Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Halibutt and the support template

Three times now, User:Halibutt has reverted attempts to change his messages containing the deleted support template to a simple support. This morning when I changed them I left a message on his talk page here explaning why they must be changed, but he didn't acknowledge my message at all, he simply changed them back, and has done so again since then. I can't think of a way to explain things to him any clearer than I already have done, so I'm asking you all what should be done? This is the first time I've been involved in a situation like this, so before I start doing things I shouldn't I'd appreciate some advice or assistance. Thanks. Raven4x4x 10:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting. He did it twice on the Sheep nomination, I had no idea he had kept doing it elsewhere. As I'm sure you've seen, there are also messages on his talk page from Enochlau, Fir002, ulayiti, and others regarding the support template. Apparently, he re-added it and had it deleted again. If it bothers him that much, he could just use Fir0002's template page, or make his own.PiccoloNamek 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: I just removed the Support template from the Veszprém church nomination. (Again.)PiccoloNamek 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Halibutt is a well established and experienced editor, although I don't think he's expressed much interest in FPC before the 16th October. He also recreated the {{Support}} and delete templates on the 16th and has been using it since. You may be looking at an example of WP:POINT. -- Solipsist 12:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
As I noted on the talk pages of most (if not all) users who revert-warred on my comments, it's not a matter of my comments in dire need of fixing, but with the template. Apparently someone who unilaterally deleted the template forgot to use the and <includeonly> tags so that the template is not repeated where it should be not. Halibutt 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible change to layout

In thinking about how to prevent sheep voting, I remembered Flcelloguy's riddles page, where you submit your answer by clicking to add a new section to an unseen page. This would have other benefits besides the most obvious.

The nominator wouldn't do anything different. The only change would be to add a link to click on "Vote here", which would link to creating a new section on a subpage of the nomination page. Besides reducing the size of WP:FPC, this would also make tallying votes easier, by requiring that a person place their vote as the title of the subheading (and change it if they change their mind). Then, it would even be possible to have a bot tally the votes and remove the losing candidates.

One problem with this would be that we couldn't see others comments before voting. This would be remedied by allowing comments and discussion to remain visible, while hiding the final vote tally.

Can anyone think of any other positive/negatives for this change? Please add to the list below. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 01:01

  • Positives:
    1. Allow user to vote without bias (unless he cheats and skips ahead to see the tally).
    2. Reduce file size and load on WP:FPC
    3. Make tallying easier by just counting number in Table of Contents.
    4. Allow bots to tally for us and make other previously unavailable changes.
  • Negatives

Comments

  • Do you really think sheep voting is that much of a problem that it needs solving? I confess I can see good and bad in it, though neither are for functional (ie, would improve WP) reasons. I'd quite like voting blind for the suspense in waiting to see whether I was with the majority or not ("wow! I'm the only one who voted against? I must be weird...") But I quite like voting after seeing the comments too, because sometimes I'm directed to look for something I might otherwise have missed. --bodnotbod 17:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How about my suggestion above, that we split the comments from the votes. Let the discussion flow in the main entry, but keep the votes separate, so that people at least have to think about it a little before voting either way. If things go well here, I might suggest doing this at RFA as well. Splitting the discussion from the votes would also help stop people from having to "defend their initial vote" and instead actually discuss the matter. Starting off your comment by saying "support" or "oppose" will only make you more inclined to remain supporting/opposing, regardless of any other evidence. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:05
  • This suggestion would make collaboration and discussion more difficult. It's not really a vote (it's getting harder and harder to say that though). If someone suggests cropping the picture (but doesn't actually do it) shouldn't I be able to conditionally support based upon that user's recommendation. I don't think sheep voting is so much of a problem. Can you cite an example where sheep voting brought down or elevated a picture improperly? If we were to split comments from votes and hide the votes then people would less inclined to comment(more edits needed) and it's usually obvious what way someone is going to vote based on their comments. Broken S 18:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's enough comments being made as is, either on FPC or (especially) on RFA. Requiring people to take more time on an item is a good thing, in my view. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 18:44
      • I really don't see anything drastically wrong with the current system. From what I understand of the idea, it seems to me that it would make the system more complicated. I would also warn that separating comments and votes is something that I lot of people aren't likely to bother doing (the same way as people keep ignoring the 'no voting in the first two days' rule we have now). I don't see the need for a change. Raven4x4x 08:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need for change. We encourage comments with a vote at the moment, and separating comments from voting might actually reduce the amount of comments you get. Sheep voting is a bad idea, i think - i sometimes like to see what others have thought and think over them first, and judging by my voting pattern, I haven't been too averse from voting against the stream, although i'm not sure i can say that for others. Enochlau 01:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower has no signed date. --Kurando-san 02:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower has no signed date. --Kurando-san 02:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower

Kurando-san warning! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mahdi follower has no signed date. --Kurando-san 02:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

November Archive problem with Fort Griswold

If you look down the botton of the november arcive, you'll notice a problem with the formatting of the Fort Griswold header. I have no idea what is wrong here: as far as I can tell the header on the sub-page is exactly the same as any other that I've checked. Could someone please help here? Raven4x4x 07:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Apperently fixed by User:Cryptic on the 10 November 2005. -- Solipsist 12:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

2 day no-voting period tension

Once again, we seem to be getting a little tension over the 2 day no voting period. Surely this can't be such a big deal. On the one hand the 2 day period has been quite successful in attracting comments and getting people to work on improving pictures. On the other hand, it also causes confusion, with quite a number of people voting as and when they like. There is also a problem for editors who want to vote on a nomination during the 2 day starting period, but don't visit here frequently enough to be sure that they will remember to vote again later.

Clearly we need to think of another way of achieving the same benefits of the 2 day commenting period. Again, I would suggest that setting up a Picture Peer Review page (or some such) is probably the neatest solution. This would be for

  • Commenting on actionable improvements for pictures destined for FPC.
  • Acting on comments and uploading altered versions.
  • Asking for help in finding the right article for a good image.
  • Asking for help in transfering images from other language wikis.
  • Asking for advice and comments on pictures that may never be placed on FPC

