Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 25

Asian Golden Cat
	{{Featured picture image}}
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Carnivora
Family:	Felidae
Genus:	Catopuma
Species:	C. temminckii
Binomial name
	Catopuma temminckii; (Vigors & Horsfield, 1827)

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. 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.

Archive 20

←

→

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Kenyon Cox nude study

Why was the original promoted here? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 22:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see shall we:

Original supports:

J Milburn
GerardM
Staxringold
Mostlyharmless
Xavexgoem
~~Nezzadar~~ Voted twice, opposed second time

Edit supports:

Xavexgoem

Perhaps the nomination should have been moved to the "additional votes" section and notify the voters of the edit. Zoo Fari^Boo! 23:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with ZooFari. Currently the only way to change anything is a delist+replace nom. upstate NYer 00:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

At the least, that's missing my vote. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 06:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Makeem could recheck, but on the balance of comments I also would have promoted the original. Edit had four days with only the uploader's clear support (and one 'slight preference'), no pre-edit voter changed to support the edit, and one expressed maintained preference to original. Would not appear to be a consensus to promote the edit. --jjron (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess it could have gone to older noms requiring additional input, but that didn't seem necessary. If you feel strongly that the edit is superior, you could try a delist and replace nom. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

When you've seen one Edwardian field marshal, you've seen 'em all

Here's a situation we've never handled before. The Library of Congress has just emailed to confirm a substantial error in their bibliographic records: the image at right is actually Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts rather than Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. They've emailed me today to say their website should be updated within a month (multiple reliable sources supported the correction). So props to Roger Davies for the catch, and interesting housekeeping is due on this end. The image went through five different versions during FPC consideration, all of which (along with the FPC nomination) carried Lord Kitchener's name. Housekeeping is needed; proposing here before implementing actual changes.

As a Commons administrator I can move the filenames. The page name of the FPC nomination can also be changed, with a note at the bottom of the nomination page to explain these unusual circumstances. If no one objects I'll carry out the fixes shortly. Durova³⁵² 17:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. That's the correct course of action. upstate NYer 21:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I change my vote now. LOL Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 04:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't you just ask the same thing 4 days ago a few sections up the page? --Dschwen 00:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be speedy delisted. Did you have that in mind? Makeemlighter (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I say keep, so long as the image finds new homes. We voted on the image, not the person. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 05:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it needs a new nom, because everyone was voting on its EV in the Kitchener article. Presumably the EV would still be high enough wherever it ends up, but I don't think we can assume that. It's probably best for the community to decide. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't specifically thinking of delisting it; both field marshals were used for WWI recruiting. But if you think it's important we could run a reconfirmation discussion. Durova³⁵⁵ 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no, just put it in its correct articles and save the bureaucracy. This was an easy pass anyway. upstate NYer 22:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Endorse that. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Double standards in new nominations and delisting discussions

There seems to be a groundswell of support to retain the image at left, which was promoted to featured picture in 2005 when technical expectations were far below what FPC reviewers expect today. At right is another nominee currently under consideration, which has roughly double the dimensions and about eight times the filesize. It went through extensive digital restoration (detailed here), yet is currently on its way to non-promotion.

If featured picture reviewers want to be true to our stated project mission of showcasing Wikipedia's best content, then it is important to review new nominees and delist nominees on something close to equivalent criteria. Encyclopedic value is high for both images and arguably higher for Blake, which is harder to replace. Durova³⁵⁵ 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A brief comment - the delist nom was in 2007, about the time that standards moved up considerably. I don't know how it would fare today. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey I voted to delist the pile of rocks. Durova, keep in mind the fundemental strength of Wikipedia is also its biggest weakness, that being the involvement of the masses. Not everyone is logical, and some people vote on "pretty pictures" without reading criteria. (see the Sakura delist) Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 04:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, hell, some people even look at images captioned "Bison skulls" and see a pile of rocks. Bloody riffraff, eh? mikaul^talk 11:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

As you know, the only criterion the bison image fails is size, and it's the fact that it excels in all other criteria has kept it at FP for so long. Our current technical expectations for scans of rare old photographs are the same as they were in 2005. You don't need to ask if this would pass today: if it passes a delist it's the same thing. The thing is it moves people to support and behaves like an FP in every way but physical stature. To be brutally honest, I think people aren't sufficiently moved by the Blake self portrait that they will overlook minor shortcomings in the scan. You need only compare the reviews it currently has with the skull pile-restored.jpg Bison heads photo's original nom to see there's no double standard here: from an emotive POV you're comparing apples with oranges. mikaul^talk 11:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Remember the Che Guevara nom? Show us the most recent historic nomination to succeed that was under 800 pixels filesize. Because the Bundesarchiv has donated 100,000 images that are 800px on the long axis and if you're serious then we'd best get to work promoting several hundred of them. We took one stab at it with predictable results. Durova³⁵⁵ 16:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But it's not all about size, and volume is only obliquely relevant. The only thing a donation of 100,000 images has to do with FPC is the statistical chance that a tiny fraction (as in several, not several hundred) might be so stunning as to be promotable at 800px. The sad-yet-understandable fact in this case is that FPC reviewers will object not to the small size itself but to the existence of higher-resolution scans withheld by the Bundesarchiv; a whole other debate. You'll have to remind me what the Che Guevara nom has to do with it, I thought that failed on a copyright issue. WIlly Brandt might have been a formidable politician but the incontrovertible truth is he's less compelling than a pile of buffalo skulls. For all I know the latter might have been our last successful sub-1000 FPC... QED. It would have been delisted if it wasn't very much the exceptional image it is. mikaul^talk 21:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:26543.JPG

the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, original FP (yes, redlinked) Nearly delisted in early 2008 but replaced by a higher resolution alternate, courtesy of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

