This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
VPC always appreciates your comments! Please don't forget us! :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Don't know whether this is the right place to post this.... Download size options on featured pictures seem to be either small (the size it appears on the page) or whoppingly large (17MB on today's FP). It would be useful if one could choose from a range of download sizes after right-clicking. ciao Rotational ( talk) 07:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
With the required 4 supports and 2/3 majority support, shouldn't Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Asilidae Stichopogon sp. have been promoted? -- Muhammad (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Outcome seems to be correct for the time being. It has enough legs maybe for a renom here or at VP once the WB issues are sorted. P.S. VP needs your attention Wadester. MER-C 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious to why steroidogenesis ( Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Steroidogenesis) is now found in "nominations older than 7 days", when there are 4 support for the .svg-version (excluding the nominator) and 0 oppose. Do we need something more? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The FPC urgents template is getting rather full - it might be a good idea if everyone went through it and helped to clear it out. This has been a pretty slow week for FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Could I have some more votes on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, please? Thanks, Spencer T♦ Nominate! 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing a group presentation on online media and copyright for a class. I chose the topic of photography and images. I was wondering if FPC regulars wouldn't mind indicating which license they prefer and why. The main three would be GFDL, Creative Commons, and Public domain. Any input would be appreciated. I won't quote you, I just want to hear what some of the arguments for each are from people that use them on a regular basis. Thank you in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 06:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be a bit easier to review, now: I've managed to shave 18 megabytes off the file, and uploaded a convenience file (Which is probably still of ample size for any review) for those that don't want to wait. =) I don't have an A3 scanner at home, so I did it at the university, and didn't have access to my usual programs, having to use Photoshop instead, which... well, I'm not going to say it's bad, but it's not at all what I'm used to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "These (delist) nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting."
So since when did this section become a dumping ground for nominations that haven't gotten enough 'votes' in the 7+ days they've already had on the page? -- jjron ( talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's used for images that have sufficient input and clear support, which a closer doesn't want to promote. And kept open until the closer has an excuse to close without promotion. [1] Images which don't have enough input and the closer doesn't want to promote are closed as non-promotes immediately. [2] Fwiw, I have never placed a nomination into that section. Durova Charge! 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough: I will no longer use that section. Though just to be clear, I never made an effort to game the system. I was doing what I thought (maybe naïvely) was more fair, especially when there were not enough !votes. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion. I'm sure you remember last month's problems, where clear support does not imply picture meets WP:FP?. This would be FPC's main weakness. One example: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keplers supernova.jpg - 4 delist and 8 keep, but the replacement picture is significantly upsampled. Upsampled pictures fail WP:FP? #1, #2 and #8.
The determination for nominations with not enough support goes as follows: Less than three supports gets closed immediately, three gets left around for a bit if there are no scuttling opposes and four - length depends on who the four are. If I am not sure about the outcome of a debate, I do roughly the same thing as Wadester before closing as no consensus.
And finally, an example of what can go wrong if standards are too low: our compatriots over at FL have a rather large problem - more than 250 lists don't meet standards. Many lists can be edited to bring them up to scratch, but pictures generally can't. If we had a similar problem, it would mean 250 delist noms and over 200 delistings in a few months. I think much more long term harm would be done to FP if we let standards slip too far. MER-C 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I just closed this with this discussion in mind. It had been waiting for a while. Again, I would have preferred one more vote to sway either way, but I will steer away from that in the future. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the steps for closing FP candidates can be automated in a way that doesn't interfere with the wizard. I propose that DustyBot ( talk · contribs) perform these additional functions:
It would skip any actions that had already been done by another user. The rest of the steps either require or benefit from a human touch. DustyBot would run this task every 10 minutes, but leave recent closures alone for at least 15 minutes to give other editors a chance to process them manually. Comments? Wronkiew ( talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't do the above with string manipulations in a comprehensible manner - I suggest you start simple and add formatting manually. What happens in the wizard is I put in an unformatted short caption (e.g. "Daguerrotype of Cornelius Vanderbilt"). The wizard spits out the form I paste into the FP galleries. I add the author/edit attribution and the formatting myself. Here is exactly what the wizard does.
Some source code |
---|
// UNDERSTANDING THIS CODE: closedNoms is a two dimensional array of the form:
// Debate name | Image promoted | Creator (null if not Wikipedian) | Short caption
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
// Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example | File:718smiley.svg | East718 | Awesome smiley face
//
// The index i corresponds to rows, j to columns.
// textarea is UI related, format is a DateFormat, blurb is an advertising string
// String nominator = enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNoms[i][0]);
//
// This code is licensed under GPL v3.
// For each of the promoted pictures...
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// ... notify the creator... (TESTED)
String nominator = enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNomsi][0);
textarea.append("Notifying creator/nominator of [[" + closedNomsi][1 + "]]... ");
if (closedNomsi][2 != null)
enWiki.newSection("User talk:" + closedNomsi][2, "[[" + closedNomsi][0 + "]]", "{{subst:uploadedFP|" + closedNomsi][1 + "}}", false);
// ... and the nominator (but only if they weren't the creator)...
if (!nominator.equals(closedNomsi][2))
enWiki.newSection("User talk:" + nominator, "[[" + closedNomsi][0 + "]]", "{{subst:promotedFPC|" + closedNomsi][1 + "}}", false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
//... tag it as featured... (TESTED)
textarea.append("Tagging [[" + closedNomsi][1 + "]] as featured... ");
String description = "";
try
{
description = enWiki.getPageText(closedNomsi][1);
}
catch (FileNotFoundException ex)
{
// Page doesn't exist. Set description to some dummy string.
description = "{{FPC}}";
}
String description2 = description.toUpperCase().toLowerCase();
String trimmedDebateName = closedNomsi][0.substring(38); // enough to lop off the prefix
if (description2.contains("{{fpc"))
{
// replace {{fpc|...}} with {{FeaturedPicture|...}}
int a = description2.indexOf("{{fpc");
int b = description2.indexOf("}}", a) + 2;
enWiki.(closedNomsi][1, description.substring(0, a) + "{{FeaturedPicture|" + trimmedDebateName + "}}\n" + description.substring(b), "Featured" + blurb, false);
}
else
enWiki.(closedNomsi][1, "{{FeaturedPicture|" + trimmedDebateName + "}}\n" + description, "Featured" + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
}
// update [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]] (TESTED)
textarea.append("Updating [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]]... ");
String nfc = enWiki.getPageText("Template:Announcements/New featured content");
int a = nfc.indexOf("<!-- Pictures (15, most recent first) -->\n") + 42;
int b = nfc.indexOf("\n\n", a);
String[] list = nfc.substring(a, b).split("\n");
StringBuilder newNFC = new StringBuilder(nfc.substring(0, a));
for (int i = 0; i < 15; i++)
{
if (i < closedNoms.length)
{
// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]]
newNFC.append("* [[:");
newNFC.append(closedNomsi][1);
newNFC.append("|");
newNFC.append(closedNomsi][3);
newNFC.append("]]");
newNFC.append("\n");
}
// add the rest, barring those on the bottom
else
{
newNFC.append(listi - closedNoms.length);
if (i != 14)
newNFC.append("\n");
}
}
newNFC.append(nfc.substring(b));
enWiki.("Template:Announcements/New featured content", newNFC.toString(), "Rotating new FPs" + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
// update [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]] (TESTED)
textarea.append("Updating [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]]... ");
String goingsOn = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Goings-on");
a = goingsOn.indexOf("'''[[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|Pictures]] that gained featured status'''") + 75;
StringBuilder newGoings = new StringBuilder(goingsOn.substring(0, a));
format.applyPattern("MMMM d"); // reuse old date format
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]] (April 1)
newGoings.append("* [[:");
newGoings.append(closedNomsi][1);
newGoings.append("|");
newGoings.append(closedNomsi][3);
newGoings.append("]] (");
newGoings.append(format.format(new Date()));
newGoings.append(")\n");
}
newGoings.append(goingsOn.substring(a));
enWiki.("Wikipedia:Goings-on", newGoings.toString(), "+" + closedNoms.length + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
// update [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]] (TESTED)
// resolve fpt redirect
textarea.append("Adding pics to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]]... ");
String fpt = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs");
a = fpt.indexOf("[[") + 2;
b = fpt.indexOf("]]");
String galleryName = fpt.substring(a, b);
// perform addition
fpt = enWiki.getPageText(galleryName);
a = fpt.indexOf("<gallery>\n") + 10;
StringBuilder fptNewText = new StringBuilder(fpt.substring(0, a));
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// list format: File:Example.png|Example image
fptNewText.append(closedNomsi][1);
fptNewText.append("|");
fptNewText.append(closedNomsi][3);
fptNewText.append("\n");
}
fptNewText.append(fpt.substring(a));
enWiki.(galleryName, fptNewText.toString(), "+" + closedNoms.length + blurb, false);
|
I'd be very careful about letting anybody use the bot because one typo on the image name would cause a lot of breakage. (I've also inadvertently left out the short caption on a number of images and had to go back to fix them. It'd be nice if whoever closes nominations knows how to fix up errors.) MER-C 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On another, somewhat related note, the section Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! seems redundant per the discussion about closing above. Could DustyBot be charged with moving nominations to that section the moment the nomination has been open for 7 days? If I get here to close and an image has been open for 8 days, it belonged in that section for a day, but there's no point in putting it in that section only to delay closing. What do you think? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not add going to Wikimedia Commons and marking the files with the Commons template saying they're an FP on English wikipedia {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} (or adding an enwiki=1 to an existing assessments template) there to the closing procedure? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion just above, this discussion from about a month ago, and MER-C’s comments in particular in this discussion I feel he raises valid points about quite a bit of the current reviewing.
While I strongly value MER-C’s work here, I must however agree with Diliff when he says in the earlier discussion from March ”...when you go against the consensus then you are treading on dangerous ground.” Others have expressed similar concerns in others ways, for example Noodle Snacks just above, and in a slightly different tone perhaps, Durova. These are hardly FPC noobs.
If it’s relatively close with arguments either way then it’s fair enough to use ‘closer discretion’, even if simple ‘vote counting’ looks like they’re going against consensus. But when an image clearly has a significant consensus of support, for the closer to simply trump that with the closing decision is a bit presumptuous. There may be reasons that people have overlooked or ignored certain flaws – few images are perfect – but by simply overruling clear majorities the closer is making themself a one man jury based on their own preferences. It undermines the whole process of forming consensus.
Let me reiterate that, probably more so than most others, I value MER-C’s work here in being the main closer for (correct me if I’m wrong) the last two years. What I’m really looking for is a method to help protect him, and any other closers, from flak when he (usually quite rightly) feels an image with what appears consensus support doesn’t really meet the mark. MER-C himself says above "I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion...", so I will float another option.
Perhaps a better approach would be to put images the closer doesn’t feel should be promoted in another section before closing. They could use the existing Older nominations requiring additional input from users or the Suspended nominations sections, but I often find they don’t draw much attention, and I think we’ve established above that they really serve a different purpose.
So maybe we need a new section for these anomalous images that regulars would know then required proper careful reviews; call it Nominations requiring more thorough review or Did anyone actually look at this fullsize? or Closer doesn’t think this bucket of slop should be promoted, or whatever. But regulars would know anything in there was in serious doubt and that new input and close review was required.
I suspect that, like me, most people here value some voter’s input more than others – whether support or oppose – and I’d say most closers would as well. Some time back when I first proposed the VP project I raised the concept of approved reviewers. While I’m not quite heading down that path, what I would suggest is that this hypothetical new section would include a by-line that stated that further input from established reviewers only was requested, just to try to keep down unnecessary background noise from elsewhere.
The closer placing it in that section would say why they thought the image shouldn’t be promoted when they put it in there, so that people would know what they’re working with. Give it say an extra three days, by which time some reputable reviewers would hopefully have added some valid input, then the closer that put it in that section would be the one that HAD to close it (per MER-C’s comments in one of the earlier discussions).
If new opinions supported the closer’s thoughts that it had been poorly reviewed and shouldn’t be promoted then they’d have a good case for not promoting, with more weight being placed on the respected later opinions, even if consensus from the original votes or votes overall clearly supported promotion. But if some reputable voters felt the issues raised weren’t significant or were ameliorated for some reason that perhaps the closer hadn’t recognised, then it would suggest the image should be promoted even against the closer’s feelings.
Please discuss... -- jjron ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing has been rather slow for the last couple days. Is there a holiday I'm not aware of? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm really upset at the handling of this. A few days before it was due to close, with 4 and a bit supports, I leave a message on MER-C's talk page offering to do anything necessary to smooth over the promotion. User_talk:MER-C#Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FKronheim.27s_Illustrations_to_Foxe.27s_Book_of_Martyrs
I did not expect it to be left open, with MER-C complaining on his talk page about how difficult sets were, right under my clear link to the nomination, while it gets left open so that it could act as a lightning rod for opposes by people who read MER-C's page.
This also was not the first time a set nom was handled oddly: See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan in the Entr'acte Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I had also nominate these on Commons ( here). Commons is normally much more against lithographs and other historic media, and conservative when it comes to unusual nominations. It seems at least a little odd that en-wiki found it being a set too much of a difficulty to surmount, but Commons came out so firmly for it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I really, really think we should stop insisting on the use of this template. HEre's the code in full:
'''{{{1}}} {{{2}}}'''
That means it takes whatever's put into it, and bolds it. Who on earth thought this was a good idea? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is very important - it's what I (or someone else) add to a debate to close it. MER-C 03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick message to encourage users to vote in the CC-BY-SA migration (you may or may not be aware of what the info bar currently displayed is for) -- Fir0002 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The finalists have been selected! Vote in the
2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).