One of the valid criticisms leveled at WP:FPC is that it is not collaborative enough and this should help. I'll probably Be Bold and set it up this evening. -- Solipsist 13:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and your conclusion. Go forth and be bold. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. I know I'd be helping out. You're definitely right about voting during the two day starting period. Too many people say to themselves "Well I'll just do it anyway" and even feel slighted when you tell them not to.PiccoloNamek 14:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the idea is well intentioned, but I think it won't be used. Most pictures go through unchanged (based upon no actual data, just my impression), in general the period where changes are made is in the first few days and often the changes aren't accepted as the FP anyways. I would agree with this if we made the standards for FP higher. You wrote that peer review would help with captions, but sadly captions aren't a criteria (or at least aren't enforced) for FP. The advantage of the autoperiod was that it gave all pictures time to be discussed before comments are made. Might I recommend that we be more lenient on people voting early. Don't strike the vote just leave it there and give the voter a note on their talk page. I see no problem with our current system. People who don't visist enough can be conforted in the fact that other people will vote their mind and will likely vote in the same way (_it's not a vote anyways and a positive comment in the begining can be taken into account) and people who just ignore the rules (or are ignorant of them) can be given a friendly reminder. Broken S 20:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree about Broken's approach. A separate peer review might be a good idea on its own merits, but FPC can function without it. My point is, Wikipedia should not have "rules" that don't have a consensus in support. Giving friendly reminders is great (since that's assuming good faith), just as long as you don't pretend to speak with any authority or with the mandate of the community as a whole. — David Remahl 22:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, an addition... I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not a vote anyways". If you're suggesting that only votes added after the incubation period should have any weight, then I object to that. I know that you, like me, would like to _avoid_ voting hysteria. I think we should stop thinking solely in terms of "support" and "oppose" and get a complete view of the consensus. Having a rule (there's that word again) that votes added in the first two days should not count at all would be a small step towards a pure voting procedure. — David Remahl 22:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
No, no that's not what I mean. What I mean is that I don't believe we "vote" on WP:FPC despite the fact that that's what it's called (in the headings). Even VfD was renamed to make it clear that we don't vote. We seek concensus and the closing party should not just be simply counting "votes". People leave opinions and should explain why (if they don't then it is assumed that they just agree with other people). The "no voting period" is actually a period during which people shouldn't come to a final decision beacuse changes might still be made and problems still could be resolved. Broken S 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Good, we're totally on the same page then :-). — David Remahl 23:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Broken, but getting back to the point - edits to the instructions like this one and back again, along with the three 'friendly' voting reminders in the current FPC noms, shows that we have a problem with the current setup. We either need to change back to the previous original consensus building (voting), or come up with a better solution.
I share your concern that a separate staging page at Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review could be a problem if it gets neglected (Wikipedia:Peer Review has always been the poor relation to WP:FAC), but it doesn't have to be that way. We can use exactly the same FPC/subname page structure for each picture, but require that it first be placed on Picture Peer Review for comments and improvements before a second nominator elects to move it to FPC.
FPC isn't exactly the same as FAC. There are some fundamental differences related to the personal investment in many pictures. Over the years months I've noticed that one of the biggest problems with WP:FPC is when a hopeful newcomer self-nominates a picture that clearly won't make the grade only to be faced with a barrage of 'oppose' comments. There are a couple on the list at the moment. This is surely very dispiriting for the nominator/photographer and more likely to put them off contributing any more photos rather than helping to stimulate picture contributions, which is all that FPC should be doing. I would expect that having a self-nomination languish on Picture Peer Review because it can't find a seconder is probably less harmful than having an outright rejection. The other aspect is that we need to do more to encourage collaboration on picture related issues. -- Solipsist 23:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't we just allow people to close nominations early if it's clear that it won't pass (like at RfA?). Why would putting it on a seperate page help solve the problem? All you seem to be suggesting is putting it on a sperate page and is someone wants to they can put it the move it over to FAC. If we require everyone to go through that kind of peer review first then I definietely would oppose that chnage. Prehaps we could require a second for a pic to leave the 2-day peer review and enter the nomination process (although that would require bot modifications). Also, while we are on thye topic of reforming FPC, does anyone else think that the caption and placement of the picture within the article should be criterian for featuredness. How many people even go to look where the picture is on the page, or if it is even on a page? Broken S 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
A Picture Peer Review sounds like a great idea to me, and I hope it would be used properly (I'd certainly try to). Anyone like PiccoloNamek would be able to add an edited version during the Peer Review rather than the featuring process. That we we wouldn't have the FPC page confused with multiple versions of a picture, as the 'best' version would have been decided at Peer Review. This seems like a better way of doing things to me.
And as for placement in an article being a criteria, I have no problem with it, but it's not something I would judge a picture on myself. I tend to have low standards in that regard. If a picture is in the article, that's good enough. I also don't really care about the caption. When I see a picture in an article, I click on it to bring up the image page, I don't read the caption or look too much at it in the article. I pay more attention to the description on the image page itself. Raven4x4x 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The only problem with a peer review is that we often see edits that make the picture worse, which could be a real problem if only one picture goes through the Peer Review and we don't get a choice at the 'voting' process. I kind of like how it works at the moment. The argument that people who don't visit often missing out on voting doesn't really stack up - it's the same as if we change to a Peer Review process, or if we had simply listed the picture two days later! The advantage of the current system as I see it is that if a picture is ok, there's nothing that needs to be said and it can pass quietly through to the voting period; if the picture is not ok, there's a chance for it to be fixed up.
As for the other proposals, I'm not swayed either side about early closings for ones with lots of "oppose" votes. There's less hurt to the ego than at RfA, and I'm sure there have been cases where we get say 5 opposes, then a whole bunch of supports. But sometimes I wish it happened (like with the grey smudge of Leton(?) we got recently). As for the positioning of the picture within the article, I can see where you're coming from ("contributes greatly to article"), but I usually take it on faith that it's not stuck in a corner somewhere. I do however, think the description page is important, especially for diagrams - that should be perhaps emphasised. Enochlau 09:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this idea: scrap the 2 day commenting period and accept comments/votes anytime, but the person closing the candidate should ignore all votes pertaining to issues that have been addressed in later versions of the picture? Enochlau 10:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please. Fredrik | tc 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd support somthing like this (out of date votes should be ignored in any case), but it won't apease those who want a forum to just improve the image. Broken S 22:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that anyone particularly is following this "rule", which I must say I can't see the reason for. Other featured things get edited on the fly, why not images? And the project page doesn't say anywhere what the point of the delay even is - that might be handy to know. pfctdayelise 02:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Unilateral changes