And very much hoping the Bundesarchiv donates higher quality material on specific subjects. Even did a courtesy restoration on a higher resolution portrait of Konrad Adenauer as proof of concept, which unfortunately I couldn't upload because their higher resolution material remains under full copyright. When the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising came up for delisting in early 2008 I contacted the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which provided a higher resolution substitute. That image was comparable if not superior to the bison skulls on technicals and arguably much higher on encyclopedic value, yet was moving toward consensus to delist until the museum assisted. FPC reviewers have consistently expected higher quality from new nominations--sometimes raising the bar beyond what is actually feasible--while delist discussions of historic content are remarkably inconsistent. Durova³⁵⁵ 21:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you completely, but I'd have probably renominated that Warsaw Ghetto image had it been delisted. Criterion #2 (no higher res available) is always a problem for these images. But delist noms get as much attention as any nom, AFAICS. They're different because there's already past consensus there, I guess. --mikaul^talk 23:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what: no guarantees it'll succeed but could renew the request for better resolution donations from Bundesarchiv. Durova³⁵⁵ 23:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well put (note: was referring to Mikaul's point before Durova interjected; check times), and returns to my recent argument that I feel FPC has in recent times being erring to technicals above all else (I could pretty much copy and paste my final comment from there straight into here). We also used to quite commonly see a non-criterion mentioned at FPC called a "wow factor" - that seems to be largely lost now (which is also relevant on noms such as this), but the bison skulls definitely has wow. --jjron (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the wow factor still exists, but it has always been a subconscious thing rather than mentioned explicitly in the criteria. That said, you're right, there has been a bit of a shift from interesting images to technically perfect images. Even my images which by earlier standards were of reasonably high technical quality, tend to be nitpicked endlessly now. It's a shame, because obviously technical quality is important, but there do need to be exceptions and allowances made where appropriate for a difficult subject or age of image and the image capture medium used at the time. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Diliff (I feel I've been saying that a lot recently...) in that I am willing to overlook minor technical faults in an otherwise WOW picture- take this- obviously, the camera is not at the same standard as this, but I'm willing to overlook any minor faults because it's such an interesting photo. I hold the need for technical standards higher on more dull pictures, as I expect everyone does. An important thing to remember is that the wow factor applies to different things for different people- fungi hold the wow factor for me, as do insects, (thanks Muhammad and Noodle snacks!) but I find some of the things often nominated (like, restored children's illustrations) very dull. However, I know for a fact that children's illustrations are of great interest to some contributors here. J Milburn (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are lots of different things that can 'grab' us about an image, and everyone has their own interests and biases. Every image has something to offer in the way of education - we are here to highlight the best ones, of course. Even dull images can and should be capable of passing if they are sufficiently educational and of good technical standard that sets them apart from all the other dull images. I accept that some of my architectural images are on the dull side of the scale, but the interest and educational value lies in the detail and the good technical quality (well, I try anyway). For others, it's capturing something that is uncommon or difficult and the technical requirements should reflect that. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If the WOW were policy, believe me I would get behind it. You are right about the rubber stamp though. Consider the recent case of Lucy Merriam, a bland portrait with questionable EV, quality issues, and absolutely no WOW at all. How it passed, I have no idea. It did have a high pixel count though. At this point, FP gives too much weight to what photographers deem important, such as technical quality and size, and not enough to what average people care about, such as content and WOW. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 21:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you than be consequent and reconsider your vote for Auditorio de Tenerife? Elekhh (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Note, IMO Blake has no WOW, and Bison has no quality, therefore I support neither for EV, but I tend to be incredibally harsh with my voting, as I believe that only the indisputable best should get promoted. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Had to smile at this discussion following my yearning for the days of wow-based reviews at the Gates nom. John's right, there is an easy way to review an FPC nom and it's seems to be getting easier to play to the gallery as a nominator. Wooly aesthetic strengths are much harder to demonstrate than fact-based EV, and even that may be a challenge for those who need objective criteria to evaluate an image. But objective criteria (size, placement, age and several technical tick boxes) are about as useful as WP:LIKE voting; so ooh! it's big and ah! it's sharp... so what? You could probably train a chimp to spot that and no-one outside of FPC cares anyway. We need reviews that properly explore the way an image works (EV) maybe express the emotional response it provokes, if any (aesthetics, sort of) but especially where it takes you when you examine it: whether there's an utterly subjective response, however hard it is hard to express, and if not, what other factor recommends it beyond basic technical correctness. These factors do apply to an encyclopedia; they are crucially important to achieving a meaningful collection of FPs that isn't diluted by loads of sharp, high resolution, tick-box cruft. mikaul^talk 22:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Note to Diliff: your pano work frequently transports me (and others, I'm sure) to whole other worlds. Just saying... ;-)

Well put. Plus, restorations are not guaranteed FP status just because of effort and time put into the project. Photographers also spend many hours of effort taking photographs and don't walk away with all of them promoted. Articles can and do still become better thanks to the effort, FP or not. The apparent feeling of entitlement gets old quickly especially if the subject matter is, well, boring. upstate NYer 03:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said here. It's all too often that we lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is first, foremost (and arguably only) an encylopedia. Perhaps a reconsidering of the FP Criteria is in order? (Also, while I mostly agree with what Nezzdar has said so far, he seems to be rather hypocritical in stating that too much weight is given to "technicals" while many of his opposes appear to be based on just that) Cowtowner (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have a big discussion every time there is some perceived inconsistency in the application of the criteria. I also don't think that every historical image that isn't going to pass needs to attract drama. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The primary reason for starting this thread was the delist nomination. We have several historic FPs that are far below current norms but we seem unable to shed. They make me hesitate to show our site FP galleries to cultural institutions who might donate more material--first because of the gross inconsistency between newer and older promotions, and second because of the obstacles it could cause if a curator saw the bison skulls and supposed a comparable donation would get promoted today. I seldom try to delist these things because so many bad faith insinuations accompany the proposals. Have checked with the German Wikimedians regarding Brandt's portrait; followup requests to Bundesarchiv are on the to-do list but nowhere near the top of it. Durova³⁵⁷ 04:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but by the same token we privilege non-reproducibility and encyclopedic value, and rightly so. You've been a staunch defender of the photograph of the bombing of Hiroshima taken from the Enola Gay. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

How would you perceive that as in any way inconsistent? It was Nagasaki, actually. 3,245 × 3,877 pixels, file size: 6.59 MB--a unique event irreplaceable with any other image, and more than sufficient filesize for our standards. The efforts to delist Nagasaki while retaining the bison skull pile appeared to be nonsensical. Durova³⁵⁹ 23:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just saying that it's been consensus here that historical importance or encyclopedic value can trump technical values where the image is sufficiently irreplaceable, and that it's a consensus you've upheld. I make that point implicitly with my current nomination of the image Pale Blue Dot. As it concerns the Bison Pile, an argument could be made that it isn't unique enough, or its EV is not high enough, but I'm not hearing that so far, just that it's of a low quality - something everyone agrees on. Mostlyharmless (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the intended argument than comparison of Nagasaki and the bison skulls is a poor example. For every image analogous to Nagasaki there are literally dozens of equivalents to the bison skulls, in terms of relative encyclopedic value and technical merits and replaceability. See a post from last January for more information. And regarding the latter, it goes without saying that a pile of bison skulls is more replaceable than one of only two nuclear weapons that was ever detonated on a civilian city. Would really prefer not head down that path, though. Delist nominations are virtually on rails to "rescue", rather than replace with higher quality substitutes on similar topics. See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Conf dead chancellorsville and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Village of Passchendaele, both of which (imo) ended nonsensically--I'm ashamed of what curators will see if they look at that Chancellorsville restoration. Both are readily replaceable if the purpose is to illustrate the casualties and damage of those respective wars. But what is the value of the bison skulls. If it's "How the West was won" then this advertisement and this photograph bookend the concept of Millions of acres...but not quite empty and 'civilized' rather brutally. What exactly are you defending? Past discussions have either ignored that type of query or redefined it until nothing but a higher resolution replacement of that particular FP could possibly be worthy of consideration. Durova³⁵⁹ 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one has dodged that query at all, AFAICS. The value of the image really shouldn't need spelling out, but I'll accept the question in good faith: basically, it's unique. There are no equivalent photographic images depicting the decimation of an entire species 60 million strong to several hundred head in just a few short decades, certainly none that do so with such poignancy and impact. It speaks loudly of devastation, ignorance, near-extinction, uncontrolled progress, opportunism and folly. It hints at the sheer magnitude of the slaughter and paints homo sapiens in a poor light, as he stands gloating and triumphant upon the pile. I won't go into the aesthetics or else it'll start getting very flakey very quickly, but there's an entire PhD right there at 670 pixels wide. How can one unique thing be any less replaceable than something else unique? "One of only two bombs" draws a logical fallacy, as we're talking about images here, not events, so you'd be right not to pursue that. It's always wrong to compare historical FPs this way as they're often without substitute by their very nature, even if they depict the same event. I'm very hopeful a better version of the bison skull pile will come eventually but as long as no better scan is available, we have no grounds to delist. mikaul^talk 04:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, your definition of EV here is species-specific. Bear in mind that sort of info has been very difficult to obtain in those two previous AFDs: either no one answered or an editor (who stopped editing not long afterward) continually redefined terms in increasingly strident tones. If what's important to you is specifically pertinent to the near-extinction of the American Bison, then I'll know what to search for in future. Thank you. :) Durova³⁵⁹ 05:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On another, slightly different matter, it always concerns me when I see participants commenting that something looks good or important in the article it is nominated for, after they have voted. It should be standard practice to check out how these images illustrate the encyclopedia articles they are in, and how they relate to the text around them. Our featured pictures should never stand on their own - they are always illustrations. For images that stand on their own, there is Commons FPC. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Maps as Featured Picture Candidates