Quick question: So many excellent restorations of old photographs and other image media come through here and I wonder where they go after (or where they have the potential to go). Many of them come from the Library of Congress. Would it make sense to offer these restorations back to the LOC so they may offer them alongside the original versions? I would expect few people searching the LOC archives to consider coming here to look for a restored version. I'm just wondering. We must have a few hundred great restorations that somebody at the LOC or other group would appreciate having. Just thinking out loud really... ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate more feedback on this, good or ill. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This FP which was removed from the articles had me thinking. Would it be possible to have a bot which would regularly check the FPs archive and see that they be used in the articles? -- Muhammad (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
/**
* extracted from FPMaintenance.java 0.01 05/11/2008
* Copyright (C) 2008 MER-C
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3
* of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
* Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
*/
/**
* Checks FP usage in articles. Requires [[User:MER-C/Wiki.java]].
*/
public class FPArticleCheck
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
ArrayList<String> fps = new ArrayList<String>(4000);
// determine FPT number
String text = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs").substring(47, 49);
int gallery = Integer.parseInt(text);
// fetch the list
for (int i = 1; i <= gallery; i++)
{
String number = i < 10 ? "0" + i : "" + i;
fps.addAll(Arrays.asList(enWiki.getImagesOnPage("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs " + number)));
}
for (int i = 0; i < fps.size(); i++)
{
String temp = fpsi.substring(5);
if (enWiki.imageUsage(temp, Wiki.MAIN_NAMESPACE).length == 0) // not used in any articles
System.out.println("*[[:" + fpsi + "]]");
}
System.exit(0);
}
}
Results:
Just under 3%. Not bad. MER-C 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
When it gets right down to it, a lot of Wikipedians haven't the slightest idea what to do with images and make random(ish) choices when handling them. Durova Charge! 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Would someone step in and close this properly. It is beyond clear that the second and third images should be promoted and the first one shouldn't. I cite Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Wellington Panoramas as evidence that this would be the usual practise. Noodle snacks ( talk) 08:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. MER-C 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a pain, but it's rather disenheartening when an FPC gets no reaction at all for days and days. I'm quite happy to try and fix any problems, or accept criticism, but the silence is rather awkward to deal with. The Childe Harold's Pilgrimage nom had a similar fate. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on: This is ridiculous,. The arrangement is typical of Victorian art, Grant is Victorian, and yet it's being opposed because it uses the Victorian arrangement. How are we supposed to present history honestly when people are saying things like "to the extent that the secondary images are important they should be cropped and individually inserted"? So, we should apply a hacksaw to historical works now? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have two completely unreviewed FPCs. One 16th century one that only one person looked at. And the nonsense about Grant. I think I'm going to take a long break from FPC. I'm tired of having to constantly beg if I'm going to get reviews for subjects I consider important. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...I just recently came back to FPC, after one of my frequent wikibreak, and i read some of the archived discussions. Your message is part of a broader problem which seems to have plagued FPC for some months. I think FPC is a really tricky project, because being a good reviewer requires quite a bit of knowledge. To review a picture, you obviously have to judge the overall picture (composition, angle, blur, "wow factor"...), but also need to :
So even though i could put a "Support" vote, it would mean a lot less than someone who is knowledgeable about theses things. I wouldn't want a picture to be promoted on my (or similar) votes alone. And last month, MER-C complained about pictures with technical flaws being promoted without anyone noticing. Therefore, I refrain from voting in this case. I think we need to promote the project to others wikipedians. We could find people who can assert EV, get more votes, and maybe even some people with technical knowledge. For example, I made this userbox
This user enjoys voting for the best pictures in Wikipedia |
some time ago, only one person picked up beside me. I'm not trying to promote my work (don't care at all about it, since I'm a wikisloth), but it would be a small step. Another idea would be to find wikiprojects related to photography and promote FPC there. If you have others ideas to promote FPC to others wikipedians we could start a campaign to find new reviewers. If we stay civil (instead of acting like bored old-timers), many beginners will stay because there are really wonderful pictures which are a joy to watch. Ksempac ( talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I see there are quite a few new FP regulars, so I thought posting another VP advert would be a good idea.
Zoo
Fari 01:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I am only an occasional participant here at FPC, in the last year or so I have noticed a rapid and large-scale proliferation of older images meticulously restored using digital techniques (some subtle, some less so). The people working hard on these have done a great service in introducing important older images to a wider audience, and if the cleanup is necessary to achieve that wide audience through featured picture status, so be it. But I sometimes wonder if there isn't too much emphasis on a certain, well, polish (one sometimes lacking from the original image). I'd like to call your attention to a slideshow that's currently up at the New York Times website. It shows scanned and inverted images of negatives taken by Robert Capa and others (sadly not in the public domain, so not eligible here). The negatives are shown in full, with perforations, and without any attempt to obscure damage (though they have been physically cleaned, they have not been digitally edited). I think this documentary method — showing the images in the condition in which they have come down to us — has a lot going for it, both educationally and aesthetically. If an image in such a condition were nominated here, would it pass? Should it? I would be interested in your thoughts. Chick Bowen 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoration is a double edged sword while it can achieve great results and yeild unexpected finds aka File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg FP should be able to promote either an historic original or restored image. IMHO FP/WP has been blessed by so many exceptional restorations that its just expected that the historical digital image should be restored for it to be considered. The basic elements of composition, focus, lighting, encyclopeadic value etc are already there thats why these images have been retained by institutions and made avaiable digitally in the first place. These photographs shouldnt be confused with works of art which shouldnt be restored but photographed as a faithful reproduction of the actual painting. Gnan garra 10:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this over at Commons and it looks like a good idea here too. Established nominators already do this, but it should be done automatically.
Demonstrations:
Code to substitute in Template:FPCnom: [[File:{{{image}}}|thumb|{{#switch:{{{format}}}|pano=center{{!}}100000x200px|portrait=right{{!}}250px|landscape=right{{!}}100000x250px|square=right{{!}}300px|#default=right{{!}}250px}}| '''Original''' - Caption]]
What it does is add a parameter to Template:FPCnom and friends: format={pano, portrait, landscape, square}. If format is not specified, default to the old convention. Would appreciate feedback on image sizes (height=200, height=250, width=250, height=width=300 respectively) and whatever. (I note that in the future we can automatically use Template:Wide image, but let's take little steps first). MER-C 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me - I'm way overcommitted with things I myself have purchased, and at the same time, have very little motivation to work on FPs at the moment, as I mentioned above.
However, I found this image - which is pretty much a cleanup of the bled-through text away from a fairly easy FP - had been uploaded with a blurry, bad version in 2006 - I can only presume the LoC has improved matters in the interim.
If someone wanted to restore it, go to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c05555 , click on the thumbnail at the top, and download the tiff. It shouldn't be too difficult, though it will be time consuming.
I'd suggest uploading under a more appropriate name. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
There's been a disturbing trend lately at FPC with historic nominations. Perhaps because I haven't been as active the last couple of weeks I didn't notice this sooner: documentation on restored material is getting woefully inadequate. Many nominators are failing to state whether a historic image has been restored. Among those who do, hardly anyone other than myself links to the original version from the nomination. Most disturbing of all, we are seeing a few restorations at FPC that are wholly undocumented: no upload of the original version, no notes at all about what edits were performed. There's a team of volunteers right now who are negotiating with museums and libraries and archives to gain access to more media. Each time one of these institutions agrees WMF gains access to thousands of images--often tens and hundreds of thousands. If we fail to take documentation seriously we lose out on these deals; we may have lost out on one museum already. It takes one minute to type out what edits have been made and three minutes to upload an unedited version for reference: that makes the difference between putting forward a responsible presentation versus looking--to be blunt about it--like a bunch of jokers. We're working with encyclopedic history, not just pretty pictures. Let's remember that. Durova Charge! 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we get a bit more feedback on the outstanding delist nominations? In particular,
Thanks. MER-C 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the kind people here please take a moment to look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sock production? Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark ( talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I am actually a sockpuppet of Durova. Naturally, I take a keen interest in sock history.
I've done another of these, though I'm rather pessimistic. Would it be alright to put up a polite notice of these FPCs on the relevant Wikiprojects? Because last time I was told that people weren't rerviewing because they felt they didn't know enough about the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Heavens preserve us! We can't have contemporary art of someone in his articles! Won't someone save us from this horror?!
And yes, there's seriously people saying that.
Have we just decided to throw out common sense, the historical method (which encourages use of contemporaneous images) and encyclopedic merit and instead judge all artworks by how much they fit into the status quo of a painting, never mind differing aesthetics for different forms of art, contemporaneousness, or anything else? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
May I again ask that people attempt to consider these: Our coverage of literature is poor, but if I can't even get people to look at them, it's very hard to get motivation to carry on working my way through often difficult restorations. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
FP reviewers like variety. Sometimes that gets frustrating, but it can also become motivation to branch out into new subject matter and media. Durova Charge! 14:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My point was that I wanted literature to appear on the main page, in all its forms, and that FPs make sure that literature does that. Also that you get more of what gets appreciated. I'll also point out that I spend money on acquiring things for Wikipedia: If certain classes of work never pass, or require humiliating begging, I really don't see why I should continue to spend large amounts of money trying to improve coverage, when they'll only sit on (relatively) obscure pages, and never once get a chance to be seen by the wider Wikipedia audience.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} can now automatically ask for an image to be moved to commons once its copyright does expire. The format is {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=YEAR}} where year must be just the year, e.g. 2012, not January 1, 2012.
Please use this for all such images. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There were some technical issues with this and this which have now been fixed. Prompt feedback would be appreciated as they are approaching deadline. -- Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks,
If you're going to de-list and replace an image (such as this) please link to the original nom. I can't find the discussion to nom the image that was ultimately removed.
Thanks
-- 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more reviews: This is one of my favourites, and if I messed something up, I'd like to know what, so I can fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rob Roy: Since when is having a supermajority in favour equal to not promoted?
I could understand leaving it open a day or two more, but insta-close against the majority? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is simple: it is the closer's function to evaluate consensus, not to reshape it. That's the way it is at AfD and every other featured process. Anyone who closes discussions occasionally feels deep in their heart that the consensus is wrong. When personal preference gets in the way of impartial closure, it's time to recuse or step down. The last time this came up I suggested to MER-C that he take a wikibreak from closures; he hasn't. Maybe it's time to elect a featured picture director? Durova Charge! 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Just like at WP:AFD and elsewhere, consensus is not a numbers game and the closer does not have a vote; the closer is there to interpret consensus. Sometimes when closing, it's not so obvious that the nom is so contentious. I typically give a reason as to why I close a nom as unsuccessful, but sometimes not, when I don't feel it's that big a deal. Consensus, by definition, is a judgement call and an unhappy nominator always has the right to leave a message on the closer's talk page regarding their concerns with the closing. I agree, though, that if something like the previously cited nom happens again, it should stay open a few more days (if not just for people to rescind their !votes). wadester16 | Talk→ 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't any reasonable room for doubt that MER-C is shaping outcomes. See his responses to the thread the last time this was discussed. He defended his actions as a pursuit of quality, and that was the point at which I asked him to recuse. Although I don't like the alternative of appointing a director, we could learn from the mistakes of other featured processes and establish the roll for a set term with a recall process in place. Durova Charge! 17:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some more discussion here: If, in the end, we decide it's not good enough, that's fine, but it's be nice if we could discuss it enough that we can at least work out some general principles for future noms, such as my edition of the N.C. Wyeth Treasure Island. And, you know, come to decision on the Guy Mannering image itself as well. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
rather annoying. But I wouldn't mind a vote or two at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Seal Mt Field NP.jpg. Noodle snacks ( talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. I just discovered that there seems to be a bit of a muddle created by a move bot some time ago, relating to FPC standardization. This lovely picture is not of Frederic Chopin, and there seem to have been various odd redirects created at the same time (apparently the page was moved several times in a row?). I suspect there may be more of these; the place to look is here. Would someone mind pawing through and looking for obvious problems? Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think my proposal for how to handle the problems caused by Wikipedia's thumbnailer probably deserves at least a little review: Noone has commented since I made the proposal. As can be seen, the throwaway image gives much more accurate thumbnailing, but at the cost of having to use imagemap to link to the correct one. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose to do a few Featured picture sets of illustrations to Dickens. Please discuss how you want to run it now, because if this gets caught up in drama over how the original illustrations aren't encyclopedic, or that it's a featured set, and so should fail on principle, or any of the other annoyances here, I swear... Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've restored the 2/3 majority guideline that was removed in 2007. However, we still need to decide where to go from here, especially as doubts have been raised over the 2/3 supermajority, if we even have one at all. There are also, as we know, other problems with FPC participation and closures, so I'd like to invite everyone to help at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process. I've made a start and hope to receive some input on the format, and please comment if you don't think it will be suitable for the purpose. If we're in favour of a change, perhaps we can start hashing out there some ideas on what should come and what should go: whether that be guidelines, bots, supermajorities, puppies, or people. Whatever happens, remember the golden rules, or we will achieve nothing: be civil, this is not a blame game, and nothing is black and white. Thank you! Maedin\ talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
While listing a new nomination it came as a very unpleasant surprise to see several listings renewed with invalid strikethroughs performed. There are several ways to address biased closures, but one way not to remedy the situation is to strikethrough other people's reviews without their permission or notification, as was done in several instances. This creates a false and misleading impression of massive withdrawal of support. And by doing so, invalidates the renomination. Please revert all unauthorized strikethroughs and take down those relistings immediately. Durova Charge! 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree about {{ archive top}} and {{ archive bottom}}. This has to be addressed though; my striking was not arbitrary. Striking may have "tainted" the nom, but so does leaving it looking like those votes are still valid during the renom. I would say both situations are equally bad. But again, I did this thinking it was a good idea, but accept that consensus doesn't currently agree. In fact, I think it would be a better idea to start a completely new nom for each image and just include the link to the previous nom; granted this can't be done now, but we should have it on the books for next time. All-in-all, I think this was done a bit hastily, and most likely should have been discussed before they were relisted, so we could have ironed out these issues first. I'm not crying foul on anybody (it was all done in good faith), but in hindsight, this wasn't dealt with in the best manner, IMHO. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Being fair to Wadester here, it appears that the relistings including the strikethroughs were done in good faith. Machiavelli isn't lurking behind the curtain; it's more like a good intention that misfired. Still, I don't give two hoots whether a closer is 'correct' or not: closers who can't resist the temptation to override consensus ought not to be closing. This used to be the least drama-laden featured process; that's getting poisoned over a handful of nominations that could be resolved legitimately:
Either of those solutions would be fine. Otherwise we may need to set up an FPC director. Durova Charge! 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, you have now screwed the pooch. There is no chance of any of these nom having any sort of a fair run anymore. And yet you seem to think that it is Alvesgaspar's responsibility to deal with this. I find your behaviour both unethical and appalling. You have been on Featured pictures long enough to know that some things will kill nominations. You have actively set out to exceed yourself in making all of them apply to a polite relisting to determine consensus.