I understand that some people feel quite strongly about getting rid of the 2 day commenting period, but I am quite disturbed at the recent spate of unilateral instruction changes, e.g. [1]. Can't we all discuss things first here before going off on your own tangent? Enochlau 15:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that we are discussing possible changes and Raven4x4x just made his/her first comment makes me think that change is a bit hasty. What's the point of a "comments" period if they are allowed to vote? Wouldn't it be more efficient to get rid of it all together (if nothing else it would reduce the archive bot's work) Broken S 20:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there any part of that edit that does not accurately describe the current state of things? If so, edit it (that's still how we do things on Wikipedia, isn't it?), and please tell me what part of it is "unilateral". I think it leaves plenty of space for both "sides" of the discussion. I was trying to find whatever common ground exists at the moment – something the previous version didn't do very well (I'd call it "unilateral"). — David Remahl 20:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Writing policy on Wikipedia is often simply a question of documenting current practice. In the long run this tends to produce more stable policy than dictating something which is clearly not being followed and may be difficult to follow. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Agreed (with Haukurth), however the changes don't just describe the state of things today. David wrote, for example, "As on any other page, editing other users' comments (especially to remove votes) is considered severely bad form." Whether or not that opinion is best, that certainly isn't today's state of the page. People often strike votes when they are made too early. I'm not disagreeing with the change per se but the fact that it was made while discussion was still active (it seems to me that we are getting somewhere- whether it's removing the section, switching to peer review or doing nothing). I also find your comment that "previous reverter [Me] has not motivated his/her revert" unusual since I think my comments (above) show my opnion on the subject. Broken S 22:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Re your last sentence, the diff that Enochlau points to is old. We've already discussed the misunderstanding about either of us not explaining it on both our talk pages. Now, I stand by that editing other users' comments is a practically universal taboo on Wikipedia. The "remove ad hominem attacks" guideline allows single words or possibly a sentence to be edited out, but that is fairly controversial (as the guideline page says). Not even bad, bad faith votes on AfD are deleted, stricken or edited. The taboo even extends to editing one's own comments (which is why strike-outs are used). Why should FPC deviate on this point? The reason it _does_ in practice is because of the previous wording which endorsed it. — David Remahl 22:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
But in most cases (note user has no extensively viewed histories of FPCs) people just strike out the vote and then unstrike it for them later. The votes aren't being "removed" or deleted wholesale (which certainly is a taboo). I don't think that the WP:NPA or WP:RPA policies are particularly relevant here. These changes are certainly non-malicious. The reason that other policies may be controversial because exactly what a "personal attack" is, is vague. The reason editing your comments is discouraged is because it can confuse talk pages and make it look like you always believed something when in fact you didn't. Broken S 22:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I still don't think it is acceptable for anyone (whether part of a minority or a majority) to ban someone from expressing a particular opinion on a project page. I think we have at least established that there is no consensus in favor of that practice. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to make a direct comparison between FPC and RPA; just to emphasize that editing comments is controversial even in the most extreme cases. Another example is that many people discourage and avoid fixing trivial typos in other people's comments, to avoid misunderstandings (I think that is unnecessarily cautious.) — David Remahl 23:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Page rename

While everyone is actually looking at this page, might I recommend a change I have been thinking about recently. Calling the page "Featured picture candidates" seems to restrictive. It seems to exclude diagrams and animations (which are images but not necessarily pictures). Then I thought why not change the name to be even more inclusive. I propose, "Featured file candidates" or maybe "Featured media candidates". More and more we are getting sound and video files and I think we should accommodate them here. The only reason I could see to oppose this is that people would want other forms of media on a seperate page (Featured sound candidates, Featured video candidates). That might be best, but I'd reccomend starting them here and moving them over if we get enough nominations. Thoughts? Broken S 22:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I like "Featured media candidates" the best. "File" is too ambiguous / vague. I think you're right in that a split along media-type lines is premature. — David Remahl 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea, but you might want to contact people active in the sound department and see whether they're happy about it. And I like "media" more, "file" could be anything. Enochlau 08:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates exists. I left a note there. I still think starting it off here and moving it over if enough volume comes thorugh is a good idea. Right now, I don't think there are enough videos to start a seperate page (I'm not sure about sounds though). Broken S 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review