I posted a call over at WikiProject Maps to invite map experts to suggest guidelines or principles that we ought to consider when evaluating a map (particularly, a wikipedian-created map as opposed to a scan of a historic map document) as a featured picture candidate. Anyone else have thoughts? Spikebrennan (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That was a good idea. upstate NYer 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think in general your existing criteria should still serve you well when judging maps. Accuracy and clarity are probably the most key. It should also work well with the article it's in, be intuitive to understand, be complete (in that it doesn't omit any features important to understanding the subject), and be visually appealing. I don't think the map currently under consideration is very good, for a comparison of the same type of map that I think is done much better check out file:Battle of the Gebora.svg and Battle of the Gebora which makes very effective use of the map. Kmusser (talk) 01:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note; the quality of our map Featured Pictures varies, and I think some of them, particularly ones nominated a few years ago, are due for a delist. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Quoth User:Mapmaster at the WikiProject Maps talk page:

This is a difficult question. I can start by providing some technical guidelines or necessities.

The best maps will:

Hew closely to the semi-official colors (on the Project Page) and avoid garish colors.
Be in SVG format.
Provide at least one and preferrably several references.
State the projection used (e.g. Mercator).
Provide a scale bar and, if north is not up/top, then a directional arrow or compass rose. The scale bar may not be necessary for maps of large areas, such a world maps, continental maps, or even maps of the larger countries (e.g. Russia or Brasil).
Lines and outlines should be smooth, without jitter.

However, many terrible maps nonetheless will meet these guidelines. Let me give some thought to what makes a great map here at English Wikipedia. More later, MapMaster (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of these suggested guidelines but would like to make a comment about the second item ("Be in SVG format"). Though I like SVG, it is probably not the best format for all kind of maps (topographic maps with lots of colors come to mind). Also SVG has some rendering issues (mainly of text) on wikipedia making it impossible for the cartographer to get the look he/she wants. Maybe the guideline could be modified to: "Be in SVG format or have an svg-file uploaded in addition to the png/jpg for later editing" bamse (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the text is the only common issue with renderings. They are easily fixed to prevent the rendering issues, but then the text would no longer be editable. How about use the same idea Bamse had in mind, but maybe something more like: "have and SVG raw file (editable-text) in addition to the SVG file with no editable text". Some maps with editable text are no problem (usually the smaller maps) and should be preferred despite the fact that non-editable text SVGs look more better. They would be more accessible and allow translation. What do you think? Zoo Fari 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned FP

File:Sitting Bull.jpg is currently orphaned from WP:FP. I was going to just delist it, but I thought I'd get a second opinion on doing so first. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course you mean nominate it for Delisting. FWIW File:Sitting Bull - edit2.jpg is the featured version, and both of them are in articles. I have added him back into an FP subpage. --jjron (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. That version is much better, and gives me no reason to nominate it. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's this alternate...and a couple of others. Durova³⁵⁹ 23:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Minimum of 5 Supports

As I have been doing much of the promoting recently I have had some concerns over some close call noms, and some irregularities in 'voting' which sometimes sees these noms get 'across the line'. In order to make consensus clearer and to lessen the impact of anomalous votes I propose we action the previously mentioned motion to change the minimum supports to 5 (including nominator).

Per the discussion back in June there was a clear consensus to change the minimum number of Supports required to five. In summary, 9 people supported changing to 5 immediately back then, and 5 supported changing to 5 "when participation is more brisk". No one supported leaving it at 4 indefinitely. The most recent discussion I can find on it is from July. However, I believe concerns about waiting till participation picks up are no longer an issue as good noms seem to be picking up plenty of votes, and the time for the change is here for reasons previously discussed.

I will give say two days for feedback, but then propose to implement the change effective immediately. --jjron (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this, at least for now. A good number of images have clear support from 4 or so regular contributors (plus the nom). I notice that most nominations get a good number of supports/opposes, but some nominations from some contributors seem to struggle to get any attention at all. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless makes a good point. Durova³⁵⁹ 05:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. He talks of most images having clear support from 4 contributors + the nom, which is generally the 5 being proposed, so may have misread. And I don't think we can (or should) tailor FPC for those few noms that fail to get sufficient attention, as that is an indication of lack of interest and therefore FP suitability - if we wait for that to be 'resolved' we'll be waiting forever. Given that this proposal has already gained very strong consensus support with only the time to implement in question, I think anyone against it needs to be very clear on why now is the wrong time. --jjron (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood - I support four plus the nominator. If it can only get three supports plus the nominator then it really doesn't have any real community support (for whatever reasons those are). Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That's what I suspected you were saying, which is the proposition here (currently it's nom + 3, proposal is to change to nom + 4 (which, other than on conominations, is 5 supports total)). So sounds like you agree. --jjron (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that I agree - I should have gone back and checked that discussion again before opening my mouth.... Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd support - participation seems more "brisk". Noodle snacks (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jjron; we've gotten about 3 or 4 new regulars as of late, which I think meets the expectations I had hoped for earlier. upstate NYer 06:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There's also that other point, well-made way back whenever: a good nomination always gets plenty of attention. It's never been anything more than an observation, but it does seem appropriate that, with good general participation, any image that fails to garner enough interest is probably... uninteresting, and not worth featuring. A lot depends on the way the nom is prepared and presented, but consensus here needs to attain quorum, unlike much of WP, and I don't see how a lack of reviews can mean anything other than rejection. I'm supporting the change, on the basis of "the broader the consensus, the more solid the FP". mikaul^talk 08:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to support this change. While it can be frustrating when nominations get neither supports or opposes, I agree that this simply points to a lack of interest. Sometimes this is just bad luck/timing, but there is always the chance to renominate at a later date. If the nomination gets the same response second time around, then unfortunately so be it. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I will speak only for myself. Many times I don't vote in a nomination, even after looking at it many times and reading about it in the corresponding articles, because I don't feel I know enough about the topic to give an opinion. Things like claiming hight EV or, even worst, lack of EV is something should be done unless one really knows what is talking about. (I have been thinking for a while a way biased assessment can be avoided in this respect). On the other hand, I think I agree with rising standards. franklin.vp 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