I am now going to go lie down, and see if the severe flu and projectile vomiting stop. Maybe they will by tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else find it ironic that after all the edit warring over the noms being relisted because it'd make them run 14 days, Guy Mannering has been up, with 4 supports, no opposes for 10 days? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The following images are considered provisionally promoted, barring the outcome of a delist nomination. Should the delist not have a consensus against them (no consensus = they stay promoted) after 7 days, they are promoted. However, I have not gone through the promotion procedure beyond closing the original nom.
Here are the delists in question, once they close, if any do not have a consensus to delist, the image must be promoted.
No further comment at this time. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see below to understand why this is a real pain in the ass, and how SH did things incorrectly. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So how are we going to get FPC out of the ditch? It has been pretty chaotic around here (not to mention that my Lomatium image has gone bizarre and don't know what to do). So far, we implied the 2/3 rule, and hopefully the closers will follow this. Anything else? Zoo Fari 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm, my Lomatium image has been assessed by DustyBot at commons for its FP status. I don't want my image to be biased around Wiki, so I'd like the closing as soon as possible. Zoo Fari 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pasting the following from Wadester's user talk. This is why I have withdrawn the remaining nominations. Durova Charge! 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently I joined the boycott of FPC and requested that you step down from closing nominations. At the time when I did so I had five open candidates, two of which have since been closed and both of which were closed by you. In good faith I would like to suppose that you are doing this in an attempt to demonstrate fairness, but as our prior discussion concluded you created the distinct impression of rather aggressively disregarding my opinions and reasoning. I have over two hundred featured pictures and have no urgent need for more; it would be more circumspect to extend respect. Durova Charge! 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A less hyperbolic reply would be more productive. Note the following:
Now I don't very much care about one more FP per se, which was why I didn't raise this at the time although it's disappointing to see the limited supply of African historic material wasted this way: countering systemic bias is difficult even when the process is fair. But the specific thing that lost my trust was to see how you shifted ground. It's doubtful the four examples I provided upon your requests were ever read: your later post miscounted them as three examples. The inconsistencies in closures at that process are blatant to a degree that would not have been tolerated this long anywhere else, and you appear more interested in name calling than in winning back the trust of the two prolific contributors who finally resorted to boycotting. Durova Charge! 05:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is interesting. You still have no answer to why you allowed only one-quarter the extension that a different image was being given, you refuse to acknowledge that your rationales have changed, and you're substituting another ad hominem attack for rational discussion.
If you hadn't noticed, these last few months we have had several new nominators at FPC who were doing similar work to Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. Most of them have left the process; while I was urging them to stay we had offsite discussions about the erratic closures. At that time I tried to make excuses for what was happening at FPC. Enough is enough; per this conversation I am withdrawing all existing FPC nominations. Please reconsider your course of action while people are still willing to return. Durova Charge! 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
{{fact}}
after each of your claims. But that would take a long time. My goal isn't martyrdom (I'm not that religious); my goal is fairness.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 01:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer
I considered adding a statement here but thought better and removed it before anyone replied. Wadester restored it. Nor was it put under an inflammatory title, as it was edited to be by Wadester. This is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy: you are not allowed to edit someone else's words or misrepresent them, which presumably includes forcing them to keep up statements that they thought better of moments later, presenting it as if they hadn't decided to remove it. I have thus removed the majority of my supposed "evidence". I have left up one statement which someone else replied to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
----
). The current way you're showing it works for me.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Text Wadester has restored twice, which was originally posted—then removed—by Shoemaker's Holiday
Also pasted from his talk. The background to this was him leaving a somewhat rude message on my talk page [5], criticising me for not putting through the provisional promotions, and saying I should have done them fully. I specifically said I hadn't done the promotion fully, to try and cut down on the controversy. Given your editwarring forced this move, and given, further, that your treatment of the Guy Mannering nom is at the exact opposite position to your claims that leaving a nom open 14 days was such a disaster that it must be avoided at all costs, I think you don't have a single leg to stand on in your criticism of me. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A supermajority votes to support, but most were against their promotion. Riiiight. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
[The next sentence he only restored once, I left it up because Durova had replied
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ]
I find dealing with him an examplar of
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If Wadester's four putative supporters exist, please post or email. Shoemaker's Holiday (whose boycott I have joined) has been articulate and active. We care about this process; we don't want to see it wither. If we are two voices in the wilderness, then other participants--please set us straight. Durova Charge! 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, can we just agree to disagree with what has happened and focus on the future?-- Muhammad (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am joining Shoemaker's Holiday in his boycott of FPC until the promotion and closure problems are resolved. Will defer to any reasonable consensus; this is not an attempt to force a particular outcome.
Will not be responding further to comments, questions, or requests at existing nominations until this is resolved. Ceasing reviewing, and ceasing new nominations until further notice. Durova Charge! 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been a bit bold and archived the arguments going on above as they have degenerated into non-constructive nonsense. Please don't take things personally and direct your energy towards Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which seems more likely to get somewhere. Noodle snacks ( talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
^^ Essentially, how can we tweak the process and the criteria so that crappy images don't get into passing territory (and hence making discretion calls less necessary)?
Most poor reviews are deficient with respect to WIAFP 1, so here we go. I think this would hopefully reduce the learning curve a bit (from unwritten rules to explicit ones) and help adapt the criteria to other forms of imaging. A crude draft:
1. has professional image quality.
- a) Optical and sensor quality: The image should not suffer from avoidable distortion or tilt, especially in architectual photos and scans. Blown highlights, crushed blacks [1], vignetting and noise/ film grain should be minimised. There is no significant chromatic aberration and dust spots should be removed.
- b) Post-processing anomalies: The image must not have visible compression, posterization or oversharpening artifacts or other signs of inappropriate/incompetent post processing.
- c) Exposure, lighting and tonality: The picture must have an accurate exposure, encyclopedic white balance and appropriate lighting. The image should have good contrast. Portraits should not exhibit the red-eye effect nor should they be taken with strong fill flash (typified by strong shadows and harsh highlights).
- d) Composition: The image has good composition. The subject must not be cut off or obscured without good reason. All important aspects of the image should be in focus, while those unimportant should be deemphasized (see depth of field). There are no distracting elements. Consideration is given to macro photography where the depth of field is often constrained by physical limitations and so the entire subject may not be fully in focus.
- e) Panoramas should have no stitching errors. The frames must be consistent in exposure, focus and lighting.
- f) Historical images should be of professional quality corresponding to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreplaceable images with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is encouraged, but is not required. Reproductions should not exhibit moire.
- For visual examples, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems and Commons:Image guidelines. Not all criteria apply to one particular image - typically (a) - (e) for digital photos; (a), (b), (c) [2] and (f) for historical images and (g) for diagrams.
[1] Quantitatively, typically 0.02% of all pixels each. This comes from experience, in a 5 Mpx image this translates to 1000 px. Images with more (0,0,0) or (255,255,255) pixels than this don't tend to succeed.
[2] This usually deals with the quality of the digital reproduction, not necessarily the analog original. See
File:Edward abdication.png for a historical image that would fail 1b and 1c (compression artifacts, uneven lighting) and
File:Kalki 03 1948.jpg for one that would fail 1a (tilt). Of course, 1a also applies to historical photos.
Apologies if I've left out any major technical errors. MER-C 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For restorations, we ought to be including documentation requirements: the image hosting page should provide a detailed summary of what edits were performed and the FPC nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration, with a link to the unrestored version for comparison. Durova Charge! 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about I can the details but replace "is of a high technical standard" with "displays professional image quality" or something like that. The idea is to get it into their heads that our standards are roughly equivalent to those of (say) National Geographic. MER-C 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Revised per suggestions. I also found this article, it could (with improvement) be a quick primer on this criterion. I disagree on newbies, the extended criteria make them aware of our standards and the criteria are generally self-contained - as opposed to WP:FA?, for instance (since the MOS is incorporated into the criteria), which is at least 100 pages long... MER-C 09:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
f) Restorations, scans and historical images. Images should reproduce the original work faithfully, though correction of deterioration is encouraged. There should be no spots, scratches or other damage.
f) Historical images. Should be high quality according to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreproducible subjects with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is not required although often preferred. If material is restored, the nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration. A detailed summary of the edits performed should be provided on the image hosting page, and both the hosting page and the nomination should link to the unrestored version for comparison.
It's very important that we document the edits performed in restorations. This is an important factor that museums, libraries, etc. weigh when they decide whether to release their collections to the public via Wikimedia Commons. Very large donations (hundreds of thousands of images) can become available this way. If the curators believe we are lax about edited image documentation, they can (and actually have) withdrawn from negotiations.
On a practical level, proper documentation is already a standard requirement for promotion at FPC, and has been for many months. Putting this in writing makes that clear to everyone. Durova Charge! 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provided it is documented, limited, well-done and not deceptive.
- a) Unacceptable manipulation. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
- b) Documentation of manipulation and restoration. Any digitally restored image or edit of a nominated image [1] should have a summary of the edits performed on the image description page, with links to the original/unrestored version(s).
This would cover the last major form of images we get here.
1g) Diagrams and maps are clean and well laid out. Vector graphics should employ web-safe fonts and are valid SVG.
I don't think there's much to say here, but they still need to be mentioned. MER-C 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems could do with more examples, particularly with respect to incompetent scans. MER-C 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to schedule a Canada-related FP for Canada Day (July 1) POTD but I can't seem to find anything suitable. Does anyone have something they've been sitting on that might be suitable? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When I started my boycott of FPC, I decided not to pull some images that had nearly hit the seven days, and were likely to pass. I figured they would go through quickly enough, and that'd be the end of it.
One lasted for 12 and a half days, and this one has now been up for sixteen days.
This incredible unprofessionalism is not helping the case of FPC. What on earth going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, it's a definite pass, even if Mostlyharmless hadn't supported (four supports, no opposes: meets the criteria); I just refuse to touch it based on Shoemaker screwing his own pooch. Even though the issue of clockwise rotation was brought up, old engravings and drawings aren't held to such a high standard because they are older, human artworks, which are inherently not perfect. Maybe this is a good time to train new potential closers...? wadester 16 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, let's review your statements in the thread you're making oblique reference to:
“ | Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
And later
“ | I can't disagree with the last part of your comment, but you're making these into 14-day noms. How is that fair? wadester16 | Talk→ 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
You later lied about your previous statements.
“ | No, I struck votes out because they were no longer valid, just like here. It had nothing to do with how long the nom ran; it was a renomination and therefore a new nom[....] wadester16 | Talk→ 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
So, Wadester, do you still deny that you said that 14 days was a problem, but now think that letting noms run 16 days whenever you feel like it isn't an issue?
