usually people want their images to be nominated, not because they are good images, but because they are their images, of course, only "good images" should pass the nomination, but still it introduces a bias in the fact that you will find labeled images by a restricted list of author: those who proposed the images. The problem is that we cannot select images without relying on the ego of the photographer/proposant. Honestly, I'd prefer having images that enters or not enters in a fixed list of defect (blurry / jpeg_artifacts / bad_colors etc.), that can be used on the long run rather that having a nomination process focused on supposedly extracting the 'best images'. Esby (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  Oppose per Dschwen too. Or perhaps an others: a longer voting period coupled with minimum 10 each support votings. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  Oppose hmmm, no.   • Richard • [®] • 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  Oppose First, I must admit that I support the overall idea behind this proposition. I concur with the original intent and, for now, I myself have only nominated pictures of others here. Apart from the fact that my photos are not as good as the average nominees here, this is mainly because I'm doing a lot of maintenance, like categorization, and I sometimes come across astonishing images. However, not everyone likes maintenance work and I don't want the no-self-nomination rule to be enforced for all the reasons that have been given above.
As a side note: I have always wondered why self-nominators were allowed to vote for their own pictures. I guess this has been hotly discussed many times in the past but I'm still wondering. Preventing a self-nominator to vote for their picture could be a slight incentive to nominate pictures of others. That said, to be fair, and to avoid any clique-effect, we might then have to go further and forbid anyone to vote for their own picture. — Xavier, 22:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. If this was implimented, or if uploader votes were disregarded for self-noms, but not others, you'd just end up with people messaging each other asking them to nominate on their behalf. Hell, it'd arguably be a WORSE situation, because it'd effectively result in canvassing for a vote - since the nominator pretty much always supports. It's just not workable.   Oppose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Monitor Calibrator available to be shipped to you on request

User Marcela has made a colorimetric monitor calibration device (eye-one display 2 by X-Rite) available to all interested parties. The device has so far been used to calibrate screens of Wikimedia users in Germany in the Nürnberg/Fürth region, and will travel via Helsinki to Stockholm and the international Photo-Workshop in Nyköping. After that it will travel to Senegal, Africa. Its further route is yet to be determined. If you are interested in calibrating your screen you may request the device to be sent to you. Software for Windows computers is packaged with the calibration device. Linux computers can be calibrated using Argyll CMS (see write-up here [1]) --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. It could be useful for getting restoration colours spot on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds wonderful, thank you. How do we follow up on this generous offer? Durova (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Please direct requests to Marcela. He will figure out a schedule. I'll monitor his talk page and try to help translating the discussion there. --Dschwen (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict self nomination to one image per week