'Scuse me pontificating again, but I'd say for FP, EV should be good enough that you understand what's being illustrated, along with a decent caption or accompanying text, enough to say whether it should be promoted. That's pretty much why I cited good nominations above. Sometimes obscure or technical subjects need additional context and a good nomination needs to deal with that in a clear and convincing way. mikaul^talk 18:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree then nomination have to sell the candidate in the best possible ways and that doing so will earn a good deal of my good will to approve it. Now, a good nomination, not necessarily ill-intentioned, can be selling erroneous information. That can be in many ways, from an over edited color to a misidentification of the subject, from giving outdated information to a very biased one. I am very far from being an authority in everything and I hope the rest of the reviewers think the same about me and about themselves. I am not able to attest for pictures in many topics. Take the example of a diagram of a cell. I remember half a dozen of the organelles from high school but, if the diagram is showing a dozen and I can only find 10 in my books then I wouldn't know. If it is the picture of a historic personality, if I can find stuff about him/her I will be willing to vote, if not... let it be those who know what they are doing the ones giving the approval. There are parts of the process that are more easy, evaluate the picture in terms of its realization. Many here are good photographers and can do that. And some others of us can improvise (cautiously to not produce any damage). About EV is a different business. It is not uncommon that a completely misinformed reviewer claims low EV and then, in the best of the cases, you see a loooong discussion explaining (sometimes not by the best person if I have to do it) about why is the picture relevant in its subject. Now that I am saying this, let me say that while the nominator should make a good job promoting the picture, I don't think they have to (and even, in some cases, they shouldn't have to) explain why is the image important in the subject. Let me be clear in this. The nominator can go and say that the image X is important in the subject Y, Z and Alpha and say that in those articles you see the connection between it and the text. But for the same reason I sometimes can't review the nominator may not be able to explain the intricacies of the subject and if they are not they shouldn't. Fortunately, I think, a picture can stop being FP so it is possible to revert mistakes. franklin.vp 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That, and, for the most part, we AGF that the nominator has learned enough about the nom'ed image that they feel comfortable nom'ing it... and fixing it if an error is found. upstate NYer 04:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support the rule of 5 minimum support votes.--Silversmith Hewwo 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's well time to change to five. Maedin\^talk 13:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I have requested input from those that supported waiting until things picked up back in June if they haven't yet commented. But there appears broad agreement here, so unless something extraordinary happens I will implement the change before next time I close. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Majority seem to be in favour and participation has picked up. Support changing to five with the condition that if participation falls, so does the requirement. --Muhammad(talk) 13:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I am in it for the long haul, and I think I see a few others. I support this. Of course, I won't be closing much, since I vote on everything. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 14:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Important Question Does this apply to the much less participated in Delist section? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

In practice most get quite a few more than 5, but as I understand it, yes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this proposal, although I'm a bit worried that requiring more supports is going to lead to more "Support per nom." and reasonless votes. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I haven't been perticipating as much recently, but I will still review candidates now and then...perhaps more now. I was one of those who supported waiting to move to 5 at a later time, and I think it is at a sufficient level of participation now. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!}

Per Muhammad. Durova³⁶² 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Change made yesterday. Whoever's closing please take note. --jjron (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Ho hum

I'm back. Did I miss anything of great importance? MER-C 07:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah - look up. Welcome back; could be good timing. --jjron (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's tl;dr, which is why I asked. I can see the quorum is getting upped to five, closing is still annoyingly long and the usual blather about contested closings, sets and calls for moar closers. Anything else? MER-C 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Me. Gwah ha ha ha ha. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in all reality, what you seem to have missed was the renewed confusion about Featured Sets, a cry for more WOW, and well, what you said. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 14:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've missed the succinctly witty way you put things. Welcome back. upstate NYer 21:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back. Durova³⁶² 23:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Historical images: do we care enough to draw up guidelines?

This nom is an extremely pertinent example of the inherent dangers in reinterpreting historical works. Here we have a scene depicted and reinterpreted a number of times over a very long period, each successive interpretation producing increasingly difficult-to-verify claims on the veracity of the original, degraded work. It's a practically unrecognised issue on the encyclopedia and IMO requires recognised standards and procedures if our presentation of historical works is to be in any way credible and respectable. We have incredibly comprehensive criteria for the veracity of texts and practically none at all for images. Why? Because images are assumed to be primary sources, worthy of taking at face value.
Sure, we sometimes declare manipulation on the image page but the fact is that the very act of digitising an image invites corruption of its original integrity and risks a crucial loss of original context. I've tried rasing this several times (last time was here, probably in the wrong place, too narrow a scope and certainly not fully-developed as a proposal) but no-one seems to want to develop the idea. Is it too much work, maybe? Clearly, many people understand the issues well, but few are prepared to engage in the debate. It does need specialist input, and it will take a long time, but I believe image integrity is crucially important to any credible encyclopedia. At the very least it will help us avoid the sort of protracted arguments that regularly occur at FPC, largely for want of an identifiable set of standards, often at the expense derailing the promotion of a decent image. mikaul^talk 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is mixing apples and oranges. Durova³⁶¹ 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Although it is an interesting problem I think it has a very simple solution. To the images in Wikipedia it applies the same validation criteria as for articles. The Wikipedia-truth is based in references and durability. If you have a picture and a reference ( web page, book...) saying it is the photo of a Trucutru then you can use that image in Wikipedia (as the image of a Trucutru). If others found different references that also say that that is the photo of a Trucutru then they won't delete yours. But they will if they find some place saying you are wrong and there will agreement or war for a little while. The FP nomination process can not be a place for validating the accuracy of an image. The thing is that this point of Wikipedia is based in the participation of many (millions of) hands and the time. You can't expect a handful of reviewers can guarantee that. Of course, each of us is also an editor, and if, doing a little personal research we find some flaw, we can (in our status as editors) try to correct the information. Again, let me repeat, that is not and that can not be a goal of FPC. That's just something we all do, individually as wikipedians out of good will or pride. Now, the nomination you are talking about is showing us a different problem. An image was posted as the image of a Trucutru. But someone found that was in fact the image of Doe's painting of a Trucutru. Then someone else found that Doe wasn't a good painter (which doesn't show the image have no value as an example of Doe's work). The someone else (very likely an specialist, but in Wikipedia we are all, almost, equals) said he was not sure if the image was one of the more characteristic or relevant work of Doe (statement that without reference has no value to Wikipedia). In conclusion, the so called problem is really solved, but the solution is out of every one of us' hands. The problem of the truth in Wikipedia is solved by the participation of all during an infinite period of time. It is not something to be much worried about if erroneous pictures are promoted. someone with a reference saying it is wrong will eventually fix it. (Of course if you find the problem during the nomination, good news!) I will probably have more things to add but let me leave it there for now. franklin.vp 00:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The linked discussion from project space was something I categorically opposed using as any sort of case study or representative example. My reasons were explained in full there and no argument has arisen for reconsidering that position; therefore I will neither endorse nor support a "reexamination" that attempts to base itself on that discussion. Durova³⁶² 00:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think that I was too vague. Essentially I am saying that. What happened with that nomination is just the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Some claims, some fight, people support themselves with references, in a while there is consensus or Admins impose some force for a little while. franklin.vp 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. It's not as if nobody cares--some care very much, and don't feel comfortable at all beginning a discussion on faulty premises. Durova³⁶² 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Perhaps you could explain your concerns based on correct premises. mikaul^talk 12:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