I think you should be shown the door of the FPC process. Your lying and hypocrisy makes you unfit to hold any sort of power. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated by the three regulars above me, I'm not obligated to do anything. But I think this horse is rather pulp-like; there's no reason to start this all up again. wadester 16 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, just shut up with all this mess. I thought it was all over. I went ahead and closed the nomination as promoted, since it was going to stay there for a month. This is a Wiki, so if Wade doesn't want to close it, he won't close it. There is no fault to that. I'm not going to turn into a closer, though. So you might as well create a bot or something before more harm is done then good. Zoo Fari 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
From User_talk:MER-C#Closure_request
“ | Would you ming closing
this?
wadester
16 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
|
” |
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching this whole larger situation from a distance and have been keeping out of it as I think it is something you guys clearly need to resolve between yourselves. But, I will at this point say that I find "Mainly because it's really close, leaning support, but I don't think it should pass." to be a somewhat troubling comment. It appears to display a preference for an outcome which is irrelevant and inappropriate on the part of a closer (please correct me if that was not what it was suggesting but choice of words is all important in a text communication project and this is how it reads to me), and I certainly don't think that asking someone else to close something should be accompanied by a recommended outcome. Closing should be a simple matter of determining consensus, exactly as closing an AfD. As far as the whole current situation goes, if the credibility of this FP project is to be maintained then all steps must be taken by everyone to avoid saying and doing things that are likely to inflame the situation. If this doesn't happen then the outcome is bleak, it is either going to make the contributors that are staying away from the project at the moment continue to do so, or it is going to result in the project itself losing its credibility and falling by the wayside. I think that unfortunately if you both can't come to an agreement to not continue to pick faults in each others motives and actions at every turn, which is certainly veering in the direction of WP:POINT, then you should both stay away from the project for a while to cool down. Continuing this battle is doing more harm to the FP project than it is to yourselves and the community should not have to stand by and watch it happen. Mfield ( Oi!) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec - adding some more) I am not assigning any blame on anyone, but the community project is more important than any single person, however they are contributing, and the interests of the community trump some hard feelings here and there. Can we please agree to drop this completely and move on, if not then it should instead be escalated to a proper dispute resolution medium and not be allowed to continue disrupting and driving participants away from this project. Mfield ( Oi!) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read most of this, so sorry if my comment seems out of place. I just wanted to say that this looks absolutely ridiculous. People complained that Wadester is incompetent to close nominations. I recall someone even suggesting he recuse himself from closing noms. Well here he does exactly that, and he gets criticized for it! That doesn't make sense to me! He did what he thought was right...what ever happened to Assume Good Faith?! All of this argument and fighting at FPC is getting ridiculous. Makeemlighter ( talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned this in the myriad of proposals on FPC closing process, but I think a lot of good ideas have been lost in the wash due to the sheer volume of discussion - Mfield, I agree with you that the closer should not attempt to second guess voter's reasoning or understanding or they run the risk of being an impartial judge, jury and executioner. I know vote counting has been shot down due to the potential for less informed voters to miss obvious faults or misinterpret the criteria, but hear me out. Maybe we should stick to simple vote counting for the initial closure at the point where the nom is transfered to the 'cooling off' section. This would give a rough overview of consensus, and then the cooling off period would allow all contributors (not just the closer) the opportunity to bring up any issues they had with that total and to debate the merits of contentious votes if necessary, and establish a more subjective form of consensus to complement the objective voting consensus. I would imagine that the vast majority of nominations would not need much in the way of further discussion at all, and we would allow the nom to be closed as-is, but the way I see it, this is probably the only way to alow everyone involvement in the closure process/decisions for controversial nominations while keeping established closers in control of the more administrative functions, as well as protected from claims of bias. Sure, there will still be the occasional unhappy camper, but no process will stop that completely. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures. MER-C 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of factors have caused a serious gap at FPC and related processes. There's a section from an article I've been raising to GA that gets part of it by analogy:
Or to put this in different terms, suppose someone who had never touched a camera had learned the term 'depth of field' but not the optics that govern it, and demands that you produce a shallow depth of field under direct sunlight at noon. This person had seen you get a shallow depth of field from a shaded spot at late afternoon, and has no interest in learning why you can't do it whenever they want.
Part of the problem are mistaken assumptions about digital restoration, both in terms of the technical parameters and in terms of the availability of material. About 1 in 1000 archival images is potentially featurable and a 10MB source file in uncompressed format is normally the minimum starting point for serious work. In the course of reviewing several million images one does find caches of suitable material. By returning to these caches and cycling through them it is possible to become a prolific FPC nominator, but in many topics the caches of suitable material are not large. FPC reviewers have been burning through rare material in the mistaken belief that more will be forthcoming. More could be forthcoming if we feature the best we actually have, because then other archives that contain material on similar subjects might be persuaded to release their collections. That requires slow negotiations by a global network of volunteers, and the difficulty and delicacy of that effort is almost wholly unknown to the majority of reviewers at this process. FP has substantial value to these negotiations, but VP has none. It has been a source of considerable frustration to see the photographers at this process paint the future of our restoration efforts into a corner, under wholly misguided notions of quality control, while they consistently ignore the input of the people who actually do restoration work. In recent weeks I allowed the depth of that frustration to show itself, but that trend simply cannot go any further or restoration itself will dead-end. Durova Charge! 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is only natural that we have a strong emphasis on encyclopedic value, we are an encyclopedia. That is how it should be. If we were a gallery then we would put image quality first. Chillum 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Picking up on the 'crap technical quality' comment in the thread above, [26] a problem in recent months has been myopic understanding of technical quality. One of the best examples to diagnose the ailment is the Titan delisting nomination.
The image is dated 2004, but of course the camera wasn't made in 2004 because the spacecraft was launched in 1997. The exact mass of all the equipment had to be known and tested years before launch in order to plot its course, which included two gravity assist flybys at Venus and Jupiter. So the camera was built with early 1990s technology. It had to perform at temperatures a few degrees above absolute zero in near-total darkness because at Saturn's orbit the sun doesn't provide much more energy than a bright star.
Titan has been visited by spacecraft only three times in human history. The first was Pioneer 11 in 1973, which returned this image. Then the Voyager missions in 1980-1981 shot this. And in order to even do that well with the technology that existed at the time, NASA scheduled Voyager I's final encounter as a close Titan flyby.
The technical challenges that arise after launch add additional layers of difficulty to these missions. Voyager I was nearly destroyed in the rings of Saturn before its Titan encounter because the best technology available when the mission was planned had been unable to detect any matter in the dark zones of its ring system. After the Jupiter encounter the craft sent back images of literally hundreds of rings in the zone of its planned course: a grain of sand would have operated like a bullet on the craft at the speeds it was traveling. Emergency course modifications were extremely difficult to execute, but the mission was saved. Without that rescue, much of the data never would have been obtained that went into planning the Cassini mission.
This is all cutting edge science and sometimes the technical team has to work around hardware failures. One famous save occurred here:
The software needed extensive rewrites after the antenna failure, then a second round of even more drastic rewrites after the tape recorder failure. And all of the relevant imaging had to be rescheduled and replanned because the data was moving much more slowly, but the craft was still flying at orbital speed.
It simply isn't rational to review the Titan image by the same standards one would apply to a home tripod photo of earth's moon. Of course the Titan mosaic isn't stitched: it was shot for scientific purposes, not for an art gallery. Of course it's contrasty: Titan is the only astronomical body in the solar system other than earth that has liquid at its surface--they were looking for specular reflections.
As stated before, I do have a conflict of interest regarding the Titan image and will disclose fully to anyone who emails a request. So far, no one from the featured pictures program has inquired. Most of the statements in this post are readily verifiable; a few aren't. A barnstar to the first person who detects which information wasn't published officially. Several of the regulars at featured picture candidates need to spend more time reading the articles these images illustrate.
And yet 'crap technical quality' is a comment that gets taken seriously. And the delisting nominator himself hasn't been called to task for saying FPC is not an image gallery and nobody puts quality ahead of EV. Just take a look at the page now and see for yourself. The images that are being opposed because of quality concerns have TERRIBLE quality.(original poster's emphasis) [27] That is an expression of misplaced priorities, superficial understanding, and distorted perspective. Knowledge of digital photography is not a substitute for research. The technical quality of this image is a feat of international science and engineering, and those who deny that reveal their own ignorance. It will likely be a quarter century before better images can be taken of this astronomical object. Those are the realities of science, and this website is an encyclopedia. Cross posting to my blog. Durova Charge! 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If wikipedia is to be of professional quality, then the images have to be too. The titan moon is of professional quality. I'm about to make Ottava Rima sick I suppose. The fact is that image quality does have a direct impact on encyclopaedic value. Compare this with the original. Both images would be sufficient to identify the bird, however the high quality image tells you much more. Noodle snacks ( talk) 05:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, Maedin has kindly summarised the hundreds of pages of discussion on the 'Review of Closure Process' down to a dozen or so 'pick your preferred procedure' sections. ;-) We really need everyone's opinions and participation to make sure that whatever we decide on has the backing of the whole community, and not just a couple of interested parties. Please visit the page linked above on the section summary and let us know what you think. You don't have to respond to every single section if you don't want to - just the ones that you have an opinion on is better than nothing at all.
We're getting closer to determining a better process for FPC closures but if we don't get this sorted out soon, it's in danger of becoming 'too much work' and nothing will change - and that includes disillusionment and a mass exodus from the project! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
As I look now two ( 1 and 2) of the three most recent FP promotions don't appear in the archives.
And have just fixed a bunch more mistakes at FP Thumbs, you would think the place least likely to attract errors. Not to mention Page 17 was up to 157 thumbs and should be rolled over at 100. Who's checking any more?
Who would know what other mistakes are piled up elsewhere? I only check occasionally, and only in some places.
And no one better try blaming just one closer for it or get on here to continue their ranting, because firstly it's not just one person and secondly I reckon most of us have had enough of it. -- jjron ( talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed we once again have another candidate that involves nudity [28]. Since Wikipedia is open to a huge amounts of schools 18-, I strongly disagree with having them in the main page. If we keep having these types of photos, schools will start shutting us off. We have to have this in consideration now, before we start receiving pics involving sexual activity. So what do you guys think? Zoo Fari 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
POTD operates by different standards from FPC. Two FPs that will never run on the main page are this and this. Just review as any other FPC, and leave the rest up to Howcheng. Durova Charge! 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors do not close requests which they were heavily involved in. This goes for all processes on wikipedia. Such actions bring projects like FPC in disrepute. I ask that editors cease the closing of FPC requests they have been involved in. Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Seddon--that has something to do with why two of the most prolific contributors are boycotting this process. Things have been happening at FPC that would be out of the question elsewhere. Would like to get matters straightened out and return. It's concerning to see this is still an issue: perhaps some of the contributors here could branch out and gain broader experience in Wikipedian site standards? Durova Charge! 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on the review has stalled. We need to wrap up the remaining discussions.
Putting on my consensus hat, I'd say (but don't want to enact, because I am involved):
Voting period: two days of inactivity, no less than seven days
Validity of votes: Discount anons, sockpuppets, nonsense, no longer relevant and poorly grounded
Quorum: 4 excluding nominator
Supermajority: 67%+ as a guide
We also need to talk about how to implement the results of the survey. I've proposed something that (hopefully) is a compromise on the points made and also solves some other problems, though you are welcome to suggest something else. MER-C 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Final call on the straw poll results. I'll formally propose the new provisional closures system (with the director(s) and such) on this page afterward. MER-C 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit off topic, but somewhat relevant. I'm trying to gather the consensus on the debate of value vs. quality of the image. You can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#About Value vs Quality (Who's number 1?) OhanaUnited Talk page 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I felt was consensus, I just created a "Recently closed nominations" section. I don't feel there's any need to wait to create this, so I went WP:BOLD and made it. Two days in the section, removed at the the next available moment by a closer (or anybody, for that matter, if the two days have passed). These noms have been added to the archives, and will continue to be. They are there currently to be easily reviewed by other FPC contributors. I felt there was no reason to wait to enact this, as it's not a big deal, easy to do, and adds greatly to transparency. If anyone has any complaints, by all means, revert my effort; it won't bother me. Just trying to help the cause. Based on these closures, if anyone has an issue with a closure, please bring it to the talk page of the closer. Thanks in advance! Comments welcome, as always. wadester 16 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Where do we stand with closure review? Durova Charge! 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, my own boycott is not an attempt to force any particular outcome. Am looking for any reasonable resolution, ideally one that refocuses energies upon our shared mission to identify and promote quality media. Durova Charge! 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Bump... any news on this? MER-C 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I clear all the prior drama off this page before I make the proposal? MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue is currently disrupting my first FPC. Not only has he caused a formatting change that completed destroyed the formatting of WP:FPC, he accused me of various impropriety that were blatantly untrue and now is making all sorts of claims about civility, no personal attacks, etc, which are completely unnecessary. This page is supposed to be about the images and only the images. Can someone please remove his blatant disruption and warn him about staying on topic? Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Given Ottava Rima's weird behavior and disruption, I thought the nomination is his first nomination (newbies sometimes are inclined to be sensitive at evaluations) and my hunch is right. I've had more than "one experience" in reviewing and nominating FP on here and Commons, and you've threaten me for the unintelligent reason. So I've raised the concern on your bad faith behavior and incivility to WQA. Please visit the page and let's have objective view on each. Thanks.- Caspian blue 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See this. Can anybody make the necessary changes if any? I am afraid Howcheng may not see in time. -- Muhammad (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
VPC always appreciates your comments! Please don't forget us! :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
|
Don't know whether this is the right place to post this.... Download size options on featured pictures seem to be either small (the size it appears on the page) or whoppingly large (17MB on today's FP). It would be useful if one could choose from a range of download sizes after right-clicking. ciao Rotational ( talk) 07:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
With the required 4 supports and 2/3 majority support, shouldn't Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Asilidae Stichopogon sp. have been promoted? -- Muhammad (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Outcome seems to be correct for the time being. It has enough legs maybe for a renom here or at VP once the WB issues are sorted. P.S. VP needs your attention Wadester. MER-C 12:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just curious to why steroidogenesis ( Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Steroidogenesis) is now found in "nominations older than 7 days", when there are 4 support for the .svg-version (excluding the nominator) and 0 oppose. Do we need something more? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 05:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The FPC urgents template is getting rather full - it might be a good idea if everyone went through it and helped to clear it out. This has been a pretty slow week for FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 10:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Could I have some more votes on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, please? Thanks, Spencer T♦ Nominate! 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing a group presentation on online media and copyright for a class. I chose the topic of photography and images. I was wondering if FPC regulars wouldn't mind indicating which license they prefer and why. The main three would be GFDL, Creative Commons, and Public domain. Any input would be appreciated. I won't quote you, I just want to hear what some of the arguments for each are from people that use them on a regular basis. Thank you in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 06:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This should be a bit easier to review, now: I've managed to shave 18 megabytes off the file, and uploaded a convenience file (Which is probably still of ample size for any review) for those that don't want to wait. =) I don't have an A3 scanner at home, so I did it at the university, and didn't have access to my usual programs, having to use Photoshop instead, which... well, I'm not going to say it's bad, but it's not at all what I'm used to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I quote: "These (delist) nominations have been moved here because consensus is impossible to determine without additional input from those who participated in the discussion. Usually this is because there was more than one edit of the image available, and no clear preference for one of them was determined. If you voted on these images previously, please update your vote to specify which edit(s) you are supporting."