  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support. I think anybody who nominates more than 52 images a year must be a pretty self-absorbed person in any case... --Dschwen (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Es ist alles nur eine Frage der Relation   • Richard • [®] • 16:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Better proposition. Maybe the frequency could be higher a bit, since I usually do mass uploads every 4-6 months, which mean I am more inclined at nominating more images in a short time frame. Since the goal is to avoid ridiculous mass nominations like right now with ComputerHotline, I think even just 1 nomination per day would reach the desired goal --S23678 (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I support the general idea. I think S23678 is right though that a maximum of one per day would be sufficient to remove many of the annoying mass nominations we have today. Also, with only one per week I would be concerned how it would impact some of the most highly skilled users, who can have periods where they manage to promote several images per week. I think that if the period should be as long as for a week, it should somehow be allowed nominate more pictures as long as what you nominate is actually being promoted. I think that would be too complicated to manage though, so I would prefer the softer max one per day nomination as an easier-to-remember rule. --Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, you can always average. If someone complains about 5 Nominations in one week you can point out your last Nomination was two months ago. Do we need to spell this all out in Wiki-legalize? No faith in common sense left ;-) ? --Dschwen (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support But might I say that this is trying to solve a whole different problem to the one that my suggested experiment was aiming at. I was not targeting anyone in particular, but instead the current insular culture. --99of9 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why stifle our success? Surely commons wants as many (criteria meeting) featured pictures as possible. There is not a good reason to place an upper bound on the maximum number of featured pictures per person per year. I don't come close to 52 nominations per year, but I could easily if I started submitting plants, fungi, birds, minerals, mammals and everything else as well as landscapes. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Apples and oranges. Nobody is suggesting to limit uploads. --Dschwen (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Deffo --  • Richard • [®] • 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - We don't need the extra bureaucracy; who will enforce the rule? Also, per Noodle snacks: many users, like myself, nominate in clusters. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That is not really per Noodle snacks, rather per Slaunger.. --Dschwen (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I very often submit multiple nominations at a single time. I don't have all the time in the world to span them out over multiple periods just because one or two users is causing a problem. I'd rather vote to censor one user rather than everyone. -- Ram-Man 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am with Noodle. Also, why do we want to alter a system that works? --Muhammad (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no reason for such a change --Simonizer (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too infrequent for anyone who's in a productive patch, would cause far more problems than the one it solves. All this would do is form little cliques where they post around on each others talk pages or message each other offline to get their images nominated, and cause frustration for anyone not in these cliques. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • You and Muhammad and Ram-man seem to take this proposal very literally. I suggested above to put common sense before wikilegalize and allow broad averaging. That way it would not matter if you upload in patches rather than equally distributed. And as i said above, I know not a single contributor that has a yield that would exceed the limits in this proposal. It only cuts off people that must be severely overestimating their talents... --Dschwen (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I had about 27 successful nominations last year, counting the two large sets as one each (if you count number of promoted images, the number's 43, though you'll have to decide which is relevant). I don't know how many unsuccessful nominations I had, though I do tend to have a fairly high success rate. However, I also left Wikipedia completely in October (I have only recently come back), and my scanner broke in June. It wouldn't surprise me if I had exceeded this proposal for months on end during my most productive period. I have access to a lot of libraries, and books with high quality engravings are surprisingly cheap in used book stores - I have a Dickens volume, which almost everything in would likely be highly useful, which I only paid about five quid for. If you're good at preparation. Now, I don't doubt there are people causing problems, but I don't see this as a good solution. When I've just finished a twenty-hour preparation project, I want to nominate NOW, not wait out a clock.
All that said, one a day is, I think, the de facto rule; presuming this won't cause problems for sets,[*] I can support a one-a-day limit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

[*] FOOTNOTE TO ABOVE: Sets are things like Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set_Candidate_-_Henry_Holiday's_Illustrations_to_Lewis_Carroll's_"The_Hunting_of_the_Snark". Noone wants to see one image from the same novel, by the same artist, nominated once a day for over a week, and, if anyone was foolish enough to try, half of them would fail because the voters got bored. However, I think we can all agree that having all the first-edition's illustrations for a major work of children's literature is much better than having only some, especially for Wikisources, and we don't want to provide perverse incentives towards variety when completeness is better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

  Comment Obviously a set nomination counts as one. --99of9 (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Best to be explicit, though. If we do put in a one-a-day rule, knowing the issue, and incorporating it into the rule saves a lot of headaches later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Counterproductive. Durova (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpg

I realise it's Easter, but no comments? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia was down for several hours yesterday. Should we:

  1. Ignore this, and close the FPCs/delisting candidates [does anyone check these?] as normal.
  2. Allow one day extra, only if nearly passing.
  3. Allow one day extra, only if quorum is not reached, but image would otherwise pass.
  4. Allow one day extra for all images.
  5. Ignore the outage, but allow nominators of images who are nearly passing/not quite at a quorum to request more reviews on this talk page, just for now.