See below? This is an especially bad timing for a discussion that specifically cites another flawed premise. And not that you'd be aware of the details, but I have an existing commitment to the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam that's in crunch time right now. This has "bad idea" written all over it. Do me a favor and table the discussion? Durova³⁶² 16:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I tabled it yesterday, I guess you mean shelve it? Ok, on one condition: next time I bring it up, you engage the discussion, rather than obfuscate and evade it. I realise you have some vested interests that might make the issue of historic image editing rather sensitive for you, but I can only see good coming out of it for you and the custodians of works you wish to edit. Why you see this as any kind of threat is beyond me. For my part I'll be sure to set out a more carefully-worded proposal for discussion next time, rather than the conversational approach I've used to date. Good luck with the museum. mikaul^talk 20:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that we can't promote an image as a FP as "best of" some subject if it's not or inaccurate. We get many technical drawings and other scientific artwork things. It's perfectly legitmate to question if things are accurate or not. The FP tag lends credibility to an image for an average laymen. If we promote some technical drawing as a FP but it has a glareing inaccuracy then that lowers the value of the project. So as much as we can we should be aware of that and try not to promote anything that is inaccurate. If the image is not meeting the "WOW" factor to catch a users attention, but is a more technical/scientific artwork then the focus needs to be pretty heavily on accuracy. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, definitely! But how do you do that? The way of Wikipedia is: an information (of any sort, including images here) is accurate, true, etc. if there is a reference saying so and it will stay in that status until someone finds that is not so (in a reference). Notice this was not the case of the image in the linked nomination. The image is not accurate as an image of the bas relief, but the thing is that it was never an image of a bas relief, it was an image of someone's drawing (at the beginning it was not very clear for some). Now, the other thing is that there is a reference saying that that was a drawing of that guy (that is enough for Wikipedia). There was a person (apparently an expert) saying that maybe is not among the most representative examples of that guy's drawings. OK, that can be taking as an alert, but still, that statement needs references. Until then we have that that was the first image in a collection of drawings of that explorer. franklin.vp 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Raeky's opinion conflates contemporary science with historic science. If you take that seriously I invite you to nominate Leonardo da Vinci's anatomical sketches for delisting. Obviously they aren't going to be as accurate as modern computer assisted medical illustrations. Durova³⁶² 16:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It's more than obvious that's not what Raeky meant. Images that illustrate a certain artist or concept from a time are obviously exceptions (and your example is the exception of all exceptions... but I think you knew that when you chose it). There is no aim to lower the number of historic FPs, only to verify they are correct in what they represent. Similar in thought to my earlier requests to require at least a notable effort in getting a translation when foreign languages are used on the image itself. All very reasonable. upstate NYer 21:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it's my own fault for not setting my table out properly to begin with. Although it is vaguely related, this isn't about the factual basis of images at all, it concerns the re-interpretation of artworks, photographs etc by latter-day illustrators and image editors. I have a long-standing interest in the subject and for me there are clear and obvious parallels between acceptable boundaries in that 18th century copy of the original Mayan relief and those in the later scanning and editing of that illustration. It's a fair bit more complex than basic WP:V verifiability and a lot of the ethical issues relate specifically to the tools and techniques used, what our goals should be, and setting out the circumstances under which a lighter hand should be employed. I'll get onto it soon, meanwhile anyone interested could do worse than check out these guidelines that explain the wider issue in more than enough detail. mikaul^talk 21:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I got an example that looks interesting. I don't know how to solve it within Wikipedia verifiability in an easy way. How to do in a case of a photo of a place? Suppose I went to Antartica and I took a photo of Deception Island. How in the world am I going to support that? People probably don't go there often (except for few scientists or explorers) like Old Beach, or maybe there is no publication or web site with an image like mine. Somebody knows what is the policy in these cases? franklin.vp 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Note:For this particular example there are references for the images in the actual article. franklin.vp 22:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - That's a good question in general, when it comes to images. In my experience, images are taken on good faith to be what they are claimed to be. I don't even think that FACs require background checking of their images in the articles. I think even they take them on good faith. But, then again, I'm not an expert. upstate NYer 23:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  - There's no mystery here. Images are among the only primary sources allowed on WP, as are archaeological artifacts, coincidentally enough. See WP:PSTS about descriptive claims. The vast majority of illustrations patently are what they are or are so unlikely to be other than what they're claimed to be that you're into the realms of absurdity. For geographical illustrations we have geotagging, which (among other things) allows independent checking if needed. As Upstater implies, it's generally an assumption of good faith to accept a claimed location as true, only really questioned when location is a crucial factor. mikaul^talk 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all thanks for the link. I read there this (Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.) and I got from the heavens a nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Big wave breaking that is the exact example. The caption of the image claims that it is a picture in Santa Cruz, California, which is a non-descriptive one. Fortunately also the nomination doesn't gets damaged if we discuss this here because it is not supported in that claim. What I want is to understand how Wikipedia deals with this cases. As I understand from the text in the link above, that claim would be an unpublished eyewitness account and they explicitly say it shouldn't be added to articles. franklin.vp 01:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand. Primary sources are not only allowed to include unpublished eyewitness accounts, that's part of the very definition of a primary source and a fundamental characteristic of photography. No-one is interpreting anything by posting an image to a WP article. They make only descriptive claims (ie this photo was taken in Santa Cruz) which are perfectly within all sensible norms and policies surrounding usage. It's also quite important to the EV of that image that we accept, WP:AGF, that it is indeed a picture of a surfer at that location. mikaul^talk 02:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to have to contradict you but the unpublished eyewitness accounts thing is said after they enumerate the primary, secondary and tertiary sources and they are saying what should not be included. in my example (the current FP nomination) the action of posting the image is fine. The image it self is a primary source, saying that there is a surfer there and a wave are descriptive information that a non-expert can deduce easily from the image. But the claim that it is an image from Santa Cruz is (you should excuse me) non-descriptive. There is nothing in the image that implies it is from that place (unless some color of the sea or the swimsuit... but that escapes from the non-professional's view). franklin.vp 03:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so but it's an entirely trivial, non-controversial claim to ascribe a location to the image, and is covered anyway in the policy wording. According to WP:PSTS, the key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event. I'm fairly sure that would be deemed to include such things as where a photo was taken. We take an awful lot more important things on good faith than that; authorship, license release and lack of manipulation to name but a few. Surely you're not seriously proposing that policy be amended to disallow location claims associated with a photograph. mikaul^talk 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember that I am just trying to understand myself how far those Wikipedia's rules go. I am definitely very willing to accept that Mila did take that picture there. Now, authorship and license are not included in articles (but still they are reviewed and sometimes disputed), about manipulation the thing is that it is simply impossible, by the nature of the support of the information (digital), to do anything about it in the non-evident cases. We are talking then about an example that is included in the currently written rules. My questions are: Am I reading the rules correctly? If I am, are we going to go all the way with them? franklin.vp 03:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the answer would be yes and no, respectively. mikaul^talk 03:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed ;). And I will stop torturing poor Mila. franklin.vp 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this perfectly clear, the example is not interesting. It does not make unacceptable premises tolerable, and this is not a discussion I choose to have at this time. Since the degree of "caring" is under question here, I ask that this discussion be tabled until its participants produce one historic featured picture each. Because failing that, it looks very much like a rude and aggessive bid to waste and misdirect my time and effort. Durova³⁶² 05:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is it what you are saying. What example is not interesting and why? Who should produce a historic featured picture and how is that going to help the discussion? franklin.vp 05:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- One of the most frustrating parts of this work is that people who never do it (or never do so seriously) attempt to dictate how it ought to be done, often choosing examples that require a rather serious effort of tongue-biting to endure. As stated above, I have an existing commitment to the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam which makes this a particularly ill-timed attempt to hold a general policy discussion upon the issue (which, it appears, none of the participants other than myself actually do). If this sounds testy, it is. I am near the end of my patience with this variety of antic. No one is required to explain to your satisfaction why they consider a discussion to be unacceptable. Now I will resume the upload of a nineteenth century lithograph, and resume work on another large commitment for that museum. If you refuse to honor my repeated requests to table this discussion I will ignore the progression of whatever follows, because it is likely to produce nothing sensible. Durova³⁶² 05:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you are referring to not feature a historic image let me tell you this. To be able to analyze, criticize, or discuss that is not needed. I wouldn't be able even if I try. Now, by instruction, profession and passion I deal with very detailed rules that have to be followed strictly and produce one the most widely accepted forms of truth that humanity have. It happens that the example I picked fits exactly in the rules established by Wikipedia as something that is not allowed. Still I considered the possibility of Wikipedia or more specifically FPC a place in which those rules doesn't have to be follow in that strict manner. If a regular user tells me that's the case i can assume it with no harm to my pride. Now, I respect people that know what they do but notice that that will not imply that I do not know what I am doing. And the previous discussion is plain and simple mathematical reasoning. It happens that also I have the will to help in editing some nomination (and so I have done, reverting at least three opposes so far), it happens that (although I am not a good photographer) I have read a little about it and have a tiny little bit of taste for art. Then, who is not attempting to do a good job here in FPC? In my opinion we are all trying to do it. I do think that the previous discussion has some value. For instance, initially people were not clear of how should we deal with the inaccuracies of historic documents, latter it was corrected the fact that you nomination didn't say it was a drawing but a bas relief instead, at the end I was pointing to some new example of how the rules (written in the very core of Wikipedia) are broken in such a subtle way that it make people allow to pas. I think this is important because it establishes precedents. Or at least if it doesn't the discussion make people aware or remind them on what basis they are working. These are based in some rules that I understand have some flexibility and can be bend (after all we are not doing math) but in that case it is even more important to revise periodically what are those and how much can we move out of them to keep the process stable around a desirable line. You are doing your serious job (or hobby, or passion) here but, aren't we doing also something serious? In any case, this is not your talk page. You are not enforced to look here. But it is better for FPC if every help is considered and appropriately used. It is easy to show pride for your job as you see and it is also easy to show despise for those how don't do the same kind of job but one is fine and the other is not. franklin.vp 06:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