So since when did this section become a dumping ground for nominations that haven't gotten enough 'votes' in the 7+ days they've already had on the page? -- jjron ( talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it's used for images that have sufficient input and clear support, which a closer doesn't want to promote. And kept open until the closer has an excuse to close without promotion. [1] Images which don't have enough input and the closer doesn't want to promote are closed as non-promotes immediately. [2] Fwiw, I have never placed a nomination into that section. Durova Charge! 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough: I will no longer use that section. Though just to be clear, I never made an effort to game the system. I was doing what I thought (maybe naïvely) was more fair, especially when there were not enough !votes. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 04:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion. I'm sure you remember last month's problems, where clear support does not imply picture meets WP:FP?. This would be FPC's main weakness. One example: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Keplers supernova.jpg - 4 delist and 8 keep, but the replacement picture is significantly upsampled. Upsampled pictures fail WP:FP? #1, #2 and #8.
The determination for nominations with not enough support goes as follows: Less than three supports gets closed immediately, three gets left around for a bit if there are no scuttling opposes and four - length depends on who the four are. If I am not sure about the outcome of a debate, I do roughly the same thing as Wadester before closing as no consensus.
And finally, an example of what can go wrong if standards are too low: our compatriots over at FL have a rather large problem - more than 250 lists don't meet standards. Many lists can be edited to bring them up to scratch, but pictures generally can't. If we had a similar problem, it would mean 250 delist noms and over 200 delistings in a few months. I think much more long term harm would be done to FP if we let standards slip too far. MER-C 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I just closed this with this discussion in mind. It had been waiting for a while. Again, I would have preferred one more vote to sway either way, but I will steer away from that in the future. ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Some of the steps for closing FP candidates can be automated in a way that doesn't interfere with the wizard. I propose that DustyBot ( talk · contribs) perform these additional functions:
It would skip any actions that had already been done by another user. The rest of the steps either require or benefit from a human touch. DustyBot would run this task every 10 minutes, but leave recent closures alone for at least 15 minutes to give other editors a chance to process them manually. Comments? Wronkiew ( talk) 17:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You can't do the above with string manipulations in a comprehensible manner - I suggest you start simple and add formatting manually. What happens in the wizard is I put in an unformatted short caption (e.g. "Daguerrotype of Cornelius Vanderbilt"). The wizard spits out the form I paste into the FP galleries. I add the author/edit attribution and the formatting myself. Here is exactly what the wizard does.
Some source code |
---|
// UNDERSTANDING THIS CODE: closedNoms is a two dimensional array of the form:
// Debate name | Image promoted | Creator (null if not Wikipedian) | Short caption
// --------------------------------------------------------------------
// Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Example | File:718smiley.svg | East718 | Awesome smiley face
//
// The index i corresponds to rows, j to columns.
// textarea is UI related, format is a DateFormat, blurb is an advertising string
// String nominator = enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNoms[i][0]);
//
// This code is licensed under GPL v3.
// For each of the promoted pictures...
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// ... notify the creator... (TESTED)
String nominator = enWiki.getPageCreator(closedNomsi][0);
textarea.append("Notifying creator/nominator of [[" + closedNomsi][1 + "]]... ");
if (closedNomsi][2 != null)
enWiki.newSection("User talk:" + closedNomsi][2, "[[" + closedNomsi][0 + "]]", "{{subst:uploadedFP|" + closedNomsi][1 + "}}", false);
// ... and the nominator (but only if they weren't the creator)...
if (!nominator.equals(closedNomsi][2))
enWiki.newSection("User talk:" + nominator, "[[" + closedNomsi][0 + "]]", "{{subst:promotedFPC|" + closedNomsi][1 + "}}", false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
//... tag it as featured... (TESTED)
textarea.append("Tagging [[" + closedNomsi][1 + "]] as featured... ");
String description = "";
try
{
description = enWiki.getPageText(closedNomsi][1);
}
catch (FileNotFoundException ex)
{
// Page doesn't exist. Set description to some dummy string.
description = "{{FPC}}";
}
String description2 = description.toUpperCase().toLowerCase();
String trimmedDebateName = closedNomsi][0.substring(38); // enough to lop off the prefix
if (description2.contains("{{fpc"))
{
// replace {{fpc|...}} with {{FeaturedPicture|...}}
int a = description2.indexOf("{{fpc");
int b = description2.indexOf("}}", a) + 2;
enWiki.(closedNomsi][1, description.substring(0, a) + "{{FeaturedPicture|" + trimmedDebateName + "}}\n" + description.substring(b), "Featured" + blurb, false);
}
else
enWiki.(closedNomsi][1, "{{FeaturedPicture|" + trimmedDebateName + "}}\n" + description, "Featured" + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
}
// update [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]] (TESTED)
textarea.append("Updating [[Template:Announcements/New featured content]]... ");
String nfc = enWiki.getPageText("Template:Announcements/New featured content");
int a = nfc.indexOf("<!-- Pictures (15, most recent first) -->\n") + 42;
int b = nfc.indexOf("\n\n", a);
String[] list = nfc.substring(a, b).split("\n");
StringBuilder newNFC = new StringBuilder(nfc.substring(0, a));
for (int i = 0; i < 15; i++)
{
if (i < closedNoms.length)
{
// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]]
newNFC.append("* [[:");
newNFC.append(closedNomsi][1);
newNFC.append("|");
newNFC.append(closedNomsi][3);
newNFC.append("]]");
newNFC.append("\n");
}
// add the rest, barring those on the bottom
else
{
newNFC.append(listi - closedNoms.length);
if (i != 14)
newNFC.append("\n");
}
}
newNFC.append(nfc.substring(b));
enWiki.("Template:Announcements/New featured content", newNFC.toString(), "Rotating new FPs" + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
// update [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]] (TESTED)
textarea.append("Updating [[Wikipedia:Goings-on]]... ");
String goingsOn = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Goings-on");
a = goingsOn.indexOf("'''[[Wikipedia:Featured pictures|Pictures]] that gained featured status'''") + 75;
StringBuilder newGoings = new StringBuilder(goingsOn.substring(0, a));
format.applyPattern("MMMM d"); // reuse old date format
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// list format: * [[:File:Example.png|Example image]] (April 1)
newGoings.append("* [[:");
newGoings.append(closedNomsi][1);
newGoings.append("|");
newGoings.append(closedNomsi][3);
newGoings.append("]] (");
newGoings.append(format.format(new Date()));
newGoings.append(")\n");
}
newGoings.append(goingsOn.substring(a));
enWiki.("Wikipedia:Goings-on", newGoings.toString(), "+" + closedNoms.length + blurb, false);
textarea.append("done.\n");
// update [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]] (TESTED)
// resolve fpt redirect
textarea.append("Adding pics to [[Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs]]... ");
String fpt = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs");
a = fpt.indexOf("[[") + 2;
b = fpt.indexOf("]]");
String galleryName = fpt.substring(a, b);
// perform addition
fpt = enWiki.getPageText(galleryName);
a = fpt.indexOf("<gallery>\n") + 10;
StringBuilder fptNewText = new StringBuilder(fpt.substring(0, a));
for (int i = 0; i < closedNoms.length; i++)
{
// list format: File:Example.png|Example image
fptNewText.append(closedNomsi][1);
fptNewText.append("|");
fptNewText.append(closedNomsi][3);
fptNewText.append("\n");
}
fptNewText.append(fpt.substring(a));
enWiki.(galleryName, fptNewText.toString(), "+" + closedNoms.length + blurb, false);
|
I'd be very careful about letting anybody use the bot because one typo on the image name would cause a lot of breakage. (I've also inadvertently left out the short caption on a number of images and had to go back to fix them. It'd be nice if whoever closes nominations knows how to fix up errors.) MER-C 14:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On another, somewhat related note, the section Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Nominations older than 7 days - decision time! seems redundant per the discussion about closing above. Could DustyBot be charged with moving nominations to that section the moment the nomination has been open for 7 days? If I get here to close and an image has been open for 8 days, it belonged in that section for a day, but there's no point in putting it in that section only to delay closing. What do you think? ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 17:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not add going to Wikimedia Commons and marking the files with the Commons template saying they're an FP on English wikipedia {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} (or adding an enwiki=1 to an existing assessments template) there to the closing procedure? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion just above, this discussion from about a month ago, and MER-C’s comments in particular in this discussion I feel he raises valid points about quite a bit of the current reviewing.
While I strongly value MER-C’s work here, I must however agree with Diliff when he says in the earlier discussion from March ”...when you go against the consensus then you are treading on dangerous ground.” Others have expressed similar concerns in others ways, for example Noodle Snacks just above, and in a slightly different tone perhaps, Durova. These are hardly FPC noobs.
If it’s relatively close with arguments either way then it’s fair enough to use ‘closer discretion’, even if simple ‘vote counting’ looks like they’re going against consensus. But when an image clearly has a significant consensus of support, for the closer to simply trump that with the closing decision is a bit presumptuous. There may be reasons that people have overlooked or ignored certain flaws – few images are perfect – but by simply overruling clear majorities the closer is making themself a one man jury based on their own preferences. It undermines the whole process of forming consensus.
Let me reiterate that, probably more so than most others, I value MER-C’s work here in being the main closer for (correct me if I’m wrong) the last two years. What I’m really looking for is a method to help protect him, and any other closers, from flak when he (usually quite rightly) feels an image with what appears consensus support doesn’t really meet the mark. MER-C himself says above "I can't really think of a better solution for dodgy votes either except for using more discretion...", so I will float another option.
Perhaps a better approach would be to put images the closer doesn’t feel should be promoted in another section before closing. They could use the existing Older nominations requiring additional input from users or the Suspended nominations sections, but I often find they don’t draw much attention, and I think we’ve established above that they really serve a different purpose.
So maybe we need a new section for these anomalous images that regulars would know then required proper careful reviews; call it Nominations requiring more thorough review or Did anyone actually look at this fullsize? or Closer doesn’t think this bucket of slop should be promoted, or whatever. But regulars would know anything in there was in serious doubt and that new input and close review was required.
I suspect that, like me, most people here value some voter’s input more than others – whether support or oppose – and I’d say most closers would as well. Some time back when I first proposed the VP project I raised the concept of approved reviewers. While I’m not quite heading down that path, what I would suggest is that this hypothetical new section would include a by-line that stated that further input from established reviewers only was requested, just to try to keep down unnecessary background noise from elsewhere.
The closer placing it in that section would say why they thought the image shouldn’t be promoted when they put it in there, so that people would know what they’re working with. Give it say an extra three days, by which time some reputable reviewers would hopefully have added some valid input, then the closer that put it in that section would be the one that HAD to close it (per MER-C’s comments in one of the earlier discussions).
If new opinions supported the closer’s thoughts that it had been poorly reviewed and shouldn’t be promoted then they’d have a good case for not promoting, with more weight being placed on the respected later opinions, even if consensus from the original votes or votes overall clearly supported promotion. But if some reputable voters felt the issues raised weren’t significant or were ameliorated for some reason that perhaps the closer hadn’t recognised, then it would suggest the image should be promoted even against the closer’s feelings.
Please discuss... -- jjron ( talk) 16:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing has been rather slow for the last couple days. Is there a holiday I'm not aware of? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm really upset at the handling of this. A few days before it was due to close, with 4 and a bit supports, I leave a message on MER-C's talk page offering to do anything necessary to smooth over the promotion. User_talk:MER-C#Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates.2FKronheim.27s_Illustrations_to_Foxe.27s_Book_of_Martyrs
I did not expect it to be left open, with MER-C complaining on his talk page about how difficult sets were, right under my clear link to the nomination, while it gets left open so that it could act as a lightning rod for opposes by people who read MER-C's page.
This also was not the first time a set nom was handled oddly: See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gilbert and Sullivan in the Entr'acte Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 13:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I had also nominate these on Commons ( here). Commons is normally much more against lithographs and other historic media, and conservative when it comes to unusual nominations. It seems at least a little odd that en-wiki found it being a set too much of a difficulty to surmount, but Commons came out so firmly for it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 22:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I really, really think we should stop insisting on the use of this template. HEre's the code in full:
'''{{{1}}} {{{2}}}'''
That means it takes whatever's put into it, and bolds it. Who on earth thought this was a good idea? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It is very important - it's what I (or someone else) add to a debate to close it. MER-C 03:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick message to encourage users to vote in the CC-BY-SA migration (you may or may not be aware of what the info bar currently displayed is for) -- Fir0002 00:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The finalists have been selected! Vote in the
2008 Commons Picture of the Year competition.
The final voting round to select the 2008 Picture of the Year is open now. Voting closes 23:59 UTC 30 April (Thursday).