I'm inclined towards #1, or maybe #5, but think we ought to discuss it a little. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ignore - not material in the context of the time an FP is up for voting. --Herby talk thyme 07:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
#2 suites to me --alpinus5 (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Think it's too late now: All the images affected by this have already been closed. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong nominations

I tried to nominate File:Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus -Hyacinth Macaw -side of head.jpg, but I accidentally nominated this one. Can someone help me? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Just nominate the correct one, an admin will come by an delete that nom page. ZooFari 21:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  Done I deleted the nomination page. --MGA73 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Delist and replace

I will appreciate it if a human closer looks at this and does the needful --Muhammad (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcano sunsets

After all the great snow pictures in your recent winter, I'm now expecting some great volcano sunsets from all you Europeans. After all, if you can't fly a plane, you might as well be taking photographs. --99of9 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Well, from where I was (mainland jutland, Denmark), there was absolutely nothing to see. The cloud passed over while it was overcast (or was that the coud, I could not see any difference?) If it had not been in the news, I would never have known it was there. It was also overcast at the time of sunset. Dissapointing, really. --Slaunger (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by Lawboy25 - advice required

User Lawboy has started harassing my nominations in FPC, QIC and VIC after his/her photos taken in North Korea were opposed by me. I tried to explain to him/her that such opposes were not personal and that he should practise more and learn from these forums, but the message was erased. Now, things are becoming annoying because most edits made by this user in the last two days are systematic attacks against my photos/nominations. Before making a formal request for blocking, I'm asking for advice of the community (yes, I'm aware that Lawboy25 is most probably a socketpuppet of someone else due to his knowledge of the nomination processes). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to Lawboy – and I can't speculate upon his motives or intentions – all his FPC votes, both in support and opposition of the image at hand, seem to provide valid rationales. Also, on at least a few of the FPC candidates he opposed, others raised similar concerns. Now, it is true that he seems to have learned the ropes rather quickly, but overall I don't think any action, administrative or otherwise, is necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, this seems to be a pretty clear example of harassment. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Step by step, this user's behaviour is now evolving to personal insult. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (2) edit.jpg

While reviewing my uploads over the past year, I came across this failed FPC nom. Subjectively, it seems as if there would've been consensus to feature the edited version, but it was apparently closed as failed due to a) insufficient votes in general, and b) ambiguity about which version people supported. (Specifically, the original image was at 3 support, 1 oppose when I uploaded a retouched version to address the opposer's concerns. After that, the opposer and one other user indicated support for the edited version, but no further votes were cast.)

Please note that I'm not arguing about the closure, which I think was indeed correct under a reasonable reading of the FPC rules. However, I'm wondering what I should do with the image — just renominate and see what happens? What's the recommended procedure for renominating an image, anyway? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a pitty

that after so much work done to prepare galleries for POTY 2009, it is probably not going to happen.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is better this way. It is a controversial vanity project anyway. Don Quichote de La Mancha (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I thought the first round was to start any time now. What happened? --Muhammad (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Our fault. If we wanted the thing to happen we should have organized the event ourselves or, at least, have been involved with the organization. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is our fault. Maybe it is not too late yet?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say we have all year, so not too late by me. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

POTD reworking.

Hi! You may have seen the site notice about the MotD revamp. It was agreed that it'd be necessary to keep translation on one page.

I've just finished the rough mock-up of how that would look. This isn't finished: I need to clean up the MotD display, and add in the code that'll hide MotD when the dates are in the past. I also need to try to get a few more efficiency savings - PotD is one of the most complex bits of coding in use on Commons, and it's actually been pretty near breaking down for a while, due to inefficient coding. I've tightened up some bits, but I do need to stress-test this before it can be considered done.

However, have a look at Template:New_Potd/2010-05. Is this a format you'd be happy to work with when putting in FPs and providing caption translations?