- - (edit conflict)I don't have strong feelings on the issue, but I do think that it is a valid (and important) topic of discussion. I also rather get the impression that you are evading the issue (both now and in the case of an IP that raised the same thing roughly in October on a few nominations). As the self appointed expert on the topic you do need to establish written guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate digital manipulation of historic works - you can't expect people to vote with some validity otherwise. I don't think the lack of production invalidates the opinions of other participants either. The process of restoration is ultimately not rocket science. Digital restoration is not always viewed in a positive light from members of the GLAM sector. A person at a conference I attended a few months ago actually described a digital restoration as being much in the same basket as "an artist's impression of <insert work name>". I pointed out that a link to the original is always provided and that the modifications are carefully noted. It'd be nice if I'd been able to say that these ethical guidelines are followed in a rigorous fashion when producing featured work. Ultimately not any rush in my book, but it it is something to think about. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rudeness

There is a lot of rudeness being perpetuated between users here at the moment, much more than I have seen in the last couple of years. I should not have to tell you this, but I'm going to do it anyway: stop it.

No "he said, she said" justification of your own behaviour, no picking on other users as "worse", just act politely to other users, and if you can't say it nicely, don't say it at all. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree, enough with the bullying. Especially those FPCers that have been here for quite a while. Zoo Fari 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I, too, concur. Involvment with this project, any project really, requires the willingness to compromise; some users have not demonstrated this of late. Cowtowner (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I really have no time for witchhunts and accusations, general or otherwise. That kind of atmosphere also risks poisoning the well. I am seriously considering whether I want to continue here. My hope in posting this message was that users simply act in a way which is polite. There are too many accusations, attacks, defenses, demanding language and comments (no-one has the right to make demands of others here), off-topic comments, failure to assume good faith, personal attacks, and other forms of rudeness for this project to function as it should - they divert energy away and make the experience a much less pleasant one, which discourages contributors new and old. I have deliberately kept away from talking about any editor or group of editors, partly because the person without sin should cast the first stone, and I am certainly not blameless here. I just want people to be nice to each other, and more understanding. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You may email me if a response is likely to stir things up, but what exactly are you referring to in this instance?. (I hadn't noticed any particular arguments breaking out) Noodle snacks (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussions here could probably be a starter. --jjron (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] There have been definitely a few instances of incivility and overreactions, to be sure. I suppose the problem is that many of those involved may not even see their behaviour as particularly bad, but it still affects those who do. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

To be sure, part of it is me, but not all of it. What confuses me is that, looking at my posts, my comments have been relatively uniform throughout my time here. This started after the brawl over the disabled persons submission. I think that there is some bad blood. I also want to mention that it appears that Shoemaker's Holiday has been chased away, which saddens me, but has nothing to do with me. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The quality of reviews has been declining recently, and first time nominees appear to be particularly apt to get bitten. It's as if some reviewers express an opinion--any opinion as long as it's strong. Minor points have dominated several recent discussions and occasionally reviews have been little more than description of an emotional reaction without much attempt to identify what elements of the image produced the reaction. Although it wouldn't be fair to ascribe petty motives without very good substantiation, those discussions sometimes leave me wondering whether this process has reviewers who are more interested in being "players" and testing their influence upon candidacies--in it for the politics. That isn't a pleasant thought and I hope it's unfounded, but it's damaged my morale. Speaking in general terms, one of the signs that a person's motives aren't the highest is when they accuse me of low things that I know aren't true. In that kind of environment it really isn't possible to hold a serious discussion on the big issues because that type of person is more invested in one-upmanship than in project mission. Durova³⁶³ 16:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised a question in October concerning the accuracy of retouched images which was phrased in the most polite terms, but which never received any sort of reply. Now that everything seems to be back on track, perhaps now would be a good time to continue that discussion? 82.64.140.12 (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your question received a referral to the FPC talk page.[1] I initated a thread at FPC talk with an invitation to discuss it.[2] These replies occurred less than one hour after you posted. You did not follow up in either location and both discussions have been archived. Is there something you find objectionable to that reception? It's the standard way we handle things when questions and comments are of a general nature that would affect a broad range of images get posed to one particular nomination. Durova³⁶³ 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, there seems to be a little bit of snippishness in that response which, I can't help noticing, didn't address the original issue of how much images can be retouched without reliable information on the original. Of no matter though, perhaps it's too soon after all the recent unpleasentness to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion along those lines. 82.253.194.79 (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] WOW! I have been gone quite some time now and things have really changed around here. Voting is inconsistent and manners have disappeared. Thinking twice wether I should return. --H92110 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

For my own part, I apologize for testiness. Am quite frustrated with some of the directions the process has taken, and have often wished I could hold serious discussions (occasionally initiate an attempt and usually get insulted and accused of drama for it). Would very much like to see you take the chance, and will endeavor to make the environment a more welcoming one. Durova³⁶³ 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If anything your return might help with inconsistency... Noodle snacks (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue is that people come in and vote (or nominate) without reading the criteria. If we took out all the drama, we would have "Oppose - Fails criteria 3" and "Support - Meets all criteria." The problem, however, is the sheer number of qualifiers. Historical pictures can ignore size/quality if they have EV. EV is irrelevant if composition is bad, even slightly bad, as seen in the wave nom. Ect, ect, ect. Suggestions? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about a delisting nomination potential substitute

Regarding this discussion, I have located a related image at much higher resolution and quality with similar emotional impact. It is somewhat different in its means of communication. This photograph dated 1887-1892 shows three cowboys on horseback who have roped a lone juvenile bison. The animal is caught by the horns from multiple directions and surrounded with no chance at escape. Sometimes the plight of a single creature communicates as well or better than a broad statement about its entire kind. The delisting nomination for the bison skull pile has been contentious, so posting a query beforehand: would a restoration on this image be feasible for the concept of delisting and replacement? Durova³⁶³ 17:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a good image, and definitely worth restoring, but it doesn't illustrate the scale of the slaughter as the pile of skulls. If only we could source that specific image. :( — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I have enough else on my plate and am not going to restore it unless it would supplant the other FP. Anyone else is welcome to attempt the restoration at any time, though. Durova³⁶³ 18:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Segregated cinema entrance