Quick question: So many excellent restorations of old photographs and other image media come through here and I wonder where they go after (or where they have the potential to go). Many of them come from the Library of Congress. Would it make sense to offer these restorations back to the LOC so they may offer them alongside the original versions? I would expect few people searching the LOC archives to consider coming here to look for a restored version. I'm just wondering. We must have a few hundred great restorations that somebody at the LOC or other group would appreciate having. Just thinking out loud really... ~ ωαdεstεr16 «talk stalk» 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I would appreciate more feedback on this, good or ill. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This FP which was removed from the articles had me thinking. Would it be possible to have a bot which would regularly check the FPs archive and see that they be used in the articles? -- Muhammad (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
/**
* extracted from FPMaintenance.java 0.01 05/11/2008
* Copyright (C) 2008 MER-C
*
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
* modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
* as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3
* of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
* Inc., 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
*/
/**
* Checks FP usage in articles. Requires [[User:MER-C/Wiki.java]].
*/
public class FPArticleCheck
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
ArrayList<String> fps = new ArrayList<String>(4000);
// determine FPT number
String text = enWiki.getPageText("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs").substring(47, 49);
int gallery = Integer.parseInt(text);
// fetch the list
for (int i = 1; i <= gallery; i++)
{
String number = i < 10 ? "0" + i : "" + i;
fps.addAll(Arrays.asList(enWiki.getImagesOnPage("Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs " + number)));
}
for (int i = 0; i < fps.size(); i++)
{
String temp = fpsi.substring(5);
if (enWiki.imageUsage(temp, Wiki.MAIN_NAMESPACE).length == 0) // not used in any articles
System.out.println("*[[:" + fpsi + "]]");
}
System.exit(0);
}
}
Results:
Just under 3%. Not bad. MER-C 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
When it gets right down to it, a lot of Wikipedians haven't the slightest idea what to do with images and make random(ish) choices when handling them. Durova Charge! 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Would someone step in and close this properly. It is beyond clear that the second and third images should be promoted and the first one shouldn't. I cite Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Wellington Panoramas as evidence that this would be the usual practise. Noodle snacks ( talk) 08:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. MER-C 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a pain, but it's rather disenheartening when an FPC gets no reaction at all for days and days. I'm quite happy to try and fix any problems, or accept criticism, but the silence is rather awkward to deal with. The Childe Harold's Pilgrimage nom had a similar fate. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on: This is ridiculous,. The arrangement is typical of Victorian art, Grant is Victorian, and yet it's being opposed because it uses the Victorian arrangement. How are we supposed to present history honestly when people are saying things like "to the extent that the secondary images are important they should be cropped and individually inserted"? So, we should apply a hacksaw to historical works now? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have two completely unreviewed FPCs. One 16th century one that only one person looked at. And the nonsense about Grant. I think I'm going to take a long break from FPC. I'm tired of having to constantly beg if I'm going to get reviews for subjects I consider important. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...I just recently came back to FPC, after one of my frequent wikibreak, and i read some of the archived discussions. Your message is part of a broader problem which seems to have plagued FPC for some months. I think FPC is a really tricky project, because being a good reviewer requires quite a bit of knowledge. To review a picture, you obviously have to judge the overall picture (composition, angle, blur, "wow factor"...), but also need to :
So even though i could put a "Support" vote, it would mean a lot less than someone who is knowledgeable about theses things. I wouldn't want a picture to be promoted on my (or similar) votes alone. And last month, MER-C complained about pictures with technical flaws being promoted without anyone noticing. Therefore, I refrain from voting in this case. I think we need to promote the project to others wikipedians. We could find people who can assert EV, get more votes, and maybe even some people with technical knowledge. For example, I made this userbox
This user enjoys voting for the best pictures in Wikipedia |
some time ago, only one person picked up beside me. I'm not trying to promote my work (don't care at all about it, since I'm a wikisloth), but it would be a small step. Another idea would be to find wikiprojects related to photography and promote FPC there. If you have others ideas to promote FPC to others wikipedians we could start a campaign to find new reviewers. If we stay civil (instead of acting like bored old-timers), many beginners will stay because there are really wonderful pictures which are a joy to watch. Ksempac ( talk) 09:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I see there are quite a few new FP regulars, so I thought posting another VP advert would be a good idea.
Zoo
Fari 01:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Though I am only an occasional participant here at FPC, in the last year or so I have noticed a rapid and large-scale proliferation of older images meticulously restored using digital techniques (some subtle, some less so). The people working hard on these have done a great service in introducing important older images to a wider audience, and if the cleanup is necessary to achieve that wide audience through featured picture status, so be it. But I sometimes wonder if there isn't too much emphasis on a certain, well, polish (one sometimes lacking from the original image). I'd like to call your attention to a slideshow that's currently up at the New York Times website. It shows scanned and inverted images of negatives taken by Robert Capa and others (sadly not in the public domain, so not eligible here). The negatives are shown in full, with perforations, and without any attempt to obscure damage (though they have been physically cleaned, they have not been digitally edited). I think this documentary method — showing the images in the condition in which they have come down to us — has a lot going for it, both educationally and aesthetically. If an image in such a condition were nominated here, would it pass? Should it? I would be interested in your thoughts. Chick Bowen 01:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Restoration is a double edged sword while it can achieve great results and yeild unexpected finds aka File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg FP should be able to promote either an historic original or restored image. IMHO FP/WP has been blessed by so many exceptional restorations that its just expected that the historical digital image should be restored for it to be considered. The basic elements of composition, focus, lighting, encyclopeadic value etc are already there thats why these images have been retained by institutions and made avaiable digitally in the first place. These photographs shouldnt be confused with works of art which shouldnt be restored but photographed as a faithful reproduction of the actual painting. Gnan garra 10:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw this over at Commons and it looks like a good idea here too. Established nominators already do this, but it should be done automatically.
Demonstrations:
Code to substitute in Template:FPCnom: [[File:{{{image}}}|thumb|{{#switch:{{{format}}}|pano=center{{!}}100000x200px|portrait=right{{!}}250px|landscape=right{{!}}100000x250px|square=right{{!}}300px|#default=right{{!}}250px}}| '''Original''' - Caption]]
What it does is add a parameter to Template:FPCnom and friends: format={pano, portrait, landscape, square}. If format is not specified, default to the old convention. Would appreciate feedback on image sizes (height=200, height=250, width=250, height=width=300 respectively) and whatever. (I note that in the future we can automatically use Template:Wide image, but let's take little steps first). MER-C 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me - I'm way overcommitted with things I myself have purchased, and at the same time, have very little motivation to work on FPs at the moment, as I mentioned above.
However, I found this image - which is pretty much a cleanup of the bled-through text away from a fairly easy FP - had been uploaded with a blurry, bad version in 2006 - I can only presume the LoC has improved matters in the interim.
If someone wanted to restore it, go to http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3c05555 , click on the thumbnail at the top, and download the tiff. It shouldn't be too difficult, though it will be time consuming.
I'd suggest uploading under a more appropriate name. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
There's been a disturbing trend lately at FPC with historic nominations. Perhaps because I haven't been as active the last couple of weeks I didn't notice this sooner: documentation on restored material is getting woefully inadequate. Many nominators are failing to state whether a historic image has been restored. Among those who do, hardly anyone other than myself links to the original version from the nomination. Most disturbing of all, we are seeing a few restorations at FPC that are wholly undocumented: no upload of the original version, no notes at all about what edits were performed. There's a team of volunteers right now who are negotiating with museums and libraries and archives to gain access to more media. Each time one of these institutions agrees WMF gains access to thousands of images--often tens and hundreds of thousands. If we fail to take documentation seriously we lose out on these deals; we may have lost out on one museum already. It takes one minute to type out what edits have been made and three minutes to upload an unedited version for reference: that makes the difference between putting forward a responsible presentation versus looking--to be blunt about it--like a bunch of jokers. We're working with encyclopedic history, not just pretty pictures. Let's remember that. Durova Charge! 17:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we get a bit more feedback on the outstanding delist nominations? In particular,
Thanks. MER-C 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Would the kind people here please take a moment to look at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sock production? Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark ( talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I am actually a sockpuppet of Durova. Naturally, I take a keen interest in sock history.
I've done another of these, though I'm rather pessimistic. Would it be alright to put up a polite notice of these FPCs on the relevant Wikiprojects? Because last time I was told that people weren't rerviewing because they felt they didn't know enough about the subject. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Heavens preserve us! We can't have contemporary art of someone in his articles! Won't someone save us from this horror?!
And yes, there's seriously people saying that.
Have we just decided to throw out common sense, the historical method (which encourages use of contemporaneous images) and encyclopedic merit and instead judge all artworks by how much they fit into the status quo of a painting, never mind differing aesthetics for different forms of art, contemporaneousness, or anything else? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
May I again ask that people attempt to consider these: Our coverage of literature is poor, but if I can't even get people to look at them, it's very hard to get motivation to carry on working my way through often difficult restorations. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
FP reviewers like variety. Sometimes that gets frustrating, but it can also become motivation to branch out into new subject matter and media. Durova Charge! 14:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
My point was that I wanted literature to appear on the main page, in all its forms, and that FPs make sure that literature does that. Also that you get more of what gets appreciated. I'll also point out that I spend money on acquiring things for Wikipedia: If certain classes of work never pass, or require humiliating begging, I really don't see why I should continue to spend large amounts of money trying to improve coverage, when they'll only sit on (relatively) obscure pages, and never once get a chance to be seen by the wider Wikipedia audience.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
{{ PD-US-1923-abroad}} can now automatically ask for an image to be moved to commons once its copyright does expire. The format is {{PD-US-1923-abroad|out_of_copyright_in=YEAR}} where year must be just the year, e.g. 2012, not January 1, 2012.
Please use this for all such images. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
There were some technical issues with this and this which have now been fixed. Prompt feedback would be appreciated as they are approaching deadline. -- Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Folks,
If you're going to de-list and replace an image (such as this) please link to the original nom. I can't find the discussion to nom the image that was ultimately removed.
Thanks
-- 65.127.188.10 ( talk) 11:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate more reviews: This is one of my favourites, and if I messed something up, I'd like to know what, so I can fix it. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 01:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rob Roy: Since when is having a supermajority in favour equal to not promoted?
I could understand leaving it open a day or two more, but insta-close against the majority? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is simple: it is the closer's function to evaluate consensus, not to reshape it. That's the way it is at AfD and every other featured process. Anyone who closes discussions occasionally feels deep in their heart that the consensus is wrong. When personal preference gets in the way of impartial closure, it's time to recuse or step down. The last time this came up I suggested to MER-C that he take a wikibreak from closures; he hasn't. Maybe it's time to elect a featured picture director? Durova Charge! 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Just like at WP:AFD and elsewhere, consensus is not a numbers game and the closer does not have a vote; the closer is there to interpret consensus. Sometimes when closing, it's not so obvious that the nom is so contentious. I typically give a reason as to why I close a nom as unsuccessful, but sometimes not, when I don't feel it's that big a deal. Consensus, by definition, is a judgement call and an unhappy nominator always has the right to leave a message on the closer's talk page regarding their concerns with the closing. I agree, though, that if something like the previously cited nom happens again, it should stay open a few more days (if not just for people to rescind their !votes). wadester16 | Talk→ 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't any reasonable room for doubt that MER-C is shaping outcomes. See his responses to the thread the last time this was discussed. He defended his actions as a pursuit of quality, and that was the point at which I asked him to recuse. Although I don't like the alternative of appointing a director, we could learn from the mistakes of other featured processes and establish the roll for a set term with a recall process in place. Durova Charge! 17:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate some more discussion here: If, in the end, we decide it's not good enough, that's fine, but it's be nice if we could discuss it enough that we can at least work out some general principles for future noms, such as my edition of the N.C. Wyeth Treasure Island. And, you know, come to decision on the Guy Mannering image itself as well. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
rather annoying. But I wouldn't mind a vote or two at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Lake Seal Mt Field NP.jpg. Noodle snacks ( talk) 04:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. I just discovered that there seems to be a bit of a muddle created by a move bot some time ago, relating to FPC standardization. This lovely picture is not of Frederic Chopin, and there seem to have been various odd redirects created at the same time (apparently the page was moved several times in a row?). I suspect there may be more of these; the place to look is here. Would someone mind pawing through and looking for obvious problems? Thanks. Chick Bowen 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think my proposal for how to handle the problems caused by Wikipedia's thumbnailer probably deserves at least a little review: Noone has commented since I made the proposal. As can be seen, the throwaway image gives much more accurate thumbnailing, but at the cost of having to use imagemap to link to the correct one. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose to do a few Featured picture sets of illustrations to Dickens. Please discuss how you want to run it now, because if this gets caught up in drama over how the original illustrations aren't encyclopedic, or that it's a featured set, and so should fail on principle, or any of the other annoyances here, I swear... Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've restored the 2/3 majority guideline that was removed in 2007. However, we still need to decide where to go from here, especially as doubts have been raised over the 2/3 supermajority, if we even have one at all. There are also, as we know, other problems with FPC participation and closures, so I'd like to invite everyone to help at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process. I've made a start and hope to receive some input on the format, and please comment if you don't think it will be suitable for the purpose. If we're in favour of a change, perhaps we can start hashing out there some ideas on what should come and what should go: whether that be guidelines, bots, supermajorities, puppies, or people. Whatever happens, remember the golden rules, or we will achieve nothing: be civil, this is not a blame game, and nothing is black and white. Thank you! Maedin\ talk 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
While listing a new nomination it came as a very unpleasant surprise to see several listings renewed with invalid strikethroughs performed. There are several ways to address biased closures, but one way not to remedy the situation is to strikethrough other people's reviews without their permission or notification, as was done in several instances. This creates a false and misleading impression of massive withdrawal of support. And by doing so, invalidates the renomination. Please revert all unauthorized strikethroughs and take down those relistings immediately. Durova Charge! 21:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree about {{ archive top}} and {{ archive bottom}}. This has to be addressed though; my striking was not arbitrary. Striking may have "tainted" the nom, but so does leaving it looking like those votes are still valid during the renom. I would say both situations are equally bad. But again, I did this thinking it was a good idea, but accept that consensus doesn't currently agree. In fact, I think it would be a better idea to start a completely new nom for each image and just include the link to the previous nom; granted this can't be done now, but we should have it on the books for next time. All-in-all, I think this was done a bit hastily, and most likely should have been discussed before they were relisted, so we could have ironed out these issues first. I'm not crying foul on anybody (it was all done in good faith), but in hindsight, this wasn't dealt with in the best manner, IMHO. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Being fair to Wadester here, it appears that the relistings including the strikethroughs were done in good faith. Machiavelli isn't lurking behind the curtain; it's more like a good intention that misfired. Still, I don't give two hoots whether a closer is 'correct' or not: closers who can't resist the temptation to override consensus ought not to be closing. This used to be the least drama-laden featured process; that's getting poisoned over a handful of nominations that could be resolved legitimately:
Either of those solutions would be fine. Otherwise we may need to set up an FPC director. Durova Charge! 15:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, you have now screwed the pooch. There is no chance of any of these nom having any sort of a fair run anymore. And yet you seem to think that it is Alvesgaspar's responsibility to deal with this. I find your behaviour both unethical and appalling. You have been on Featured pictures long enough to know that some things will kill nominations. You have actively set out to exceed yourself in making all of them apply to a polite relisting to determine consensus.