OK, following up on the above discussion, I've set up an example of Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review to give a flavour of how it could work. Although perhaps that should now be 'Media Peer Review'. -- Solipsist 23:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is peer review intended to be mandatory (no FPC listings without peer review) or merely a recommendation (more like FAC)? — David Remahl 23:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Requiring it would be silly. Encouraging it is fine (like at FAC). Pictures which just don't meet the standard should be referred to PR. Broken S 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd prefer "picture" (where a picture can be a moving picture or a still one). Responsibility for reviewing spoken, music, and other audio should rest with the appropriate wikiprojects, where the domain-experts are. -- Finlay Mcwalter | Talk 23:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
did you mean to write this in the section above? Broken S 23:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
my guess is that it's in reference to Solipsist's "Although perhaps that should now be 'Media Peer Review'". — David Remahl 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally I think it would probably work best if all suggestions were first placed on Wikipedia:Picture Peer Review. Obviously good pictures that didn't need any work could then be seconded and moved to FPC for consensus building/voting immediately. Others that needed more work could stay on Peer Review for longer than two days as people worked on modified versions. Pictures that clealy won't make the grade would fail to find a seconder, but might recieve a neutral comment such as interesting picture, but I doubt it would attract many votes on FPC. -- Solipsist 23:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
This looks very good to me, in fact better than I had thought it would be thanks to the two sections about placing pictures in articles and moving from other WPs. One thing, shouldn't the sub-pages be renamed ' Wikipedia:Picture peer review/ExampleName' or something, rather than ' Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName'? Raven4x4x 00:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I kept the subpages at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName so that when a nomination gets moved up to FPC, you don't really have to do too much: just sign as the seconder then delete the {{Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/ExampleName}} from the Picture Peer Review page and add it to the FPC page. However, a naming stem that would fit equally on both pages would be better. -- Solipsist 08:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that the reason why this hasn't been done until now and would probably be pretty pointless because most images can't really be changed, they aren't like articles where every little things can be editted so there are few criticisms for images that could actually be fixed to make the image FP worthy. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Remember the intention is not just about providing a place to work on photo editing. It is also about getting people to work on finding places to put excellent pictures. In the past I've found Featured Pictures that have passed without actually being on an article anywhere and others that are attached to the barest stub. It is difficult to be a jack of all trades. We've got some excellent photographers contributing here, but there is no reason why they should all also be good at writing articles. There should be cases where knowing that an excellent picture is available, would stimulate other editors into writing an article about it (and quite possibly suggesting it for DYK in the process).
The third thing is to try and find a way to more gently handle self-nominations that probably won't make the grade. It can be quite dispiriting for an editor to self-nominate an image, only to get tirade of oppose votes. In fact it is dispiriting enough, that I'm aware of several instances where the FPC process has put people off from contributing any more pictures whatsoever. This is a bad thing and the opposite of what FPC should be achieving. If someone else nominates a photo of yours and it gets rejected, its still dispiriting but it is easier to brush it off on the grounds that at least the nominator presumably liked it and it wasn't your decision to put it up for public scrutiny. Unfortunately, in practice it is not so common for people to nominate other editor's photos and we need self nominations to keep FPC running. I'm hoping that the process of putting a self nom on Picture Peer Review which then doesn't attract a seconder, will work as the gentle middle way. -- Solipsist 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
What about SVGs? :) This brings up a good point, for most photographs it is difficult to change things (however this isn't always the case, I usually leave everything setup for a while after shooting a small object so I can fix problems pointed out later). What I find very concerning is that since the important things often can't be changed, many featured images discussions disolve into bikeshead color debate sessions over mostly unimportant things like image brightness simple because anyone can change it so anyone fancies themselves an expert. Frankly, If I bothered putting an image up for featured status after the time I spend on them (typically hours on the better stuff for the whole process) only to have it rejected because someone with an overly bright display says it looks washed out when it looks perfect on my calibrated display ... ohh.. even talking about it makes me bristle. I think I'd probably not contribute another image to Wikipedia! As I say on my commons userpage "If a user's technical and artistic judgment was great enough to create the media worthy of consideration they should be left to decide over such minor details." Okay, before I go too much off on a rant.. I do however see a lot of use for peer review even if the image can't easily be changed, and that is it would be useful to get feedback for the creation of future images.--Gmaxwell 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, there might be some overlap) That is true, but it shouldn't be. All too often, improving an image on Wikipedia involves resaving a JPEG that has already been saved at low quality to maintain small file sizes. The "digital negatives" in the form of RAW files, DV streams, layered PSDs/TIFFs or vector-based formats remain with the original author. I think most images could benefit from peer review if we had access to the source material (as opposed to an over-cropped JPEG, as an example). It's a pity that technology is still limiting the wiki model's applicability to rich media. Still, peer review would be a good place to investigate what opportunities exist to enhance an image. — David Remahl 00:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
If you're uploading low quality jpegs you are doing something wrong. The vast majority of the photos on Wikipedia are not used inline at their actual size, this means they are scaled then rejpeged (at an annoyingly low quality setting, mind you). You should upload jpegs at the highest reasonable quality setting. I think the point being made was that you can't reasonably change the composition of an image that way.. --Gmaxwell 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy for such a page to exist so that we can refer pictures (or other media as the case may be) for fixing, but looking at how it works at the moment, I just think it'll add too much fluff to the process. Very few pictures are edited, and a sizeable proportion of edits are rather disappointing. Also, some changes in the images in the first two days currently, are about uploading a higher res version - this doesn't need peer review to get done. So, perhaps we should make this similar to FAC and make peer review suggested, but not mandated?

And as for uploading the "digital negatives", it's most unfortunate that many people (like me) have average digital cameras that produce only JPEG. However, it would be nice to see a system where there could be some link to the original file (RAW or vector graphics format) from the image description page. It would help especially if there's English on the diagram - I recall one of my diagrams having needed to be translated for another Wikipedia, but they didn't have the source. Enochlau 08:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, suggested but not mandated seems to be the way to go. No need to over-complicate stuff. About digital negatives, I know that most people photograph in JPEG. Still, if I look at myself, almost every image I upload to Wikipedia is cropped, slightly rotated or gets an adjustment layer or perhaps some labels before I'm completely happy with it. A professional photographer / artist could do a better job in the post-processing, even if it just concerns a few minor details, which he/she can do in a few seconds if given access to the layered file. I proposed allowing people to upload source material along with the exported files about a year ago, when commons was bootstrapping, but it didn't take off (and then I left for an extended vacation which is mostly still in effect). I'm thinking of setting up a wikiproject to investigate what could be done and look at software changes. In conclusion, something like that would make peer review more useful, but we should trust people to make the judgement that a picture isn't likely to benefit from peer review. — David Remahl 14:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture editing

User:Gmaxwell raises some good issues about not necessarily wanting people to edit the photos he contributes. In the past we have seen some excellent examples on how collaborative editing and suggestions for other editors have improved nominations greatly, especially with diagrams (this one for example. Collaboration is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and in general all the copyleft licenses we use here freely allow anyone to modify any photo or diagram that has been contributed.