Also, note that there's no reason we couldn't have PotD-only and MotD-only pages in addition to this. But translators shouldn't have to jump around pages, so this would be the "main" one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, to give you some idea of why I talk about efficiency savings: have a look at - note that #ifexist is meant to be an expensive parser function, to be used in a highly sparing manner. And is limited as to number of usages. I suspect that little template alone may well be shoving up against that limit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

link in sitenotice (top of page)

The link in the site notice bar (on top of each page) links to #Careless reviews: Proposals. But there is no easy to understand description about what's going on and what to do. Such a thing is needed if you put a link in the site notice - not everybody has followed this discussion here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  •   Support this methodological idea.--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Haha, you're very funny Jebulon. I have no idea if you were even trying to be funny! Anyway, I've added a little intro box at the link destination. --99of9 (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for adding. Although this is not enough in my opinion - that's a waste of time if every commons user has to take half an hour of reading just to cast a vote. There should be an introduction and summary of discussion in a length that the user is not required to go through a long discussion. Well, no vote from me. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Automated FPC analysis

Hi, as I have indicated above, I'm currently working on datamining our pool of past FPC nominations. This should provide interesting insights. I'm trying to automate the votecounting as much as possible. Currently 75% of my automatically counted results match the manually counted summary lines (if detected), 9% show a discrepancy (where in some cases the error turned out to be in the manual count), for the remaining 16% I have not yet added patterns to detect the manual summary (or it simply does not exist). Nominations showing discrepancies can also be nominations with alternatives which are not always counted in a consistent way. There is no point in making the code 100% accurate, so at one point I might me asking for help with a manual review. I'll put up a webinterface for this. Stay tuned. --Dschwen (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Engravings and Lithographs

FPC is how the community states what it finds important, and by which it restricts access to PotD, and the attendant translation services and exposure, which tends to get the image put into quite a number of Wikipedias.

I've nominated two in the last two days, on vastly different subjects and in vastly different styles. One got a single, nonsensical oppose, and no other votes, the other has gone 24 hours without even a single vote.

This isn't about me wanting praise. This is about me wanting to make sure that public domain works get out there where people can use them, which having them in obscure corners of the commons doesn't help with. If FPC wasn't connected to the necessary exposure which allows images to be sent out to be used, I wouldn't bother with it. But I do all the work for Commons I do out of a desire to send Public Domain works, which are hidden to most people out of lack of access, out into the world. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

From personal experience I know that putting images into fitting articles on en.wp disseminates them automatically to other Wikipedias sooner or later. Sometimes I explicitly add them to the german or french articles (languages I can somewhat understand). Not getting feedback on your work sucks, but as you said it, the community states what it finds important. Can we influence that? How? --Dschwen (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all I think that you do a very important work for commons and the wikipedias. First of all it is important that people know what your work actually consists of, so that they know what they are actually voting for. When you vote for a photo you can rate the composition, the technical realisation and sometimes maybe also a message or an emotion a photo has. With scans and restoration it is a bit more difficult because you can't really vote according to those criterias. I am sure it is also not easy to actually make a scan which actually looks like the original - so there is the technical realisation. But how can we judge if you have done it well or not? I think a main point should be comparing originals with the restoration. Some time ago I wrote somewhere that we should set up some rules of how to judge restorations. I think this would help a lot because then people would know how they can actually judge your work. What do you think? --AngMoKio (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to do it, but it might be wise if I do it in concert with someone who doesn't know restorations, so I know what to explain. Would you be willing? I suppose one issue is that, with a restoration, there is a certain amount that has to be taken on trust, since - for example - the Psalm 23 image I uploaded is a variant of the Baxter process. I doubt that many people are going to go "Oh, of course, the Baxter process! That explains everything!" - so I have to ask you to trust that I'm getting it right. That's not quite so often true with photographs, so I suppose one part of it would have to be to encourage voters to ask the restorer to explain any aspect of their work they do not understand.
I would have thought that if you use a named restoration process, it would help to put the name on the image summary (even if I wouldn't understand what you meant). --99of9 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that's the lithographic technique which Kronheim, who is probably the Psalm image's creator, uses. I'm waiting on the final confirmation this sis Kronheim (there's a small chance it's Evans.) There are no named restoration processes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
However, that might mean that restorations will need a few extra days, or a "preview" period for questions. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) "One got a single, nonsensical oppose, and no other votes, the other has gone 24 hours without even a single vote" - does it maybe just show that in the photographic age, many/most people consider such items to be of little importance? Also I object to my oppose vote on the one being termed 'nonsensical'; however good the quality of the reproduction, I still find the picture and its subject to be too uninteresting to consider it worthy of featuring. Another separate point is that, just as I suspect many failed to vote on the recent series of bullfight photos out of principle on the distasteful subject matter, I suspect some at least may also find religious content a topic they would not wish to vote on. - MPF (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

An opinion: First I think that AC's work is very important, only because through his work, I have in a few months discovered a lot of things i'll never know without him. I'm happy to improve here my cultural level. But Dear Adam, you are a specialist, and every specialists have the same behavior : I've seen that they allways are amazed how it's difficult to share a passion ! They work very hard, by using difficult technics, are very careful of details, and after days and nights, shows at least theyre masterpieces like the Holy Graal. And the comment is "Lack of Wow", and its an injustice. But life is unjust, you know ?
I think that not every restoration work is a FP, but I think that Alves rule N°2 is relevant here : if you are not interessed by the subject, or the technical work, don't vote.
I have ethical questions about restorations in general, and I think that a work art must be shown here in its original state too(in the file description page only, maybe), both with his restored state. Then it could be easier for the reviewer to have an idea (as said above by AngMoKio.
Furthermore, IMO, a scan of an old 2 dimensions artwork maybe a FP because of his subject (historical, rare, special and so on...) and/or because the treatment (processing) of this subject : quality of the "original" image (searching good and publishable images is a hard work), quality of the restoration. But it's harder for the reviewer too, and not so easy than for photographs. It needs a particular attention and good will, and more neutrality maybe.
Remember that "FPC" means "featured PICTURES candidates", and not only "featured PHOTOGRAPHS candidates". I think that Adam is right, when he "explains", in his nominations, how and why his picture can/must be featured. Let's have an open ad free spirit, that's what I ever try to do, and it's refreshing !
I don't know if this opinion is really useful for the global reflexion, but that's what I think, and please note that it is very hard to write such things in a foreign language ! So be lenient, thank you.
I said.--Jebulon (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Personality rights

As an example this photograph has a personality rights warning to indicate that an end user may not be free to use the image. I think that such restrictions on image re-use should be cause for concern within FP. As FP is the show case forumn of the Commons Collection all images should be free from encumbrances that place the burden on the end user. Gnangarra 01:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The same thought would apply to nearly every picture with and identifiable person and even Art that is part of some images (de-minimis) may cause problems for reusage. This is not part of the license and should be ok. --Niabot (talk) 02:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FPCbot error

At this FPC nomination, the FPCbot closed it early per the rule of the fifth day as having no support apart from the nominator. In reality, the nominator was neutral and it had one separate support vote. Not sure how this would be fixed but I thought I would mention it here. Jujutacular T · C 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Another nomination closed for reviewed by the FPCbot today with the same error: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quba 452.jpg. Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the FPC community asleep or just quit?

  • I’m about to remove FPC from my watch list. My attempts to raise the standards and bring back our best creators failed. I miss Richard, Malène Thyssen, Luc Viatour, Simon Koopman, Michael Maggs, Benh and all the others that made this forum such a funny and inspiring place, with their works and opinions. I also feel deeply disappointed with the outcome of our long discussion above. Clearly the mountain gave birth to a mouse, as the strong opinion of a single user managed to prevail over the decision of an overwhelming majority. The fact that no one dared to challenge his actions only shows how fragile and indifferent our community is. The same symptom is apparent in the important discussion about pornographic content where no FPC regular, but me, has cared to participate. Maybe it is time for the old dinosaurs to quit and give the floor to others. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I had to make a break in my sleep to revert the last actions of Adam Cuerden as they are against the consensus of the community, clearly expressed in the last discussion. Enough is enough and being soft with these trolling actions only serve to encourage them further. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
You don't get to choose which votes you accept and don't. This is a test period. You had months to get consensus to reject the idea of a test period and failed. Against the consensus of the majority? What, so the test period proposal had more supports than opposes, but majortiy - as defined by you, high and mighty arbiter of the process, says that we'll ignore it, and that saying that a proposal that was supported was supported is nonsense, cause for reversion, and worth complaints? I'm going to ask that you be blocked, or at least banned from such edits.
Long story short: There was consensus to try out the ideas. BBut those of us who thought that there were likely problems with the proposals sought and gained consensus to mitigate them by time-limiting. You have made it VERY clear that you intend to edit war to enforce only such votes you approve of the result of, and, indeed, are hijacking complaints about users being driven off FPC by... attacking one of the people you personally have driven off FPC. . Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please calm down. Pushing the word "test" in the banner is only confusing. I don't think anybody is opposing to re-evaluate how the rules work after a reasonable amount of time. --Elekhh (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Elekhh. --Cayambe (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree as well. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree too. Lycaon (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree   • Richard • [®] • 08:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a bit disingenuous to close a 3:2 vote (with one other "it's too early to vote on this") and call it "consensus". Everywhere else this would be called undecided. If those reverting are also counted in the weight of opinion, it is clear that a test period is in fact in the minority. However, I am with Elekhh - you are welcome to bring evidence on August 1 if you feel it is failing, but there's no point making a song and dance about it in the instructions now. --99of9 (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
People had months to vote. That they didnt' vote meant they were happy with how the poll went. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If you really believe that, can you explain why so many people are reverting you? --99of9 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • its more the clash of two strong personalities thats the concern, as for the changes I think people are waiting to see where it goes, what the real impact is. As for people already lost from FP they are unlikely to return while there is an open dispute about the changes. The differences a test period permits changes to be reversed quickly(closings reviewed then restored/promoted/removed) if they only further contribute to the problems where as a re-evaluation after some undefined time period only leaves the disagreements festering in the background unresolved. If people really want to make FP a better place and extinguish the dispute then jumping on the "agree as well" band wagon isnt the way to go. Since apparently almost everybody(suspect some opponents have just left/shut up rather than be subject to the AC treatment) is so confident that changes have been a productive positive outcome then what is the problem with having a planned review of the outcome of the nominations from the first month. Gnangarra 10:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess I'm missing something, did you ever announced in FPC front page and in Village Pump that there is a discussion and vote to change the policy?!   ■ MMXX  talk  10:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was announced on Village Pump, and even in a banner at the top of every page. Sorry you missed it. --99of9 (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I missed those announcements... I just noticed them when the edit wars started!   ■ MMXX  talk  11:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Snowball fail?

In the discussion of "pornography" above some people discussed various mechanisms of restricting or hiding submissions, which I think is a huge mistake. The FPC process is a very rare case in which censorship is allowed, even encouraged - for example, censorship of poorly composed images - but I think that this should always be left to the individual voter. This is for the same reason that you don't have a guideline, say, that a photo of a new planet or asteroid must always pass - because written policies don't have a sense of aesthetics.

But some have protested the leaving up pornographic images for 10 days here is just too troubling. I think that there are many types of images that might be troubling to keep up, and that rather than trying to draw ideological lines, we should instead leave it to the democratic process already in place. This leads me to suggest a "Snowball fail" option (named after Wikipedia's "Snowball Keep" or "Snowball Delete" for article deletion, based on the phrase, "it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell..."