I am now going to go lie down, and see if the severe flu and projectile vomiting stop. Maybe they will by tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Anyone else find it ironic that after all the edit warring over the noms being relisted because it'd make them run 14 days, Guy Mannering has been up, with 4 supports, no opposes for 10 days? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The following images are considered provisionally promoted, barring the outcome of a delist nomination. Should the delist not have a consensus against them (no consensus = they stay promoted) after 7 days, they are promoted. However, I have not gone through the promotion procedure beyond closing the original nom.
Here are the delists in question, once they close, if any do not have a consensus to delist, the image must be promoted.
No further comment at this time. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Please see below to understand why this is a real pain in the ass, and how SH did things incorrectly. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So how are we going to get FPC out of the ditch? It has been pretty chaotic around here (not to mention that my Lomatium image has gone bizarre and don't know what to do). So far, we implied the 2/3 rule, and hopefully the closers will follow this. Anything else? Zoo Fari 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm, my Lomatium image has been assessed by DustyBot at commons for its FP status. I don't want my image to be biased around Wiki, so I'd like the closing as soon as possible. Zoo Fari 17:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pasting the following from Wadester's user talk. This is why I have withdrawn the remaining nominations. Durova Charge! 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently I joined the boycott of FPC and requested that you step down from closing nominations. At the time when I did so I had five open candidates, two of which have since been closed and both of which were closed by you. In good faith I would like to suppose that you are doing this in an attempt to demonstrate fairness, but as our prior discussion concluded you created the distinct impression of rather aggressively disregarding my opinions and reasoning. I have over two hundred featured pictures and have no urgent need for more; it would be more circumspect to extend respect. Durova Charge! 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A less hyperbolic reply would be more productive. Note the following:
Now I don't very much care about one more FP per se, which was why I didn't raise this at the time although it's disappointing to see the limited supply of African historic material wasted this way: countering systemic bias is difficult even when the process is fair. But the specific thing that lost my trust was to see how you shifted ground. It's doubtful the four examples I provided upon your requests were ever read: your later post miscounted them as three examples. The inconsistencies in closures at that process are blatant to a degree that would not have been tolerated this long anywhere else, and you appear more interested in name calling than in winning back the trust of the two prolific contributors who finally resorted to boycotting. Durova Charge! 05:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is interesting. You still have no answer to why you allowed only one-quarter the extension that a different image was being given, you refuse to acknowledge that your rationales have changed, and you're substituting another ad hominem attack for rational discussion.
If you hadn't noticed, these last few months we have had several new nominators at FPC who were doing similar work to Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. Most of them have left the process; while I was urging them to stay we had offsite discussions about the erratic closures. At that time I tried to make excuses for what was happening at FPC. Enough is enough; per this conversation I am withdrawing all existing FPC nominations. Please reconsider your course of action while people are still willing to return. Durova Charge! 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
{{fact}}
after each of your claims. But that would take a long time. My goal isn't martyrdom (I'm not that religious); my goal is fairness.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 01:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer
I considered adding a statement here but thought better and removed it before anyone replied. Wadester restored it. Nor was it put under an inflammatory title, as it was edited to be by Wadester. This is in gross violation of Wikipedia policy: you are not allowed to edit someone else's words or misrepresent them, which presumably includes forcing them to keep up statements that they thought better of moments later, presenting it as if they hadn't decided to remove it. I have thus removed the majority of my supposed "evidence". I have left up one statement which someone else replied to. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC) |
----
). The current way you're showing it works for me.
wadester16 |
Talk→ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Text Wadester has restored twice, which was originally posted—then removed—by Shoemaker's Holiday
Also pasted from his talk. The background to this was him leaving a somewhat rude message on my talk page [5], criticising me for not putting through the provisional promotions, and saying I should have done them fully. I specifically said I hadn't done the promotion fully, to try and cut down on the controversy. Given your editwarring forced this move, and given, further, that your treatment of the Guy Mannering nom is at the exact opposite position to your claims that leaving a nom open 14 days was such a disaster that it must be avoided at all costs, I think you don't have a single leg to stand on in your criticism of me. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
A supermajority votes to support, but most were against their promotion. Riiiight. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
|
[The next sentence he only restored once, I left it up because Durova had replied
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) ]
I find dealing with him an examplar of
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
If Wadester's four putative supporters exist, please post or email. Shoemaker's Holiday (whose boycott I have joined) has been articulate and active. We care about this process; we don't want to see it wither. If we are two voices in the wilderness, then other participants--please set us straight. Durova Charge! 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, can we just agree to disagree with what has happened and focus on the future?-- Muhammad (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am joining Shoemaker's Holiday in his boycott of FPC until the promotion and closure problems are resolved. Will defer to any reasonable consensus; this is not an attempt to force a particular outcome.
Will not be responding further to comments, questions, or requests at existing nominations until this is resolved. Ceasing reviewing, and ceasing new nominations until further notice. Durova Charge! 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I have been a bit bold and archived the arguments going on above as they have degenerated into non-constructive nonsense. Please don't take things personally and direct your energy towards Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which seems more likely to get somewhere. Noodle snacks ( talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
^^ Essentially, how can we tweak the process and the criteria so that crappy images don't get into passing territory (and hence making discretion calls less necessary)?
Most poor reviews are deficient with respect to WIAFP 1, so here we go. I think this would hopefully reduce the learning curve a bit (from unwritten rules to explicit ones) and help adapt the criteria to other forms of imaging. A crude draft:
1. has professional image quality.
- a) Optical and sensor quality: The image should not suffer from avoidable distortion or tilt, especially in architectual photos and scans. Blown highlights, crushed blacks [1], vignetting and noise/ film grain should be minimised. There is no significant chromatic aberration and dust spots should be removed.
- b) Post-processing anomalies: The image must not have visible compression, posterization or oversharpening artifacts or other signs of inappropriate/incompetent post processing.
- c) Exposure, lighting and tonality: The picture must have an accurate exposure, encyclopedic white balance and appropriate lighting. The image should have good contrast. Portraits should not exhibit the red-eye effect nor should they be taken with strong fill flash (typified by strong shadows and harsh highlights).
- d) Composition: The image has good composition. The subject must not be cut off or obscured without good reason. All important aspects of the image should be in focus, while those unimportant should be deemphasized (see depth of field). There are no distracting elements. Consideration is given to macro photography where the depth of field is often constrained by physical limitations and so the entire subject may not be fully in focus.
- e) Panoramas should have no stitching errors. The frames must be consistent in exposure, focus and lighting.
- f) Historical images should be of professional quality corresponding to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreplaceable images with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is encouraged, but is not required. Reproductions should not exhibit moire.
- For visual examples, see Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems and Commons:Image guidelines. Not all criteria apply to one particular image - typically (a) - (e) for digital photos; (a), (b), (c) [2] and (f) for historical images and (g) for diagrams.
[1] Quantitatively, typically 0.02% of all pixels each. This comes from experience, in a 5 Mpx image this translates to 1000 px. Images with more (0,0,0) or (255,255,255) pixels than this don't tend to succeed.
[2] This usually deals with the quality of the digital reproduction, not necessarily the analog original. See
File:Edward abdication.png for a historical image that would fail 1b and 1c (compression artifacts, uneven lighting) and
File:Kalki 03 1948.jpg for one that would fail 1a (tilt). Of course, 1a also applies to historical photos.
Apologies if I've left out any major technical errors. MER-C 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
For restorations, we ought to be including documentation requirements: the image hosting page should provide a detailed summary of what edits were performed and the FPC nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration, with a link to the unrestored version for comparison. Durova Charge! 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about I can the details but replace "is of a high technical standard" with "displays professional image quality" or something like that. The idea is to get it into their heads that our standards are roughly equivalent to those of (say) National Geographic. MER-C 03:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Revised per suggestions. I also found this article, it could (with improvement) be a quick primer on this criterion. I disagree on newbies, the extended criteria make them aware of our standards and the criteria are generally self-contained - as opposed to WP:FA?, for instance (since the MOS is incorporated into the criteria), which is at least 100 pages long... MER-C 09:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
f) Restorations, scans and historical images. Images should reproduce the original work faithfully, though correction of deterioration is encouraged. There should be no spots, scratches or other damage.
f) Historical images. Should be high quality according to the available technology of the era. Some flexibility may be applied for irreproducible subjects with high encyclopedic value. Digital restoration is not required although often preferred. If material is restored, the nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration. A detailed summary of the edits performed should be provided on the image hosting page, and both the hosting page and the nomination should link to the unrestored version for comparison.
It's very important that we document the edits performed in restorations. This is an important factor that museums, libraries, etc. weigh when they decide whether to release their collections to the public via Wikimedia Commons. Very large donations (hundreds of thousands of images) can become available this way. If the curators believe we are lax about edited image documentation, they can (and actually have) withdrawn from negotiations.
On a practical level, proper documentation is already a standard requirement for promotion at FPC, and has been for many months. Putting this in writing makes that clear to everyone. Durova Charge! 04:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
8. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provided it is documented, limited, well-done and not deceptive.
- a) Unacceptable manipulation. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
- b) Documentation of manipulation and restoration. Any digitally restored image or edit of a nominated image [1] should have a summary of the edits performed on the image description page, with links to the original/unrestored version(s).
This would cover the last major form of images we get here.
1g) Diagrams and maps are clean and well laid out. Vector graphics should employ web-safe fonts and are valid SVG.
I don't think there's much to say here, but they still need to be mentioned. MER-C 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?/Examples of technical problems could do with more examples, particularly with respect to incompetent scans. MER-C 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!
Maedin\ talk 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I was hoping to schedule a Canada-related FP for Canada Day (July 1) POTD but I can't seem to find anything suitable. Does anyone have something they've been sitting on that might be suitable? Thanks. howcheng { chat} 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
When I started my boycott of FPC, I decided not to pull some images that had nearly hit the seven days, and were likely to pass. I figured they would go through quickly enough, and that'd be the end of it.
One lasted for 12 and a half days, and this one has now been up for sixteen days.
This incredible unprofessionalism is not helping the case of FPC. What on earth going on here? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, it's a definite pass, even if Mostlyharmless hadn't supported (four supports, no opposes: meets the criteria); I just refuse to touch it based on Shoemaker screwing his own pooch. Even though the issue of clockwise rotation was brought up, old engravings and drawings aren't held to such a high standard because they are older, human artworks, which are inherently not perfect. Maybe this is a good time to train new potential closers...? wadester 16 04:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Wadester, let's review your statements in the thread you're making oblique reference to:
“ | Wait, what? These are renominations; aka completely new nominations of an image that just happened to be nominated once before. The previous !votes aren't valid during this run through. Otherwise, these constitute a 14-day nomination. While previous closings may not have been "fair", counting the previous votes also is not and keeping them unstruck is also not fair; granted it may have been a better idea to strike just the !vote and not the comments, but still. If someone !voted before, they must reconfirm their previous !vote. I don't see the issue here...? wadester16 | Talk→ 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
And later
“ | I can't disagree with the last part of your comment, but you're making these into 14-day noms. How is that fair? wadester16 | Talk→ 04:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
You later lied about your previous statements.
“ | No, I struck votes out because they were no longer valid, just like here. It had nothing to do with how long the nom ran; it was a renomination and therefore a new nom[....] wadester16 | Talk→ 00:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) | ” |
So, Wadester, do you still deny that you said that 14 days was a problem, but now think that letting noms run 16 days whenever you feel like it isn't an issue?