The placement of the phrase "De facto racism, however, persists to the present day," in the caption seems overtly political. I'm completely for racial equality and against de facto and de jure segregation, but it seems a little unnecessary, as it is merely a historical photograph. --152.3.240.22 (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Howcheng manages the Picture of the Day process. You could suggest alternate captions to him. Durova³⁶⁴ 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Durova. Looks like someone changed it. --Dpr (I was the anon. poster above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.194.50 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Projections

There's a lot of comments on the projections set, but little actual voting. Anyone care to put down their opinions either way? Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem with sets. There are sooo many images, one tends to ignore. --Muhammad(talk) 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a trade off really. If they were nominated individually, it would require much more voting. Cowtowner (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We really should have a featured picture sets procedure... Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

So, still no votes, despite a lot of discussion. As far as I can tell it has not been suspended. Does nobody think these are interesting? Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I voted... three times! I feel sorry for whoever gets to promote these, seems like a bit of work (of course they could fail...) Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 01:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In so far as I can tell, the consensus is that they will be promoted, but that their references should be verified. I've reviewed the references on the pages, and they seem to be reliable to me. Would someone like to corroborate that? Cowtowner (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture display

This would be some example caption for the picture. {{Featured picture image}}

What ever became of this? I created a template that I think might work good for it. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 12:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I made the star link to the FP gallery now. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this; it's better than nothing, even if it doesn't solve the infobox issue. But for the time being, I think this is great. Is there a bot operator out there that would be interested in adding this to the bot's repertoire? upstate NYer 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be added after the description on an infobox... not sure how that would look though.. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this as well; any publicity is good publicity. Marking FPs should be done and this seems to be a pretty effective way to do it. Cowtowner (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is alright, however I am worried about it being put in incorrectly or removed incorrectly. Since UpstateNYer is an admin, he might be able to make the template protected, but I doubt he can do so with every page. A bot will be needed. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You can make it so theres a hidden category that will display every page the template is on, then a bot could check that periodically removing it on pictures that are not featured. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That kind of got backburnered although people liked it. Thanks very much for the work! Let's take the proposal to Village Pump. Let's post together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 November 2009

Yea we should take it to VP, who should start the topic? :D (and forgetting to sign your comments? :P) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think the idea is inherently flawed, as there is no good way to indicate that images are featured without either being confusing or obscuring part of the image. No one's going to understand why stars are appearing in their captions. Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone around long enough knows a star means featured and it links to the featured picture gallery... Plus if your a regular editor of an article you know what pictures on it are featured, or should. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a terrible idea for reasons I won't go into right now. Regardless, wider community consensus should be sought before this is implemented. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read through the archived proposal, consensus is pretty strong here. Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_24#Featured_picture_display — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Taken to Village Pump here. Durova³⁶⁶ 20:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like the proposal is unlikely to gain consensus - partly because there seems to be the impression that this is project cruft adn FP is all about 'pretty pictures' rather than encyclopedic value (that they're mostly so darn good looking doesn't help). I think that when hover over text is implemented in Wikipedia this problem can be addressed differently - put notification into the hover over text will alert readers to the FP status of an image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the critique in the Village pump was about appearance... and I think it was partly justified. It needs to be more subtle and/or more explicit. The star is very strong visually, and too similar to the FA, whereas an FP is something different. It was proposed a golden frame, which would make it more subtle. Another option could be a golden camera symbol which would make it more explicit. Elekhh (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria overhaul time

OK, I was reading over the stuff above about sniping and declining quality of reviews. Someone said up there that they would like to see reviews more of the form "oppose - blown highlights (1a), too small (1c), subject cut off (1e)". I agree. Time to revive one of the things I drafted up before I went on wikibreak - a general overhaul of the criteria. Hopefully this proposal will increase the quality and consistency of discussion and remove some of the more emotional responses. It should make the criteria easier to understand, especially relating to photo quality.

(The meat of this proposal and Raeky's comment were moved to a separate RFC page.) MER-C 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, long overdue, but way too much for this page. I've only skimmed these points and can see multiple issues with individual criteria, entirely apart from a good copyedit for tone and style. Can this be moved to the blissfully unattended criteria talk page so we can lift it out of the day-to-day stuff here? mikaul^talk 07:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted it here for the traffic - people don't often read Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria as often as I'd like. Wherever is best - maybe a dedicated RFC page? MER-C 07:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It amounts to the same thing: a underused talk page or a dedicated RfC page. Seems to me the criteria talk page is the obvious place for discussion specific to the criteria page. Maybe leave a placeholder/pointer post here, but once people contribute at Wikipedia Talk:Featured picture criteria it'll be on their watchlist the same as an RfC anyway. mikaul^talk 09:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures

Wouldn't a stronger linkage, between Featured pictures and Valued pictures be useful?. The two categories are very much related, but while FP has 10,000+ views per month VP has less than 1,000. As a result Valued picture candidates receive little feedback. Currently is a bit like two separate competitions: one for the gold, and a separate one for the silver. Of course everybody aims for the gold. But why wouldn't a nomination for an FP count as a nom for VP as well, on the same page? Thus the assessment of FP candidates would alow instead of a Yes/No only, for Support FP / Support VP/ Oppose. Elekhh (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is a lot of bad feeling from the FP project towards the VP project- secondly, there isn't really a continuum. It's not like there's a gold medal and a silver medal- it's more like one award, and one less pretigious award recognising something slightly different. That said, the tone of both is subject to change. J Milburn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

VP really needs help. One thing that _may_ help is that this next round of the WikiCup is going to award points for valued pictures, that should at least get a bunch of nominations for people to look at and vote on next year. If that will actually breath life back into it or not only time will tell. Personally I think it needs a stronger disassociation from featured pictures and it's own focus that isn't a "good but not quite FP" category that it currently holds. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no benefit for "valuing" a picture... So who cares and why should we care ... ??? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it works on Commons. What's the benefit of featuring a picture? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The one thing Valued Pictures really must do is build its own following. It's already recruited here at FPC past the point of diminishing returns. The Commons project is successful because Commons serves a media repository for 270 language editions of Wikipedia, plus for the various Wikisource, Wiktionary, etc. projects: it makes inherent sense to for Commons to put the best images it has in a centralized location for those other projects to access. That type of function is expicitly outside en:wiki's project scope, which may be one reason why Commons has 927 valued images, but en:wiki has only 87 valued pictures. Durova³⁶⁶ 05:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It also helps that at Commons, the users are only there for media whereas many of the image editors here are also content builders and don't just work on images (myself included). The only way to quantify Commons' VP's success is to see its effect on getting the VPs in articles at the various Wikipedias. Your answer failed to address how there is a benefit; they don't actually study that. Just saying that there is a repository of images considered "valued" under such limited scopes as Monument to the British victims of the Crimean War in Balaklava valley doesn't make the program successful per se. What would make it successful, under the justification of the Commons program, is its widespread use across many Wikipedias. Here, we require an image to be of notable encyclopedic merit but also to be stable in an article and remain there (i.e. to retain its value). That's what defines its value here. And to J Milburn's point, what exactly is the benefit of getting an image featured, valued, or quality-ed at Commons, save for the added notch on one's belt? No other WMF page has a comparable audience to WP:Main Page. upstate NYer 07:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The real problem IMO is the way VP was conceived. A bit of history might help. Way back when the Commons VI project was launched, there were some overtures here to inspire cooperation for it among EN:WP media editors, which of course (people automatically assume) means WP:FPC regulars. Two things happened, long story short: first, a few editors (myself included) saw an opportunity to expand and revive a flagging WP:PPR project by incorporating a sort of gold/silver award assessment in with the peer review, instead of just FPC assessment. The idea was to either (a) simply review PPR submissions, (b) review with recommendation to nominate for FP, or (c) review and express support for VP instead, which would be decided by consensus when the PPR nom closed. The second thing that happened was the outline WP:VP idea, which for various reasons was not deemed suitable for linking to COM:VI, was drafted by jjron in his userspace. Maybe that took it too far into the backwaters but it seems it was ignored by those who eventually set up WP:VP. A shame, as the big issues it now has – rivaling, or at least sitting uncomfortably with, FPC, and low participation – would have been partly or completely avoided with incorporation into PPR. I still think this is a much better way of dealing with image quality assessment and recognition. Maybe now, away from belligerent MfD proposals, it might be a good time to look at merging the VP project into PPR? mikaul^talk 21:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Incorporation into PPR might be even better than linking with FP. PPR has also relatively low number of views of ca 1,500 per month. So PPR, VP and FP could have the chance to strenghten each other. Elekhh (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

PPR served its function quite well before VP arose. VP adds no unique value, but it divides attention which would otherwise focus upon PPR. Since the pool of editors who contribute premium quality media is not deep, it was a mistake to divide their attention between PPR and a second overlapping program. Too much energy on the media side of the site has gone into generating correlaries to WP text programs. That habit of mimicking text programs drains attention away from the unique needs of media content. In the big picture it would be much more beneficial to have a task force address the license requests of our digital photographers, or a better coordinated program to solicit high quality digitized files of important historic media, or a programmer initiative to improve the cloning and healing tools in GIMP (an open source image editing program). Durova³⁶⁹ 05:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PPR has never served its function at all well, that's the whole point. What evidence do you have to support this odd suggestion that the VP program somehow made it worse? PPR clearly suffers from a long-term dearth of participation, both in nominations and reviewers. There is clearly an appetite for a VP program or we wouldn't be looking to improve the way it's handled; the point being this might incentivize people to submit stuff to PPR more regularly. If you think there might be an appetite for the other programs you mention, go ahead and set them up. I really don't see a problem in encouraging more participation from within the regular media pool, but the fact is a PPR/VP program would probably attract editors from outside of it, which far from being a drain on the pool, will actually help replenish it. mikaul^talk 18:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Closers?

Oh where, oh where, have our closers gone, oh where, oh where can they be?
Where have all the regular closers gone? On a related note, has Shoemaker's Holiday explained why he has not been online for the entire month. Is he gone? Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 01:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

They've probably been at the party. I don't know what happened to Shoe, but hopefully he's okay. Zoo Fari 01:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope the thing with Durova and Avi didn't chase him off. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Shoe is someone who is willing to walk away from things when he does not feel they are going right. I suspect he is taking a break- hopefully he'll be back around soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Nominations needing a few more votes for potential closure

Can I get at least 2 more votes here and there, and a suspension shout-out here if necessary? The projections nom will be closed as no promo per unaddressed concerns and consensus if left avoided. Thank you, Zoo Fari 03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we suspend the projections nom instead of closing no promo? To me the consensus looks like it leans towards promoting, but we need to address the references. Like I said, I reviewed them, they look fine to me but someone else should look as wellCowtowner (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read the nomination 4 times and there's no strong consensus for promotion. There are disregarded opposes here and there, and there's more debate going on than voting. I still beg for more votes please. Zoo Fari 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just numerically, there are 2 opposes and 5 supports. In my opinion, neither of the opposes offers a compelling case: the first opposes on the basis of quantity, the other one is based on an element which is critical to their EV. I think the closure was premature in this case. Cowtowner (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not always democratic; there was big blocks of text concerning some issues that were never resolved, and some of the "conditional" supports were never met. If the images are worthy, they should be renominated again. Zoo Fari 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Attention

Experienced closers, here --Muhammad(talk) 12:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Roll Call

I have been reading in on the VP/FP/PPR situation, and have decided that the best approach is to see what actually is getting traffic. If VP or PPR are not being used, then further action is needed. Therefore I am going to put up a roll call in each of the three pages, in order to numericly quantify usage. I am choosing the Thanksgiving (Amercian) break period because it will likely have a large number of active users online.

Users who actively contribute to this project on a regular basis

Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 20:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Users who occasionally contribute to this project

Users who rarely contribure, but stop by and find the project valuable

Users who do not find the project valuable

Users who think this survey is not very useful for dealing with VP/PPR, as both issues have been thrashed to death

Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I realise that this comment sounded a little snippy, so I apologise. VP has been gone over many times here, and it has frequently been a point of contention. PPR on the other hand is seen as a project that is actually useful to this encyclopedia, because it helps users with feedback on potential candidates to be considered "Wikipedia's best work". Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Not useful. Elekhh (talk) 06:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC): You could just check the edit history, couldn't you?
Agreed, sorry. Not loving the banners on the actual project page, either. I'm really not seeing what this will achieve. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen PPR as an issue with inactivity? As for VP, it's being given points this round of the wikicup, so hopefully that would be enough to get eyes on it this year and pick up some regular people. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
PPR is a valuable project, which VP detracts from. Supporting the former. No real space for that in the designated answers. Durova³⁶⁹ 03:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
What Durova said. Spikebrennan (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Resulting action

Banner has been removed per snowballing consensus above. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Island.

I'll be off for the next few days, so I may be asking a tad early. Could Macleay's Swallowtail and South Cape Bay receive a few votes in either direction please. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

New closure needed

I'm willing to do it as a last resort, but could someone else please look at the consensus at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brahmeid Moth regarding a possible overturning of the previous closure, and execute their good assessment of the consensus (i.e. close it)? There is a possibility that an edit that I started (and Kaldari finished) would be promoted, so I'd prefer someone else looking into whether this is the case. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well now, umm "oops" there. Miscounted Edit 1 as 5.5 - 1, or 4.5, which does not meet the threshold. On reexamination, it seems that there were 6.5 - 1, or 5.5, which does meet the threshold. Someone can promote this. Nezzadar ^[SPEAK] 16:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to add FP tag

Can someone who isn't having editing issues add {{FeaturedPicture|Gibraltar Airport time-lapse panorama}} to this file? Thank you, Zoo Fari^{Thank you Wikipedia!} 01:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia won't allow the page to be created. The file needs to be renamed on Commons to something more descriptive. Zoo Fari^{Thank you Wikipedia!} 01:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

If and when a better version shows up

Regarding some recent delist noms, and recent nominations: "If and when a better version shows up" has been used frequently, by a lot of users. This has never been an FP rationale, and should not be established as one. The criteria are quite clear. While we can lower stands for exceptional circumstances, this is not the same as waving away the requirements. A JFK assassination shot would still have to have to be a near-full size scan of a negative or full-size print, for example. If people want to turn FPC into Valued Pictures, that is up to them. Just don't expect me to come along for the ride. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are getting too worked up about this. The criteria clearly mentions that exceptions to the quality rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. Since you have probably started this discussion due to the recent kaaba nomination, I will explain how that image meets the exception. More than 2 years have passed since its first nomination and still we have not received a single better image. Doesn't that make an image unique? FWIW, you yourself nominated that low quality image.

Mostlyharmless is quite right. My survey research is revealing that reviewers are consistently applying different criteria for delisting nominations of modern and historic media, beyond anything that could be justified by the allowable exceptions within FPC criteria. This has detrimental effects both upon our volunteer pool and upon our ability to gain access to higher quality media. My productivity in this area appears to have concealed the significance and depth of this problem from the FPC community at large, and the consistency with which consensus ignores informed input is discouraging. Durova³⁶⁹ 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

"If a better, free image is someday found, there's no reason we couldn't delist and replace this one". From a nomination today. Sloppy delisting is infecting our nominations. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)