I think that a fair standard might be the direct opposite of the standard to accept an image: at least 7 Oppose votes, with the ratio of Oppose to Support being at least 2:1. Also, the Snowball Fail must be acted on while this is the case - no looking back and failing something based on the History if it has since gathered more Support votes. For example, this standard would not affect any of the currently proposed photos, but the photo of the brick wall avoids it only by a single Support vote. (Which doesn't seem all that fair, as such a brick wall with its uneven bricks and rows looks very strange to American eyes, but this is a tough crowd) But I'm a stranger to this process - I don't feel qualified to rate expert photography - I'm just curious whether this idea might allow people here a fair way to express their opinions without setting a disturbing precedent. Wnt (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the "censorship" being discussed. Normally censorship on Wikimedia projects refers to the end product: Articles on en, images on Commons: these are things that matter to readers and re-users of our content, and shouldn't be censored.
However, FPC is an internal process, it is not for the outside world. Hiding images which (a portion of) FPC reviewers find disturbing and would prefer not to see is nothing to do with legal restrictions (such as the swastika in Germany) but personal taste of contributors. If there are images on FPC they don't want to see, they may not contribute and so we would lose their input and possibly their images too. Bear in mind FPC does not "censor" poorly composed images, it decides that they aren't good enough to be promoted. How FPC is run is about maximising input from Commons users, not following rules like "Commons is not censored", but every type of image should be eligible as FPs should not be so restricted. If there is a technical measure we can provide which allows users to participate without having to see "shocking" images, unless they choose to do so there is no harm and a definite benefit.
That said, a snowball rule beyond what {{FPX}} provides may be useful (but snowball actions shouldn't be too formalised as that grey area is advantageous to keep).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If we allow users to "shout down" images, I think that there is no benefit to hiding images by any other criterion. And there is considerable harm in establishing criteria where individual groups will then feel the need to compete for bans on their particular behalf as a matter of pride (anti-Semitic content, violent content, content promoting drug use, content offensive to Islam etc.). You'd end up adding more and more and more things, and the moment you say "no", some group stalks off furious that you don't consider them to have human feelings worth protecting like everyone else. Wnt (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The technical measures being talked about are not bans, and all images would be eligible and assessed on their merits (hopefully not just   Oppose I dont like porn). Encouraging the use of snowballing for images will actually reduce the chance of sexual images (or anti-Semitic or whatever) of ever getting reviewed properly. I would like to see FP-quality images, whatever it depicts, becoming an FP on its merits.
The javascript-type hack I suggested is simply a slicker method to that adopted for Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#File:Futanari.png (as it allows viewing on the same page whilst still hiding by default), the nomination is not hidden, but you know its a potentially shocking image before you choose to view it, which is in the same spirit as COM:SEX#Categorization: You wouldn't expect to find porn on FPC so why should it be forced upon you? My feeling is if any editor thinks an image is offensive, they should be allowed to hide the nomination using the proposed template and provide a rationale for doing so, and should not be reverted unless there is a very good reason (so any slippery slope argument isn't strictly relevant).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't get the point of featuring content if we're ashamed to show it to people. The FPC process should have a generally wider variety of images displayed in it than the final FP winners. Hiding an image during the proposal would seem almost to rig the vote in its favor, if only people favoring the image actually opened it to rate it; but of course those opposing it will also open it to shout it down ... so what's the point? Let's just show every candidate until it wins or loses, and accept that people might discriminate against sexual images in their voting just as they might discriminate against a high-quality shot of a recently used toilet. Just have a fair vote, no special rules, be done with it. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The idea of hiding images on the FPC page has nothing to do with whether it passes or fails. It's giving those that don't want to see it the option of not seeing it, most likely based on their current location (in front of their kids, etc). Jujutacular T · C 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hiding of certain images is a practise that is common on most photosite, the reason is content that is not suitable for viewing in a work place. As many editors do logon from work they would be unable to participate in FP discussions if the option isnt there, Gnangarra 01:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Two noms only

Were did this rule come out of? The new rule on voting for FPC (must have seven supports and a 2:1 ratio) is fine by me, but the rule about two active noms only gives no advantage IMO. It is an extreme annoyance for people like ComputerHotline and I, who nominate lots of things at once. Was there any discussion for this, or did it just pop out of a hole? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar pushed it through, closing down the poll just as more sensible options were proposed. See the most recent archive, and my comments above. I'm boycotting FPC for so long as the rule remains. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Extreme annoyance". Hahaha ! As for my part (returned reviewer) I feel relieved.   • Richard • [®] • 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is it so relieving? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Because it prevents me (at least a little bit) for seeing all that tons of crap which let's me sometimes loose my whole interest for this (in the early days) nice thing here   • Richard • [®] • 22:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The idea is that you should not nominate lots of things at once. You should make your choice very very carefully, to ensure that you only nominate the very best. This will hopefully raise the hit rates and overall standard, and give the reviewers more time to really study the nominations by only considering the best. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a reviewer as well as a nominator, and it's not that bad when people nominate twenty junky photos as once. All you have to do is add {{FPX}} to each one. It takes about thirty seconds if it's really obviously going to fail. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, FPX ones are pretty easy. It's the in-between ones that end up with a vote of say 5 for and 6 against that have used 11 people's time for no useful result. Once again, the idea is for the nominator to do more of the hard work of figuring out which one from a bunch is actually fantastic, and nominating that one. They may still be wrong once in a while, but at least they are forced to use more discernment. --99of9 (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If you'll permit me to get a little bit personal, this is an example of a nomination where the nominator could have saved time for people by doing a little better homework. --99of9 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the number should be raised a little. Maybe to five? Also, can you nominate two delisting candidates and two featured candidates? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anybody mentioned delisting candidates, and they're certainly not getting spammed, so I think you can safely treat them as seperate. --99of9 (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @The High Fin Sperm Whale: there was a long discussion on this issue, now archived here, and the present solution was supported by a majority of 15 users (against 4). Thus it is not 'me', 99of9 or any other user who is going to change the rules against the consensus. FPC is not a competition for getting more featured pictures and both a careful choice of the nominations and a careful review will pay in terms of the overall quality of our gallery. On the other hand, a careful review (either associated with a support or a oppse vote) can be of much educational value both for the nominator and the other reviewers. Some of our creators are highly talented photographers in variour fields, while others are giving their first steps in digital photography. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I still think that two noms is two few. I do support some limit though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
and the limit Fin is suggesting(5) was the developing compromise that had its discussion cut short which was the cause of much of the dispute that has since followed .... had proper discussion occured we wouldnt still be here. Gnangarra 02:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - FPC waiting list

"FPC waiting list" -Example-

I like this new idea that limit the active nominations per user to two. it prevents the FPC spamming and will help users to review candidates more carefully.

But it have few problems - the candidates may promoted/declined after 9 days (or '5 days' depending on votes), it's a long time! for example a user have two active nominations and they have found another image which could be a good candidate... but they can't nominate it because of this rule, and they even may forget it after 9 days! and the image (file) will lose the chance to be seen and promoted.

That's why I suggest we should make a 'FPC waiting list' - Any user who had find a good candidate but they can't nominate it because of new guidelines can add it's link to the 'FPC waiting list', then other users can nominate the image if they think it's worth the nomination.   ■ MMXX  talk  10:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You could do it like this user. Just place them on your user page.   • Richard • [®] • 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I know, many user have made personal FPC galleries, but they are not accessible by public. we can transclude 'FPC waiting list' into FPC main page and hide it with {{Collapse top}} template. I've added an example on top of my proposal.   ■ MMXX  talk  16:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's an useful idea although I see it more as a part of "photography critiques" which has fallen asleep a bit. Maybe it could be a fresh impulse to make this section more interesting. That's just my five cent but keep on. For a successful proposal we need a well thought out statement of the whole schmear (administration, duration, preview design a.s.o).   • Richard • [®] • 21:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It crosses my mind that we had a discussion about pre-requirements/selection a longer time ago. Your sketched idea with the comments ("I think it could be a good candidate.") on the collapsing box capture this a little bit. Maybe it's a vital spark for another or maybe better strategy to prevent spam ?   • Richard • [®] • 22:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
"Prevent spam"?! I don't want to make the requirements any harder and the process more complicated! the 'FPC waiting list' should merely be used by users who have exceed the two nominations limit, however it could also be useful for users who are not familiar with nomination process.   ■ MMXX  talk  22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 9".