However, one of the fundamental differences between Featured Pictures and Featured Articles is that editors tend to have more personal investment in the pictures they contribute. As Gmaxwell says, if you've gone to great lengths to make sure that your photo is just right, you don't necessarily want people to muck around with it. I've also seen several counter examples where third party editing of a photo has annoyed an editor so much that they have tried to delete every picture they've ever added and abandoned editing ever again.

In general I think we should encourage collaborative editing, but perhaps it would also be a good idea to design a small "please don't muck with my illustrations" template that the original picture contributor could add to a nomination or to their user page. Or perhaps a "suggest it, but let me make the alterations" tag. -- Solipsist 09:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Some good thoughts above, but I wanted to point out that I love collaborative editing, which is one of the reasons that I'm a huge advocate of SVGs. What I can't stand are people that do drive-bys and without putting any real work into it, come by and *insist* someone change the whitepoint or lightness/darkness of an image when they are not willing or able to colaborate on the content beyond trivial changes. It's not that I mind people making changes to my work (it's GFDL, in any case) but rather I mind people making it worse. In an article, the process is very colaborative so there is less room to have pride in ownership and shame in failure, but the same is often not true with illustrations. I think we just need to understand what is a pure matter of taste, and try to leave the bulk of the decisions related to taste to the people who did the bulk of the work. A lot of photographers are worried about people modifying their images, but I think that the biggest part of their concerns is the same as mine. None of this is much of an issue when we are mostly talking about images people have found and uploaded, because people simply haven't spent as much time working on them alone. Another thing that we could do to help is to get people to collaborate more from the start on photographs. For example, for the media on Bassoon I talked to the author of most of the text on exactly what she thought it needed before the camera (and microphones) even came out of their cases. Not only would I feel a little less concerned by driveby alterations, there should be less need to make them since I started out with external input. --Gmaxwell 12:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry not to paraphrase your sentiments correctly. But the basic point remains that I am aware of some people who have been upset by having a picture they took modified. I'm totally open as to whether a 'please don't touch' tag is a good idea. Whilst it might help prevent some people getting upset, it is also negative in helping to foster a sense of ownership which is arguably unhelpful. -- Solipsist 16:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it could contribute to misconceptions about the GFDL. The existence of the tag would lead some people to believe that there is some sort of NoDerivs variant of the GFDL. It's obviously a problem if the quality of the media degrades, but the solution isn't to prevent editing but to make it easy, ala the wiki model. — David Remahl 18:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I too wouldn't support a don't edit this tag, it creates the wrong impression. Rather we should just make an effort in the community to discourage people from insisting over some minor question of taste when the people who did 99.9% of the work disagree. It's important we can insist on points of usefulness, style, and consistency and make those corrections where needed. But that shouldn't be a free pass to demand a photographer modify his image to look slightly better on your broken monitor when it makes it look worse on his calibrated sRGB device, or demand an audio person highpass out the LF rumble that drives your incorrectly configured tiny speakers into producing IMD, when the creator(s) of the content believe it to be better with the low end intact. --Gmaxwell 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
People shouldn't submit files/content if they don't want people to edit it. If a change is made that makes it worse then it won't be used. Broken S 20:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
That is an oversimplification which I believe to be incorrect. Some changes are easy to measure in an objective manner, I believe that for these changes you are correct in that we will not use an altered version which reduces the quality. However, some changes are highly subjective, simply a matter of taste, and are trivia which we would not even bother making recommendations over in our style guide. For these matters the decision on if the modified version is used depends on what collection of editors happens to be around... The original version is at an inherent disadvantage because we like to see 'collaboration' (even when it takes the form of trivial mucking with something that's already pretty good) and since there is little to no objective argument that can be made against the changes the original contributors end up looking whiny and overprotective if they object. To prevent the feelings being hurt of people who do all the work to create such content by people who just want to feel important by exerting influence over the finished product, but whom don't create any themselves, we should avoid arguing over such maters of trivia and taste when there is no objective criteria to support the argument, instead deferring to the judgment of the people who did the actual work. This doesn't require a "don't edit notice", but only a culture which is aware of the feelings who put in large amounts of work, and an intolerance for people who only come around to 'lay their thumbprint', as the Germans call it, over trivial matters rather than working to actually improve our content. I don't think this is special for media either, but it's more of an issue because there are more subjective issues and there is usually less collaboration. --Gmaxwell 21:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no issue whatever with digitally altering an image so long as no dishonesty is involved. Photographers for a long time have engaged in brightness and contrast manipulation, burning and dodging, and creative cropping. Digital alteration is merely an extension of that, and where it involves making a change that the photographer might have been physically able to make in taking the picture, I see no reason why it ought not to occur. Even removing tourists from the front of the pyramids is not an issue - wait five minutes and they'd have been gone anyway. We edit text to present ideas in their best light, and only criticise when mistruths are introduced. The same should apply to images - removing an errant leaf is one thing, placing a smoking gun in someone's hand is another. Slippery slope? I don't think so. While there may be situations where things get a little fuzzy, the end decision of truth vs. lie is usually pretty clear. Denni ☯ 02:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

BrokenSegue's compromise

Discussion seems to have stalled. Here is my compromise which I feel is acceptable to all:

  • Picture peer review is used for anyone who wants it
  • Pictures that have been through peer review can skip the 2 day discussion period
  • The "no vote" section is changed to the "voting is highly discouraged section" where votes aren't stricken but comments should be left indicating that they shouldn't be there
  • Votes/Comments concerning issues that have been addressed should be ignored when it is decision time (preferably they should be notified that their comment has been addressed so they can revise their vote).
  • It is recommended that people not just write "oppose" or "support" but provide explanations of why.
  • No template saying "please don't mess with my pictures" should be created or used, but people may, of course, leave such a message on the nomination page

Thoughts? Correlaries? Broken S 03:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly comments should be left below votes once concerns are dealt with, that way the closing editor knows and if the vote is solely based on concerns that have been dealt with then the closing editor can disregard the vote at his/her discretion. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable compromise of the position to date. We'll wait a little while, and if no one else writes here, we should perhaps drop a note to the other regulars and see what they think? Or do these changes need to be taken to a more public place, like the Village Pump or something? Enochlau 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would generally agree with User:BrokenSegue, except we should still remove the 2-day no voting period. This is largely what has been causing confusion so far. Picture Pear Review (PPR) should be volutary; straight forward nominations can start on FPC with voting from day one. Anything that looks like it might need editing or other work should be moved down to PPR for comments then return to FPC for voting when ready. Self-noms should be encouraged to start on PPR to wait for a seconder to move it up to FPC, but can start on FPC if they prefer.

Forget the "please don't mess with my pictures" tag - it was a thought, but it has no support and is potentially harmful. -- Solipsist 10:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to fully endorse all of Solipsist's positions here. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Me to!!!11! :-). Broken's well-rounded points, with the adjustments that Solipsist suggests, are exactly what I'd like to see. — David Remahl 14:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the 2 day notification does require modification of the bot... as well as modification of how nominations skip the two day phase. Either way, before you guys implement those changes, I'd be appreciated if you let me know beforehand before making them. (That way the bot doesn't screw up completely.) Personally, I thought the pre-2 day nomination thing was kind of silly. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder on the bot needing changing. I had thought of it, but was waiting for concensus here before changing procedures. -- Solipsist 08:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, discussion seems to have died out. Allow me to summarize what I think our final descion is:

  • The "no vote" section is removed and replaced by WP:PPR
  • Votes/Comments concerning issues that have been addressed should be ignored when it is decision time (preferably they should be notified that their comment has been addressed so they can revise their vote).
  • It is recommended that people not just write "oppose" or "support" but provide explanations of why.
  • The use of peer review is encouraged by not necessary

Let's make the change without voting. If you think I have correctly charcterized our findings then try to publicize this discussion giving people a chance to object. If no one comments, then let's ask AllyUnion to fix the bot. Broken S 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wailua Falls

Kurando-san error! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wailua Falls could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I know why the bot screwed up. Yesterday, I was trying to move my page by myself without knowing that there even was a bot. Anyway, I accidently blanked my own page and that just when the bot happened to come along, see the missing page and throw a fit. But anyway, all is well now.--Ewok Slayer 00:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote for Pedro

Do you guys think that this image...Link is a FPC?. Should I nominate it?

Pictures have to be illustrating an article to be a FPC. Also pelase sign your messsages by typing "~~~~". Broken S 23:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Its an unusual and interesting picture, so it could be worth a try. It seems to be illustrating Volkswagen Beetle and Jardin botanique de Montréal, but I am not sure it is the best illustration for these topics. At a guess, the car no longer goes, otherwise it might have been a good illustration for art car. -- Solipsist 11:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Place all votes above this line"

Just a reminder to everyone that all votes must be placed above the "additional votes go above this line" and "br style="clear:both;"" lines. If you don't it really can break the formatting of the page, see here for an example. Raven4x4x 03:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lava Cascade

Kurando-san error! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lava Cascade could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest Fire

Kurando-san error! Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Forest Fire could not be parsed properly. --Kurando-san 02:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Felix the Cat and nomination dates

You'll notice here that the bot has moved the Felix the Cat nomination to the end of voting section despite it only being nominated yesterday. This is because the bot reads the very first date on the page and takes this as the nomination date, but in this case this is the date of image creation. I've got an idea on how to stop this from occuring, and I've asked AllyUnion (who maintains the bot) whether it will work, but for now I've just stuck the nomination date at the top of the page. Until I implement my idea, please make sure that the nomination date is the very first date on the page or the bot will be confused. Thanks. Raven4x4x 03:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Should POTD include a credit line

A discussion has opened about whether the Picture of the Day should continue to include the photo credit line. Since it probably affects many editors here, please consider airing your views at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day#Please: let's discuss refraining from crediting names. -- Solipsist 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Shameless plug

There's a javascript tool I wrote, User:Zocky/Picture Popups, that makes this page much nicer to read. Zocky 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Two period nomination has been removed

I have removed the two period nomination area... some of the page still needs to be updated. The bot has been changed to reflect this, and will only be moving nominations older than 14 days to bottom section. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason the two-day nomination period was removed other than the bot being down, or did I miss a discussion somewhere? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#BrokenSegue.27s_compromise (discussion higher up on the page). People didn't like it apparently. Broken S 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are featured pictures shown..?

Aren't they on the Main Page for a day? I don't see it there anymore.. ? Drumguy8800 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Picture of the Day only appears on the main page on the weekend. Did you Know? appears on weekdays. Raven4x4x 00:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • However many people also add the Picture of the Day to their user page, using the template {{Pic of the day}} (see instructions on Picture of the Day page). And of course you can also browse the (rather large) archive at Wikipedia:Featured_pictures_visible. -- Solipsist 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I've been wondering who decides what featured picture is featured on which weekend. Are there any pages that list upcoming images and the dates that they will be featured? ~MDD4696 03:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Solipsist does it. Raul654 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Drawings and diagrams

moved from Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures -- Solipsist 11:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone (TimL) is interested in nominating my psychoactive drug chart, but as the chart is composed of a background graphic overlaid with hyperlinks to Wikipedia articles, we are not sure how to proceed. The chart graphic image by itself (without the links) is pretty meaningless, but with the links it is quite impressive. Uploading a graphics-only 'linkless' version of the chart doesn't seem like the right answer. Does anyone have the correct solution? ;) --Thoric 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a good diagram and quite a challenging question. There are some similar good interactive diagrams for the board layouts at Monopoly (game), but I don't think anyone has tried nominating them here. And to a lesser extent we have some similar problems with animated Gifs which can't be scaled on the fly, although it is usually possible to produce a carefully scaled down animation for featuring, even if it looses detail.
In this case, I feel the diagram only makes sense in its full size and with active links. However a thumbnail version might help when refering to it in an FPC nomination. If it became featured, I can't think of any way it could be effectively shown on Wikipedia:Picture of the day. -- Solipsist 11:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, just noticed this diagram was already nominated yesterday at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart, with mixed results so far. -- Solipsist 12:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
TimL nominated it before I had a chance to get him an answer to his question -- "Hmm I think there is a problem with that though as it is an image with text overlaid. The image itself is just the background. Not sure how to proceed". A picture of the day would likely require a special scaled down version containing tiny text representing a smaller subset of the links (i.e. one or two drugs out of a group). --Thoric 15:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
so when should I renominate it? Answeres on my talk page please. For reasons I can't go into the sooner the better. I guess someone else could too. TimL 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal templates for voting

A quick point of order: I see quite a few people using a template in their personal namespace to add a little pic and their Support vote. I've had a look at the template pages and it seems most are neither substituted nor protected. This leaves your template page a wide open target for vandals who only have to edit that one page and add a rude pic, for example, to vandalize hundreds of pages with a single edit.

Would everyone using a template please either (1) get an admin to protect the page, or (2) use the {{subst:}} method of adding their vote? The second is much preferable - if you use {{Subst:User:Veledan/support}} instead of just {{User:Veledan/support}} it not only means that your votes won't all change if the template is altered, it removes the opportunity for mass vandalism. And it reduces the server drain. If you make a change to your templates as they are now, every single page you have voted on has to be re-cached!

Cheers all ~ Veledan • Talk 18:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EFeatured_picture_candidates_Archive_4_ef7b.html"