I think you should be shown the door of the FPC process. Your lying and hypocrisy makes you unfit to hold any sort of power. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 07:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
As stated by the three regulars above me, I'm not obligated to do anything. But I think this horse is rather pulp-like; there's no reason to start this all up again. wadester 16 15:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, just shut up with all this mess. I thought it was all over. I went ahead and closed the nomination as promoted, since it was going to stay there for a month. This is a Wiki, so if Wade doesn't want to close it, he won't close it. There is no fault to that. I'm not going to turn into a closer, though. So you might as well create a bot or something before more harm is done then good. Zoo Fari 19:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
From User_talk:MER-C#Closure_request
“ | Would you ming closing
this?
wadester
16 04:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
|
” |
Shoemaker's Holiday (
talk) 22:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been watching this whole larger situation from a distance and have been keeping out of it as I think it is something you guys clearly need to resolve between yourselves. But, I will at this point say that I find "Mainly because it's really close, leaning support, but I don't think it should pass." to be a somewhat troubling comment. It appears to display a preference for an outcome which is irrelevant and inappropriate on the part of a closer (please correct me if that was not what it was suggesting but choice of words is all important in a text communication project and this is how it reads to me), and I certainly don't think that asking someone else to close something should be accompanied by a recommended outcome. Closing should be a simple matter of determining consensus, exactly as closing an AfD. As far as the whole current situation goes, if the credibility of this FP project is to be maintained then all steps must be taken by everyone to avoid saying and doing things that are likely to inflame the situation. If this doesn't happen then the outcome is bleak, it is either going to make the contributors that are staying away from the project at the moment continue to do so, or it is going to result in the project itself losing its credibility and falling by the wayside. I think that unfortunately if you both can't come to an agreement to not continue to pick faults in each others motives and actions at every turn, which is certainly veering in the direction of WP:POINT, then you should both stay away from the project for a while to cool down. Continuing this battle is doing more harm to the FP project than it is to yourselves and the community should not have to stand by and watch it happen. Mfield ( Oi!) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(ec - adding some more) I am not assigning any blame on anyone, but the community project is more important than any single person, however they are contributing, and the interests of the community trump some hard feelings here and there. Can we please agree to drop this completely and move on, if not then it should instead be escalated to a proper dispute resolution medium and not be allowed to continue disrupting and driving participants away from this project. Mfield ( Oi!) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't read most of this, so sorry if my comment seems out of place. I just wanted to say that this looks absolutely ridiculous. People complained that Wadester is incompetent to close nominations. I recall someone even suggesting he recuse himself from closing noms. Well here he does exactly that, and he gets criticized for it! That doesn't make sense to me! He did what he thought was right...what ever happened to Assume Good Faith?! All of this argument and fighting at FPC is getting ridiculous. Makeemlighter ( talk) 06:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've mentioned this in the myriad of proposals on FPC closing process, but I think a lot of good ideas have been lost in the wash due to the sheer volume of discussion - Mfield, I agree with you that the closer should not attempt to second guess voter's reasoning or understanding or they run the risk of being an impartial judge, jury and executioner. I know vote counting has been shot down due to the potential for less informed voters to miss obvious faults or misinterpret the criteria, but hear me out. Maybe we should stick to simple vote counting for the initial closure at the point where the nom is transfered to the 'cooling off' section. This would give a rough overview of consensus, and then the cooling off period would allow all contributors (not just the closer) the opportunity to bring up any issues they had with that total and to debate the merits of contentious votes if necessary, and establish a more subjective form of consensus to complement the objective voting consensus. I would imagine that the vast majority of nominations would not need much in the way of further discussion at all, and we would allow the nom to be closed as-is, but the way I see it, this is probably the only way to alow everyone involvement in the closure process/decisions for controversial nominations while keeping established closers in control of the more administrative functions, as well as protected from claims of bias. Sure, there will still be the occasional unhappy camper, but no process will stop that completely. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures. MER-C 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A couple of factors have caused a serious gap at FPC and related processes. There's a section from an article I've been raising to GA that gets part of it by analogy:
Or to put this in different terms, suppose someone who had never touched a camera had learned the term 'depth of field' but not the optics that govern it, and demands that you produce a shallow depth of field under direct sunlight at noon. This person had seen you get a shallow depth of field from a shaded spot at late afternoon, and has no interest in learning why you can't do it whenever they want.
Part of the problem are mistaken assumptions about digital restoration, both in terms of the technical parameters and in terms of the availability of material. About 1 in 1000 archival images is potentially featurable and a 10MB source file in uncompressed format is normally the minimum starting point for serious work. In the course of reviewing several million images one does find caches of suitable material. By returning to these caches and cycling through them it is possible to become a prolific FPC nominator, but in many topics the caches of suitable material are not large. FPC reviewers have been burning through rare material in the mistaken belief that more will be forthcoming. More could be forthcoming if we feature the best we actually have, because then other archives that contain material on similar subjects might be persuaded to release their collections. That requires slow negotiations by a global network of volunteers, and the difficulty and delicacy of that effort is almost wholly unknown to the majority of reviewers at this process. FP has substantial value to these negotiations, but VP has none. It has been a source of considerable frustration to see the photographers at this process paint the future of our restoration efforts into a corner, under wholly misguided notions of quality control, while they consistently ignore the input of the people who actually do restoration work. In recent weeks I allowed the depth of that frustration to show itself, but that trend simply cannot go any further or restoration itself will dead-end. Durova Charge! 14:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It is only natural that we have a strong emphasis on encyclopedic value, we are an encyclopedia. That is how it should be. If we were a gallery then we would put image quality first. Chillum 16:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Picking up on the 'crap technical quality' comment in the thread above, [26] a problem in recent months has been myopic understanding of technical quality. One of the best examples to diagnose the ailment is the Titan delisting nomination.
The image is dated 2004, but of course the camera wasn't made in 2004 because the spacecraft was launched in 1997. The exact mass of all the equipment had to be known and tested years before launch in order to plot its course, which included two gravity assist flybys at Venus and Jupiter. So the camera was built with early 1990s technology. It had to perform at temperatures a few degrees above absolute zero in near-total darkness because at Saturn's orbit the sun doesn't provide much more energy than a bright star.
Titan has been visited by spacecraft only three times in human history. The first was Pioneer 11 in 1973, which returned this image. Then the Voyager missions in 1980-1981 shot this. And in order to even do that well with the technology that existed at the time, NASA scheduled Voyager I's final encounter as a close Titan flyby.
The technical challenges that arise after launch add additional layers of difficulty to these missions. Voyager I was nearly destroyed in the rings of Saturn before its Titan encounter because the best technology available when the mission was planned had been unable to detect any matter in the dark zones of its ring system. After the Jupiter encounter the craft sent back images of literally hundreds of rings in the zone of its planned course: a grain of sand would have operated like a bullet on the craft at the speeds it was traveling. Emergency course modifications were extremely difficult to execute, but the mission was saved. Without that rescue, much of the data never would have been obtained that went into planning the Cassini mission.
This is all cutting edge science and sometimes the technical team has to work around hardware failures. One famous save occurred here:
The software needed extensive rewrites after the antenna failure, then a second round of even more drastic rewrites after the tape recorder failure. And all of the relevant imaging had to be rescheduled and replanned because the data was moving much more slowly, but the craft was still flying at orbital speed.
It simply isn't rational to review the Titan image by the same standards one would apply to a home tripod photo of earth's moon. Of course the Titan mosaic isn't stitched: it was shot for scientific purposes, not for an art gallery. Of course it's contrasty: Titan is the only astronomical body in the solar system other than earth that has liquid at its surface--they were looking for specular reflections.
As stated before, I do have a conflict of interest regarding the Titan image and will disclose fully to anyone who emails a request. So far, no one from the featured pictures program has inquired. Most of the statements in this post are readily verifiable; a few aren't. A barnstar to the first person who detects which information wasn't published officially. Several of the regulars at featured picture candidates need to spend more time reading the articles these images illustrate.
And yet 'crap technical quality' is a comment that gets taken seriously. And the delisting nominator himself hasn't been called to task for saying FPC is not an image gallery and nobody puts quality ahead of EV. Just take a look at the page now and see for yourself. The images that are being opposed because of quality concerns have TERRIBLE quality.(original poster's emphasis) [27] That is an expression of misplaced priorities, superficial understanding, and distorted perspective. Knowledge of digital photography is not a substitute for research. The technical quality of this image is a feat of international science and engineering, and those who deny that reveal their own ignorance. It will likely be a quarter century before better images can be taken of this astronomical object. Those are the realities of science, and this website is an encyclopedia. Cross posting to my blog. Durova Charge! 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
If wikipedia is to be of professional quality, then the images have to be too. The titan moon is of professional quality. I'm about to make Ottava Rima sick I suppose. The fact is that image quality does have a direct impact on encyclopaedic value. Compare this with the original. Both images would be sufficient to identify the bird, however the high quality image tells you much more. Noodle snacks ( talk) 05:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Guys, Maedin has kindly summarised the hundreds of pages of discussion on the 'Review of Closure Process' down to a dozen or so 'pick your preferred procedure' sections. ;-) We really need everyone's opinions and participation to make sure that whatever we decide on has the backing of the whole community, and not just a couple of interested parties. Please visit the page linked above on the section summary and let us know what you think. You don't have to respond to every single section if you don't want to - just the ones that you have an opinion on is better than nothing at all.
We're getting closer to determining a better process for FPC closures but if we don't get this sorted out soon, it's in danger of becoming 'too much work' and nothing will change - and that includes disillusionment and a mass exodus from the project! ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
As I look now two ( 1 and 2) of the three most recent FP promotions don't appear in the archives.
And have just fixed a bunch more mistakes at FP Thumbs, you would think the place least likely to attract errors. Not to mention Page 17 was up to 157 thumbs and should be rolled over at 100. Who's checking any more?
Who would know what other mistakes are piled up elsewhere? I only check occasionally, and only in some places.
And no one better try blaming just one closer for it or get on here to continue their ranting, because firstly it's not just one person and secondly I reckon most of us have had enough of it. -- jjron ( talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed we once again have another candidate that involves nudity [28]. Since Wikipedia is open to a huge amounts of schools 18-, I strongly disagree with having them in the main page. If we keep having these types of photos, schools will start shutting us off. We have to have this in consideration now, before we start receiving pics involving sexual activity. So what do you guys think? Zoo Fari 16:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
POTD operates by different standards from FPC. Two FPs that will never run on the main page are this and this. Just review as any other FPC, and leave the rest up to Howcheng. Durova Charge! 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Editors do not close requests which they were heavily involved in. This goes for all processes on wikipedia. Such actions bring projects like FPC in disrepute. I ask that editors cease the closing of FPC requests they have been involved in. Seddσn talk| WikimediaUK 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Seddon--that has something to do with why two of the most prolific contributors are boycotting this process. Things have been happening at FPC that would be out of the question elsewhere. Would like to get matters straightened out and return. It's concerning to see this is still an issue: perhaps some of the contributors here could branch out and gain broader experience in Wikipedian site standards? Durova Charge! 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Discussion on the review has stalled. We need to wrap up the remaining discussions.
Putting on my consensus hat, I'd say (but don't want to enact, because I am involved):
Voting period: two days of inactivity, no less than seven days
Validity of votes: Discount anons, sockpuppets, nonsense, no longer relevant and poorly grounded
Quorum: 4 excluding nominator
Supermajority: 67%+ as a guide
We also need to talk about how to implement the results of the survey. I've proposed something that (hopefully) is a compromise on the points made and also solves some other problems, though you are welcome to suggest something else. MER-C 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Final call on the straw poll results. I'll formally propose the new provisional closures system (with the director(s) and such) on this page afterward. MER-C 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a bit off topic, but somewhat relevant. I'm trying to gather the consensus on the debate of value vs. quality of the image. You can join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures#About Value vs Quality (Who's number 1?) OhanaUnited Talk page 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Based on what I felt was consensus, I just created a "Recently closed nominations" section. I don't feel there's any need to wait to create this, so I went WP:BOLD and made it. Two days in the section, removed at the the next available moment by a closer (or anybody, for that matter, if the two days have passed). These noms have been added to the archives, and will continue to be. They are there currently to be easily reviewed by other FPC contributors. I felt there was no reason to wait to enact this, as it's not a big deal, easy to do, and adds greatly to transparency. If anyone has any complaints, by all means, revert my effort; it won't bother me. Just trying to help the cause. Based on these closures, if anyone has an issue with a closure, please bring it to the talk page of the closer. Thanks in advance! Comments welcome, as always. wadester 16 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Where do we stand with closure review? Durova Charge! 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, my own boycott is not an attempt to force any particular outcome. Am looking for any reasonable resolution, ideally one that refocuses energies upon our shared mission to identify and promote quality media. Durova Charge! 14:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Bump... any news on this? MER-C 06:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I clear all the prior drama off this page before I make the proposal? MER-C 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue is currently disrupting my first FPC. Not only has he caused a formatting change that completed destroyed the formatting of WP:FPC, he accused me of various impropriety that were blatantly untrue and now is making all sorts of claims about civility, no personal attacks, etc, which are completely unnecessary. This page is supposed to be about the images and only the images. Can someone please remove his blatant disruption and warn him about staying on topic? Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Given Ottava Rima's weird behavior and disruption, I thought the nomination is his first nomination (newbies sometimes are inclined to be sensitive at evaluations) and my hunch is right. I've had more than "one experience" in reviewing and nominating FP on here and Commons, and you've threaten me for the unintelligent reason. So I've raised the concern on your bad faith behavior and incivility to WQA. Please visit the page and let's have objective view on each. Thanks.- Caspian blue 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See this. Can anybody make the necessary changes if any? I am afraid Howcheng may not see in time. -- Muhammad (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |