Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


FPCs needing feedback
view · edit

Archives (Index)

Feb 2004–Nov 2004 • Nov 2004–Jun 2005
Jun 2005–Nov 2005 • Nov 2005–Dec 2005
Dec 2005–Feb 2006 • Feb 2006–Mar 2006
Mar 2006–Apr 2006 • Apr 2006–Apr 2006
Apr 2006–July 2006 • Jul 2006–Aug 2006
Aug 2006–Nov 2006 • Nov 2006–Mar 2007
Mar 2007–Aug 2007 • Aug 2007–Oct 2007
Oct 2007–Jan 2008 • Jan 2008–Feb 2008
Feb 2008–May 2008 • May 2008–Oct 2008
Oct 2008–Feb 2009 • Feb 2009–Mar 2009
Mar 2009–Jun 2009 • Jun 2009–Jul 2009
Aug 2009–Sep 2009 • Oct 2009–Oct 2009
Nov 2009–Nov 2009 • Dec 2009–Dec 2009
Jan 2010–Feb 2010 • Mar 2010–Apr 2010
May 2010–May 2010 • Jun 2010–July 2010
August 2010 –
Threads older than 45 days may be archived by MiszaBot.
This is the talk page for discussing the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates Wikipedia page

If you wish to suggest an image that might be appropriate as a Featured Picture Candidate, please do so at Wikipedia:Picture peer review. If the subject of the posting you are about to make is not about a FP candidate, please make it at Featured Pictures talk.
Shortcut:

Contents

[edit] 380 noms without canonical closing statements from 2007-2011

A sub-sample that I took suggests that most of these noms have never been closed. The ones I looked at, I closed "Not promoted: expired" [1]. Given how highly active FPC talk has recently been, I have no doubt that the most active participants, such as John O'Neill and Mr. Milburn, will give a show of genuine concern for the project by contributing substantially to this task. As for me, I've spent half a day compiling this list. Comment, strike, or delete them when they've been dealt with, I don't care which. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Two are missing because they had special characters whose formatting got mangled. I'll add them as soon as I find them again. I closed one which was withdrawn; the other turned out to be a miscategorised delist nom. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

  • What exactly is there to gain by going through these old nominations and adding closing templates? JJ Harrison (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The ability to do proper statistics. For now, I've excluded the "doesn't seem to have been promoted but we don't know why" from the figures presented, so the figures aren't super accurate, with 10-20% being accounted for by these "strange" noms. These 10-20% include withdrawn noms, never-listed noms and miscategorised noms, but again, I can't quantify that for you. I agree that it's quite possible to continue to exist with an overgrown back yard, if that's how you want to live. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah ok. Seems like something a bot could help carve up though. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Before anyone takes care of too many of these, we should decide which, if any, archive they belong in. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, we should simply delete any nomination that wasn't listed and wasn't voted on. Nominations that were transcluded or voted on should be archived properly. Jujutacular (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think we should sweep under the carpet that sometimes people can't figure out how to transclude. It would serve the project better to (a) try and address the fundamental problem, and (b) see if we can reach out to people that have actually been trying to contribute but couldn't figure out how to make it work. I saw several could-be candidates that might actually be worth nominating now. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • That's a separate issue. Anyone is free to re-nominate the images, but these old nominations need to be dealt with. How about an archive specifically for these? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This has gone a bit stale, but I don't want it disappearing into the archives without some sensible action being taken. I've been running around doing a lot of other stuff, would be good to have two extra hands on deck that are willing to contribute. Three would also be cool. I think we need a Duke of Wikipedia scheme or sth like that. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Big image viewer seems down

Can someone confirm? I would suspend the Goya nom and perhaps others that may be affected. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Can't view it either, but my internet sucks this time of day. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I don't know what is going on with the toolserver :-(. --Dschwen 13:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • My understanding is that some tools have been going down because user accounts got auto-expired if the person didn't log in for some time. The notice displayed suggests this is to avoid old content being viewable, but it seems to be applied indiscriminately even where content is completely dynamic. FWIW, an example can be seen here. I obviously wouldn't know if this is affecting your account, but might be worth checking. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I renewed my account successfully 28days before expiry. --Dschwen 15:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The image now works in the Big Image Viewer. In teh future, I you can remember it, please just drop me a quick message when you nominate a large image to make sure it works. Unfortunately due to memory limitations on the toolserver sometimes the generation of a zoomable image version fails, and I have to intervene manually and prepare the zoomable image on one of my own machines. --Dschwen 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That means, presumably, that we shouldn't upload over the top when the template is being used because the old version will still be showing? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, will it? Let me check, I thought I added cache refresh code to that tool. If not I'll do that today. I already wrote this functionality for a different tool. It'll be just copy paste. --Dschwen 12:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you verify that it works? The basic question was, what if the lack of memory availability happens to an image that's uploaded over the top? Is the previous version retained on the big image viewer and shown instead of the new version (bad), or does the previous version get deleted first (good because it allows the error to be readily noticed and fixed)? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Really confused about captions

Looking at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Amplexus (common toad) with the comment "Caption is too long. Please make more succinct in order to meet CP #7." This criterion just confuses me. From the comment, it appears to concern the caption in the FP nomination. However, the criteria link to our WP:CAPTION guideline which is about article captions. There are also POTD captions and the image description page too. It seems to me the caption in the FP nomination is the least important and just a courtesy for the reviewers. Why would its length be worthy of a review comment? The captions in articles might have been written by the nominator/uploader but they might be in an infobox that has a very terse caption, they could be in multiple articles with differing qualities of captions, and really it is the editors of the article that ultimately decide the caption text. The only vital aspect of an image on WP that I can see is that the image description page is full of useful information. The archive discussions mention the POTD caption but I've looked at a few and they are verbose and don't seem based on the FP nomination.

I've looked through the archives and it seems nobody else understands the caption criterion either.

  • The criteria need to made more explicit wrt which caption they refer to.
  • The requirements for geogtagging and meta data are fine (and I agree with them) but concern the image description page and no other (though it is possible an article might want to geolocate an image, it isn't essential and that's an editorial decision for the article writers).
  • The requirement to be succinct is weird. That applies of course to article captions. But I don't think that should be our concern.
  • We shouldn't link to the WP:CAPTION guideline because that's not our concern and has different goals from the captions or descriptions elsewhere.

Colin°Talk 20:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well raised. I was about to mention that (again). We had a discussion about it some while ago, but it seems nothing got updated. To my mind, only the image description and the captions in articles have to adhere to a certain standard. The latter is nice to have, the former is really essential. The caption in the nomination doesn't need to be particularly good, although we did say in the past that we encourage amending image descriptions and article captions with information that transpires during the nomination. In practice, I believe this doesn't happen often enough. So for now, I would suggest replacing "caption" with "image description". Is that sufficiently unambiguous? And I got the impression that the caption guideline itself is rather poorly written. I'm not sure we should seek our example there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I too do not understand why caption is part of the FP criteria, but as long as it is, it should be enforced. Regarding image descripton, my concern would be that that would implicate Commons, which hosts many images. —Eustress talk 21:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we have that conflict. We also have a conflict between people contributing to FP(C) and those writing articles. Most of the time, neither of these is/are a problem. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
There are things we would like for a caption or image description page but those don't necessarily have to be FP criteria. For example, I think it is great when people geotag location images on the description page but it not always possible for an FP nomination as the image might not have been taken by the nominator and the location not precisely known. In fact, I wonder if "Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable." is the only essential requirement of the image description page. We could list some "nice to haves" that folk could suggest during the review, but couldn't demand. As for the Commons aspect of the image description page, is that a problem? It is a sister project and has similar goals. I don't see anyone on Commons objecting to WP folk improving the description. The only problem I see might be if the nominator doesn't have a Commons account. But they could ask someone to edit the page. Colin°Talk 21:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"Might not be possible" is not a criterion in the way you suggest. The argument advanced by you only applies to historical images, where the opportunity to take another photograph of the subject does not exist. Similarly, not having a Commons account is not really a valid obstacle if you think about it. It takes less than a minute to fix that, right? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking about pictures donated to WP from some image library or from Flickr. Would you reject such a picture just because it lacked a geotag and conceivably someone could go there and take the picture again? Colin°Talk 08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If we're going to change "caption" to "image description" - assuming that this terminology is felt to be unambiguous - I would remove the succinctness criterion, as we really want the description to supply as much information as possible, and it often includes descriptive text from other sources such as the LoC that we would always retain for the sake of having it recorded, but which may in fact be overly circumstantial, weaselly, inaccurate, or ambiguous. I would, however, uphold the possibility of opposing based on unavailability of essential information. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you enumerate what you think is essential? Should we have different rules for images where the photographer=uploader=wikipedian and so could be easily contacted to request more info? Should we have an essential list and an encouraged list. Reviewers, could if they wish, oppose if an encouraged detail was missing for no good reason. Colin°Talk 08:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My reply to both of Colin's previous comments: No, I don't think we should treat pictures from external archives differently for the purpose of English Wikipedia Featured Pictures. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Well the geocoding aspect is just a "encouraged" aspect currently anyway. I really don't see how we could enforce that for external images and wouldn't want folk to just take a guess at where to stick the pin in the map. Ok. So I'd be happy with #7 changing to "image description", for the succinct requirement to be dropped, and for the link to the WP:CAPTION to be removed. Any objections? Colin°Talk 11:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
While no-one else is replying: Commons does currently encourage "sticking pins on maps", see commons:Category:Location possible or commons:Commons:Geocoding. I think the reason that criterion was kept as an option was that not all images are dependent on their geographical context. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's not a valid oppose reason in some situations. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I've applied the proposed changes and updated the prose in various places. Material from the footnotes has been moved into the main body of the text. Feel free to raise any further points you may become aware of. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I think some care should be taken that the captions are taken from material that is sourced in the article. I've found some captions in the past to be inaccurate. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This is what I typically do so as to ensure the image info is consistent with well-supported article info. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we should take care that captions are referenced, if appropriate, also. JJ Harrison (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Sometime I write an entire article just so the images info gets maximum usage :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The problem for me is in the Signpost. e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-19/Featured content. I've learned to carefully check the captions as they can be inaccurate and misleading. So it would be nice if they were from sourced material, even though the source doesn't need to be in the caption. But it needs to be in the "related article". MathewTownsend (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Fully concur there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Articles can change, so if you think that referencing is necessary, I would argue that the referencing must be in the file description, not just the article. However, this will cause significant upheaval of current processes, where arthropod pictures are often fashioned with an "expert ID" rather than a reference. Sometimes, such a reference would have to be to "grey" literature, i.e. works informally circulated among experts and not easily obtainable for the general public. This could cause a situation where some pictures would be excluded because they cannot ever be verified (taxonomy is a discipline currently in decline, so if the necessary work does not exist currently, it may never come into being), or the effort involved for the expert discouraging. We only recently met with a problem in plant ID, where we noted that sampling is often not possible without a permit, and collections (natural history museums, etc.) may be unwilling to ID and archive materials provided by lay persons, at least not free of charge. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with adding sources to the file description on Commons. That way people using the image on the various Wikipedias or elsewhere have access to sourced descriptions. The caption in the article(s) should be accurate per any WP text and I think those who take and insert the pictures should help there, but ultimately that text is the responsibility of the collective editors of the article and shouldn't get in the way of a successful FP nomination. It may be impossible/difficult for some highly technical identification issues, but we should try our best. Signpost wants background text on the photograph as well as encyclopaedic text on the subject, but ensuring that it accurate and interesting is also their responsibility. Colin°Talk 08:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] General discussion of recent systemic bias at FPC

In a recent nom that highlights a strong example of systemic bias, Crisco posed the question of whether he had promoted systemic bias with his recent nominations of repeated materials from da Vinci and Goya. I replied that he has been over-nominating Goya and Whistler. This is not simply problematic in terms of overall due weight, but also makes the task of balancing the PotD queue more complex, as we try not to have run-on weeks of one kind of material. I'm opening this thread in case there is any further discussion to be had on this point, to avoid crowding the nom concerned with general and hence off-topic discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a problem for the Signpost, as last week 5 out of 9 "Featured pictures" were nominated by Crisco: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-19/Featured content and this week, 5 out of 7 (so far) were nominated by Crisco: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-26/Featured content. This makes the process seem out of whack. This is not to put down Crisco's fine work, but none of the other featured processes are dominated by one person, and I think it's a potential problem of credibility for Featured pictures. (My opinion) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • @PLW2: I've noticed that HowCheng balances it rather well, and generally spaces them out. I've tried to add some variety (note that there are posters and photographs up there too), but to be honest I have a backlog of things I'd like to nominate.
@Mathew: It's also rather interesting (or suspicious, depending on your mindset) since I am one of that section's writers... yourself being the other, of course. Most other processes impose a limit on the number of nominations one is allowed to have open at the same time. On EN Wikipedia, I think only GA and FPC don't. Such a limitation would be possible, but I don't think it's necessary. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that because you are an editor of "Featured content" that you are "loading" it in your favor, if that is what you mean.(?) But I do think it's a problem that over half of the nominations are yours. I have consulted with Skomorokh, as I do see it as a problem. One way to solve this problem is to interest a wider array of nominators which would also remedy the problem of "recent systemic bias at FPC" and include more of the community. Another solution perhaps would be to limit the number of "Featured pictures" displayed on the "Featured content" page to one or two. As it is, they get disproportionate display because the images in articles are usually not very good and so it's tempting to fall back on the Featured pictures. I don't think you would deny that getting an image to "Featured picture" status is no way near to effort required to achieve FA or Fl. Do you agree? MathewTownsend (talk)
  • Depends on how you do it. If it's like Goya's The Dog, no it just requires finding a good scan, downloading it, and uploading it (on a slow connection like mine, annoying but doable). On a poster which requires retouching, like the crucifixion poster which started this discussion, it takes a couple hours to do it right; roughly equivalent to a GA in terms of effort. For works where you have to find the subject and shoot it yourself, it can be just as challenging as FA. Remember, for many of these you only get one shot (you may not see the species again... ever); you also need good (usually expensive) equipment, which is not a requirement for FA or FL. Trust me, my single featured picture that I took myself was nowhere near easy, and I'm sure some of our photographers would sharpen their Crocodile Dundee knives if they thought their work was being downplayed.
Photographs are different, but the average FP will take me over 6 hours, including travel and post processing time, and cost at least $65 in travel and equipment. Time wise, I'd guess that the partial order on the average times is probably DYK ≤ FP ≤ GA ≤ FA without a massive gap between FP and GA. But GAs are highly variable - there are plenty of subjects where it isn't much more work than a DYK. No one notices when I go out for the day and produce nothing :). JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
If we had a shortage of reviewers, then the only sensible reason to limit the number of nominations would problems with under reviewed images. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Now, that doesn't include the effort that goes into writing an article for a picture (it happens, and unless there is a decent article attached then an image will not go to the front page). I've written articles for several, including The Princess from the Land of Porcelain and Extermination of Evil, to give good-quality images a place where they'd have high enough EV to pass FPC. There's more work here than it seems. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't actually care how many works Crisco puts forward for FP so long as they are quality works that meet the guidelines. WRT the Signpost I don't know enough about it to make a comment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I hope I'm fulfilling my part of the bargain, then. Looking forward to some more pictures from you! Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it might not make sense to start separating nominations – and possibly the featured pictures themselves – into Featured Reproductions and Featured Original Images. (I know, I know—easier said than done.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • For categorization, or as processes? Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. :D From a process standpoint, it would move all the scans of artwork into a separate, possibly streamlined process. It's a different evaluation process for these images compared to editor-created photographs and diagrams. We don't have EV questions for notable works of art, nor can we suggest that the image creator adjust the composition; if a painting has its own article (or is worthy of its own article) then it will get FP status as long as the technical quality of the scan is sufficient. Someone critiquing File:Goya Dog.jpg is never going to say, Oppose, too much space around subject, dog obscured by indistinct foreground object; description of dog breed missing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Argh, I'd be against the creation of a process like that. The current process seems less active than it used to be, and having two processes would end up dividing the active editors, resulting in fewer images even reaching 5S. As for the main page, that would require an RFC if featured picture and featured restoration/grab were to be kept completely separate. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I would oppose that too. Dividing a small community in half isn't a good idea, and the processes are similar, though not the same. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think there'd be a problem with so Crisco nominating so often if he generally or often nominated pictures that weren't of featured quality. A more signficant problem for Crisco is that he risks reviewer fatigue -- folk may just get tired of judging scanned film posters. So finding some variation would be useful. I don't think comparing FP with GA or FA is helpful. They have different qualities. I disagree with Matthew about limiting the FPs on Signpost. The section is on featured content and none of the FAs got there because of their pictures. If the FA has a great picture that makes someone more likely to read it then that's a bonus. I find it very odd that the FP's are listed without even small thumbnails of the pictures. The FP section is a really weird read: reading about a picture you can't see. Colin°Talk 09:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting point on the Signpost. The old style was to have a gallery with all of them, but I'm not a fan of that. I'd rather have several larger resolution images, perhaps historically significant. For the nominations, I've been mixing it up. Two One animal photographs, a piece of hardware, several artistic works, a sports picture, a film poster, and a propaganda poster are up there right now. I think that's decent variety. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and a ship in the middle of the Big Apple. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
We need only be concerned with systemic bias at POTD. Howcheng does a good job of balancing the POTD, spreading similar images out. So we don't need to worry about short periods of systemic bias. Crisco's recent nominations won't really matter in the long run. Trying to limit the content in any particular area to preserve balance is like imprisoning the rich to create income equality. I'm personally happy to see the additional activity that Crisco has brought to FPC recently - we were sitting around in the doldrums for a bit, with less than one image passing per day, and more images to judge means people tend to stick around. The solution to systemic bias is more nominators, not less nominations. As far as the Signpost goes, I believe that they will choose an interesting FA image if it is there, or otherwise ask someone to pick a FP for the week. That is an issue to talk to the editors about though. That said, a few more FPs over FA images isn't a bad thing in my view - it might encourage editors to improve the relevant article. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't address one of the recent cases, namely of complete absence of Central Power propaganda. You talk of "spreading out", but he's got nothing to spread. There are no Central Power FPs available for him to work with. Secondly, just because he does a good job doesn't mean we can arbitrarily increase the complexity of his work. The less spacing we do, the more he has to. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
In general, but not specific to this particular case, may people are working hard on this sort of problem. See Wikipedia:GLAM, etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Amen to that. As one of the writers at the Signpost, I can happily assure you that we are doing our best to balance the images as well. What do we have so far? Here's a hint: none of my nominations. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Goya's The Third of May, 1808: The Execution of the Defenders of Madrid

Any reason why this is still in limbo? One week. I count 3 supports which don't state a preference (one of which also explicitly supports the edit) and 2 for the edit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Insanely high pass rate?

Historic pass rates (blue)

Of 33 current nominees, only six right now look likely to fail, with another three or so possibly failing through not reaching minimum support. It's not clear how one should interpret these numbers, but this is clearly far outside the historic range (see figure). At the end of March, we were promoting 9/20 iirc - high, but not outside the range. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Do you have the sense that pictures are getting through now which in the past would not? I haven't been active here that long so I am not certain if this is a snapshot in time issue or a new trend. For my part I just see quite a few good works at the moment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Periodic spikes are normal. Many nominators have been putting forth high quality images, be they photographs, paintings, or whatnot. Between us, myself, Tomer T, and Saffron have about 20 or 25 nominations on the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • There was a big drop in October as well, and I don't recall discussion about that Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It occurred to me that the high volume of nominations could be reducing the level of scrutiny. A lot of things that were often discussed in great detail aren't being discussed right now. Someone referred to reviewers' fatigue, and we saw a few images fail on 4 supports and 0 opposes. One might wonder if what we're now seeing is the response, where people prefer to support because it's less emotionally taxing, needs less explanation, and can be done with a shallower review of the actual material. It's good that people haven't been punishing full size images lately (it used to be the case that if you uploaded a 1600 wide image, sharp and noise-free, you could get a promotion, whereas if you uploaded the same image at 4000 wide, not quite sharp and with visible noise, you'd get laughed out of the house - very damaging to the project imo, and encouraging everyone to downsample, which is a battle that for this reason, we've never quite won), but the rest of the reviewing may need some observation and analysis, at the least. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I think, for "reviewer's fatigue" purposes, the number of nominations has decreased a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To me, it seems like there just happens to be a high number of good nominations at the moment. Jujutacular (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In my recent observations of FPC, I have observed a few possibility's as to the cause of the recent increase of FP promotions:
1. "Reviewers Fatigue" (as Crisco put it). People not feeling up to a long discussion, or feeling like reviewing the EV of the nomination in articles, how the picture measures up to the criteria, ETC..., can lead to people making judgements off the picture alone, and off of first impressions, rather then looking carefully at the picture, and judging its encyclopedic value carefully.
2. The recent absence of users such as Pine and jjron from participating in discussions of nominations. These two in particular, were the (In my personal observations of FPC) main instigators of discussions concerning the relevance of nominations to the FPC criteria, thus leading others to also look at how the nominations measured up to the criteria per the discussion, and possibly leading to a change their opinions concerning how the nomination(s) appear to measures up to the criteria.
3. In the past few months, it appears that there is a growing trend towards judging nominations by opinions, rather then the criteria. (Votes made off of first impressions appear to be increasing every month, one example of such a case, is the first Support vote in this nomination).
I am not stating that these are the causes of the recent increase in FPC nominations being promoted, nor am I stating that the above are entirely factually accurate. Dusty777 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Project and talk page notifications

Are Wikiproject and article talk page notifications helpful or harmful? It is done for other featured areas, but there the hope is that subject-experts can contribute to the review and possibly spot/fix errors and omissions. This seems less likely to be the case for pictures. Possibly an expert can add helpful comments on the historical value of a picture/subject. Or a highly specialised type of picture might have aspects only someone familiar with that field would appreciate. But generally, it seems like project or article-talk-page notifications of an FPC are highly likely to attract support that doesn't evaluate fully the FP criteria. The recent Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Isfahan Lotfollah mosque ceiling symmetric.jpg is an example of a FPC with four project and two article talk page advertisements. I'm sure I could get my own FPC past the threshold by rounding up some train enthusiasts at the appropriate project, but I don't think that is fair play. Should we make this explicitly disallowed. Colin°Talk 07:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's generally thought of as canvassing, which is not allowed. However, its discovery does depend on people checking - there is no bot or anything like that, currently. Recent practice has been to close heavily canvassed noms as "not promoted, without prejudice, due to canvassing". However, this should always be based on clear evidence rather than WP:IDONTLIKE. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The equivalent notifications, if done neutrally, aren't considered canvassing for the other featured processes. So editors may not be aware that we consider it unacceptable for FP. Therefore I think the nomination instructions should make it clear that FP is different from FA/FL, etc. Colin°Talk 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Though this wasn't the case until very recently, neutral notices have been left on a number of talk pages. It's telling that no one felt the need to leave these notices until the nom started to fail, but there you go, that's not the worst crime in the world. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there has been some off-enwp canvassing to bring in some of the editors; this is an Iranian image, the nominator is Iranian, and right at the start of the discussion, two Iranian editors (Alborzagros (talk · contribs) and P0lyzoarium (talk · contribs)) popped up at FPC for the very first time in order to support this image. It's possible a message was left on the Farsi Wikipeida, but I haven't a chance of finding it, personally. J Milburn (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
that's not the worst crime in the world, say you who have been one of the most fervent perse... excuse me, prosecutors of it. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys if I can offer you a big picture view, you need to decide if you actually want help or not. In the section above this one, I note it discusses trying to find additional reviewers to assist with the work. You can either choose to have a club of exclusive editor reviewers and keep everyone else out by not making it easy for people to help you, and then go on to speculate amongst yourselves for example if the image has symmetry, rather than have experts pop in and spit out jems like this in a second flat

This image illustrate a rotational symmetry of order 32 (if my count is correct). This should be added in Symmetry#Rotational symmetry. This image also illustrate another kind of symmetry, not explicitly described in the article, namely the product of a rotation of angle 2π/64 by a homothety. In other words, this image is an excellent but poorly used illustration for the article symmetry.

— D.Lazard

Help like this what builds an encyclopedia. make such assistance unwelcome and what are you here for ?

It's not rocket science, just make the docs clearer, the concept of what it is you are looking for does not take 3 hours to understand, if it does, you're lost right now. The docs just need clarity and then anyone can assist properly. I can't possibly see how a few Iranians or whoever, can't be a great resource on the subject as you say yourselves you can't read is it farsi ? So if you want someone who you can ask questions about the mosque who can do a fast search for you, and they are right there, what part of this is a problem. Ask them are there other ceilings in the mosque like that one, or is there a religious purpose to the ceiling and so on. they can go and use their native language skills in searching for you, or their own general knowledge straight off the top of their heads. As I mentioned I think on my talkpage, I didn't know what an editor meant when he repeatedly asked was the image advertised, and language like that is often used in ANI where a fundamental prerequisite step has been omitted. So I popped a note on all the relevant talkpages, and the result was the little gem of a quote above. If there is a problem, speak clearly rather than vaguely. Decide what you want, do you want help or not ?

If you can sum up what points it is that people are missing, I can help you update the docs in precise clear conceptual language. I don't have time to take up the offer to help judge pics though, I have too many things that grab at my time like pigs into a trough of food at the moment. Penyulap ☏

Penyulap, the point of the various featured review processes is to judge what pictures/articles/lists look like right now, not what they could look like if some effort was made. Now perhaps this mosque ceiling is a great example of rotational symmetry and some experts could write lots of impenetrable text about it. But currently the article(s) don't refer to the image and don't make use of it to help explain features of the mosque or aspects of symmetry. There are, of course, an infinity of images one could choose to illustrate symmetry. The above quote only adds evidence to the fact that the article-picture combination is unsatisfactory. Now, if you want to post a request at the Maths or Islam wikiprojects for folk to help enhance the articles then the encyclopaedia gets improved and this FP might stand a chance. After all, if folk write encyclopaedic information in a review but not in the articles, how does that help? Colin°Talk 15:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What about a bot notification that you can subscribe too that will automatically publish links to discussions that are ending or something? That would be neutral and not canvasing and something thats opt-in. Don't know how many people would opt-in for that so it may not be worth the effort, but otherwise just talk page notifying people on select nominations is probably not a good idea. — raekyt 16:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Raeky that is a great idea, as editors won't need to struggle to determine if canvassing is going on. I am actually working on my bot at the moment, adding a new task. The bot works in space station articles actually, but I have mentioned it to the programmer, who is too busy to respond to me on that subject right now. So you'd be looking for a bot to spam you with every last discussion that is about to end, wait that doesn't come out quite right when i say it like that, but it might turn out that way do you think, or maybe do you think you want it for select discussions, the ones you as a user want to know about ? or just all ? Sorry to talk strange, but I think that way when evaluating new ideas, taking into account downsides, i think it is a good idea, but can notes be left on the pages of articles that have a picture under discussion, as was done by me in this case, or is that meant to be considered unhelpful, as it's something more like a club because of strange docs ? So as I understand it, featured pics here are only featured pics where they suit the current writing of the article ? which actually makes me think there is no job going on here as the author of the article often does a good job of choosing a pic to go with his or her text, i know i do. why is it needed to have a category that says this picture goes with this section of that article ? shouldn't this be obvious ? I mean, isn't it just easier to go out there and edit the articles yourself, as it's a lot of discussion and hype, where just editing is faster. Penyulap ☏
Penyulap You are being entirely too dismissive of those who contribute the images the article writers pick. FP is not here to pat you on the back for picking a good picture. It is here to highlight works of excellence that enhance the content of articles because they are reflective of those very articles. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Ideally the bot should filter out nominations that are clearly going to pass or clearly going to fail and only notify on nominations that are marginal, or nominations with a lot of traffic. Could be just as simple as a list of all the nominations that are going to close within 24h and post that to people's talk pages at like midnight every day. That way you won't get repeates and not A LOT close daily, so you may go a couple days without a notice... — raekyt 09:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense as a filter, the bot determining if things are close and closing. Makes a lot of sense. Opt-in, I wonder how many might want it, how would we find out that sort of info? Just to see if it is useful, to enough people, to make programming worthwhile. Penyulap ☏
A poll here... — raekyt 13:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination

I couldn't see any guidance on when a renomination is or isn't appropriate, so I'm just wondering if I was free to renominate Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Allied naval operations off Japan as Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Allied naval operations off Japan (2) straight off (as I've done). There wasn't anything about the nomination that suggested that a second go wouldn't be advisable. Hope it's OK? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That's probably fine, there isn't really any rules I don't think about renominations. It is generally frowned upon (and probably a speedy close) if a nomination that clearly failed from opposes is quickly renominated, but ones that just fail to get enough votes in the time like that one, probably isn't a big deal to renominate. — raekyt 09:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
It's fairly common for a map to get initial negative comments, fix some stuff, and then be trending positive after that but still fail. In those cases (your's is one), it's pretty much the norm to run the final version of the map through another nom so that it doesn't have to carry the original's baggage. Usually it passes the second nom easily. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 10:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of some particular issues

One recent FPC has raised a few questions in my mind about what criteria we apply:

  1. Thumbnails: do FPs need to impart their information at thumbnail size? Is there a minimum utility?
  2. Maps: if criterion five is Adds value to an article and helps readers to understand an article but we appear to apply something more like the top of the FPC page, Featured pictures are images that add significantly to articles (my emphasis), where does one draw the line on a map which imparts useful information but not all information that it might? If it can be said to add significantly, is that sufficient, or does "Wikipedia's best work" require it to be close to what it could be (assuming there are no similar maps on the 'pedia)?

Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In the past I think with maps and diagrams that are too large to really be represented large enough on the page that everything is readable it is just assumed the reader will be intelligent enough to know to click the image to make it larger if they want the additional information or details. Most readers are smart enough to do that I think, and it's unrealistic to assume every diagram or map can be represented well enough in a thumbnail. So to answer your question, votes that are opposing on those grounds, where it's not possible to make all the information of the picture come across in a thumbnail but still are opposing on those grounds, could be safely ignored by the closing party, imho. We do ignore votes if they're unsound or unreasonable or based on faulty logic or improperly applied rules. Also as a side note, almost every image we promote is not adequately convaing all the information of the picture in thumbnail form. Thats why we have minimum size requirements because we EXPECT people to click our featured images so they can get ALL the information contained in them in their larger form. As for the EV criteria an accurate map that contains all the necessary details of what it's supposed to contain, even if it's not thumbnailable, is absolutely of the highest EV for it's article. So.. no we have no rule about all FP's have to have thumbnails that convey all the information in the larger picture in thumbnail format, that would be a silly rule. — raekyt 01:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Suspended nominations

There are two nominations currently suspended to resolve copyright questions:
The deletion request for the JFK image has gone nowhere in the past month, although it looks like the agreement is currently that it is acceptably free.
For the Grant photograph, there are two bits of circumstantial evidence which suggest that the image is PD, although PD status has not been decisively proven.
I was wondering if anyone could take a further look at these two nominations, which have been suspended for a month already. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've looked at them periodically. JFK needs to wait until the Commons deletion is resolved. For Cary Grant, you might ask Calliopejen if she's satisfied with the copyright since she's the one that raised the issue. Makeemlighter (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • She's left a note saying that it seems fine Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg

Our consensus for this picture seemed to be that it was worth keeping if we could get it to stick in the article. Unfortunately, User:Stemonitis is very antagonistic to adding anything else to the article, and has removed the picture four times after it was insterted by four different editors. I have been trying to discuss with him that consensus is the picture adds value to the article. He replied vehemently, both on my talk and the article talk, that it was merely "Local Consensus" from a group of "weak, misinformed", and "biased" editors (his words), and that he is pursuing the greater consensus of excellence in WP and the picture adds nothing so he's not going to let it in the article He also insists it's not an edit war or WP:OWN: he's just trying to make sure WP has the best content possible; he also accuses us of WP:POINT. Sounds like edit warring and WP:OWN to me. What's the next step? AN/I? Never had to deal with this before. Clegs (engage in rational discourse) 09:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've entered into the discussion on the talk page, for what it's worth. Talk:Pachygrapsus_marmoratus#Consensus_to_graphically_show_sexual_dimorphism_of_species. I've also stuck a WP:3RR warning on his talk page, since I believe hes clearly in violation of it, it can/will escalate from there if he reverts my re-addition of the image. — raekyt 10:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
He may have something of a point. The last thing we need are "FPC people" dictating content of articles to the people who actually work on those kinds of articles, and he is certainly right about the localised consensus- if there's to be a discussion about it, a FPC page is not the place to have it. As such, we should not be citing an FPC page as demonstrating that there is consensus for a particular action. In fact, "we" should be using Stemontis's expertise to help make decisions about the featured pictures- for instance, he observes that "all the important details are ventral". We need to have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page, and call for further opinions from the relevant WikiProjects/start a RfC if necessary, and then, if it is concluded that the image is not needed, the delist discussion should be opened up again, and it should be a pretty much forgone conclusion. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
My intention of restoring the image was to restore it the way 4 other editors had had it and 1 editor didn't wish to have it, then I requested temporary page protection until it was fully discussed in the talk page, which I tried to initiate. ;-\ I do agree that he probably has a point, and definitely belives hes in the right with policy at this point. But from my biology background I think showing both the sexual differences in both dorsal and ventral sides is probably ideal, and that can be accomplished with a collage image of all 4 images showing clearly, probably with arrows or other markings the differences. This might not allow the FP status of the image to be preserved, but that really isn't a big concern of mine, and it might be overillustrating a small article but historically that really isn't a big concern of mine either, lol. I think finding the appropriate images to illustrate a species is important, and it may need more pictures than would normally be necessary for a non-biology species article. Stacking images showing sexual dimorphism is fairly common for species pages, although not part of the MOS so editors not normally visiting these pages may not know that thats generally how it's done in these articles may not no that... — raekyt 11:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Move of older FPC pages

Older nominations like above perhaps should be renamed to File: rather than Image:. While it makes no difference in terms of how files are accessed links to them are not redirected. Another possibility is the creation of redirects but we may as well move them for consistency. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem - it's an arbitrary title for the page anyway; we let the nominator select. The image prefix is still in use on some pages anyway. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
External links such as the ones from commons are broken on cases. Before the namespace rename of Image->File they linked fine. This is because the {{FULLPAGENAME}} generates "File" rather than "Image". Another possibility is dropping the Image/File part since it serves to no purpose anyways. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't use FULLPAGENAME, surely? I mean, the titles are now arbitrary, no? They can't be automatically generated in that case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure they can. Most of the time (in the past) the FPC name used to be the filename itself in full as visible in the example here. The point is inter-operability with commons. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
As long as I can remember we use arbitrary names for the nomination pages here, by convention MOST people use the image name as the page name, but that definitely isn't always the case. — raekyt 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
None of the current nominations does, I guess it's a tradition that's dying, we normally do. Where does this crossover problem show itself? Should we be looking to not have any assumed crossover, if one exists? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
The problem shows particularly for older nominations where people used FULLPAGENAME as the name of the nomination. File:Grosser Wollschweber Bombylius major detail.jpg is just one example. I do not want to manually define parameters to be honest. Moving files that contain legacy Image: to File: would fix the issue for everyone. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 04:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm still a bit confused. I think what you're saying is that the link on "considered" is somehow autogenerated, and this doesn't go where it should. I understand that, but moving these pages isn't going to fix the issue: there are now loads of nominations at custom pages, and, also, often we have something like File:Foo (edit 1).jpg promoted at an FPC for Foo.jpg. Does it allow a manual paramater – it surely must? Moving all the image pages would be a lot of effort compared to changing the parameter manually where there's a problem I would have thought. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Custom pages are not the issue, formerly automatically generated pages are the issue. Moving all the "image:" pages would be a mindless task for a bot. It would be a lot of effort to check each and individual pages and manually input them. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am going to redirect a FPC/File: page to each FPC/Image: page unless there are objections. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Or perhaps I will move FPC/Image: ones to FPC/File: -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I object. There will still be problems, as mentioned above, with second nominations and custom-named nominations. The simplest thing to do would be to change links on commons: Template:Assessments at commons accepts the option enwiki-nom=Nomination name which we should use for any links that don't point to the right place. That seems the simplest way to go about it to me. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 07:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
It is still possible to override the assessments template link. One can still define the nomination page by using the enwiki-nom parameter. But it doesn't have to be used. What A Certain White Cat is saying is that, the instances where it isn't necessary to define this parameter, because the nomination name is the same as the file name, could be extended to all the nominations that begin with Image:, simply by moving the nomination pages to File: If the pages aren't moved, then someone would have to go through and define the enwiki-nom parameter for all of those older noms. I have no objection to A Certain White Cat's suggestion, as long as the pages are moved properly, so that histories and links and transclusions are intact. And so long as the bot's tasks are approved by the Bot Approvals Group first. Julia\talk 19:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
No specifics here, but it seems like every time I see an FP/FPC related move or re-name on my watchlist there's a mess to clean up. Not saying there will be here - I haven't read closely enough to see - but please make sure this won't screw anything up first. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The nominations that would be moved would only be the ones that had filenames with "Image:" in them to begin with. So it would only cover nominations before the shift to "File:" (which broke otherwise working syntax). Do not worry I will not make a single page move without BAG approval and without consensus here. There is no emergency here. :) If someone is willing to go through and link to all successful FPCs and delisted FPs, I too would have no objection as it would save me a lot of work.
While it is possible to link to link to individual nominations, abolishment of "Image:" in FPC names could be seen as a consistency measure. I intend to collect statistics to give an idea on what level of work we are talking about.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I have filed Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (13), feel free to raise objections there. The total number of FPC/ sub pages are 531 with Image:, 968 with File: out of 9387 subpages in total. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there are cases where both the /File:xxx and /Image:xxx page exists for renomination cases, where the first nom was made in the "Image" epoch and the second in "File" epoch. Please make sure that the move script takes this special case into account. --Slaunger (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
If page exists the code would do nothing. Bot does not have admin rights. How are re-nominations normally handled? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I've thought about this further and I don't think it's appropriate to change 531 historic nomination pages just to get links to work automatically from Commons. Having the links working is nice, but it should be done Commons side, on the assessments template. And there's no rush; they've been not working for ages. Defining the parameter and correcting the links is something I've been working on off and on for some time and I'm happy to continue doing so. Julia\talk 13:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Historic nominations? What is so historic about them? By the way the number includes failed candidacies as there is no easy way to determine which FPCs passed/failed. The substance or even the title of the nomination will not be affected by the moves. Links that used to work before and ceased working after the MediaWiki update that renamed "Image:" to "File:". I really want to be able to link to correct FPC nominations. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you not find a lot of them automatically making a generator over all file pages in the FP category here, iterate through the "where used" links and filter for those which are FPC subpages? If there is only one, it must be nomination page for the FP, and that could be used in the enwiki-nom param on Commons. If more than one, sort those few ones out manually (or ask for help here)? In that manner the various user watchlists will not be spammed by the moves. --Slaunger (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) It would be great to have working links, but having a clutter of unnecessary page moves happen in order to have links for some unknown fraction of 531 files is backwards. It makes much more sense to identify the images that don't have working links, and fix them on the Commons side. Julia\talk 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The total number of moves will be 1,500 pages total. We are not talking about the complete restructuring of the FPC namespace.
Do people normally watch FPCs they started/voted/commented on? The watchlist argument can be used against all bot tasks and I am sorry but unless someone is willing to check the "Hide bot edits from the watchlist" option, they are willing to see bot edits. That option exists for a reason. Using the same argument, fixing the issue at commons end will "spam the watchlists" of all the uploaders over a problem generated at the "wikipedia" end. Commons should never be modified with bot edits over a problem at a local wiki. There are 700 wikis out there and all wikis should be working towards a compatibility with commons, not the other way around. It is completely impossible using on-wiki methods (parser functions) to determine if a inter-wiki leads to an existing page or not. So there is no way for me to implement a Commons:Template:FPC/-like solution at commons end.
The main point of the move is to standardize/harmonize nominations so that they follow a common pattern. The ability of Assessments template at commons to link to the nominations is an added bonus. Automation of any kind working with FPC pages is made significantly difficult due to this problem. Currently, a programmer need to check for 3 different possibilities (filenames oriented FPC sub-pagenames) first and then look for the 4th variant which is a custom name.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 13:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
We don't enforce any particular format for new nominations, so no, this will not achieve standardisation or harmonisation, because it won't be standardised and harmonised in the future. If that were the goal then we would need to be talking about demanding a particular format now for new nominations. I appreciate that it may be a useful thing from an interwiki point of view, but we have evidence that users already find the FPC nomination process confusing, and I'm reluctant to complicate the process further or make it easier to 'break'. I believe the most reasonable thing to do is to handle the linking Commons side, with a defined parameter where necessary. As I said, it's something I've been working on, and also have automation in place for new FPs, so once I (or anyone else) have caught up with the backlog, it will be easy to maintain in the future. Julia\talk 19:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, I have noticed examples of the mass move of nomination pages that you undertook in 2008 breaking things. One example: this FP linked to this nomination before I fixed it. As you can see, it's the wrong nomination for that image. The nomination was originally titled something else and the bot moved it to the wrong image name. It's not an unusual situation, to have an existing FP linked in a nomination, so this mix-up is likely to happen again with more page moves. I echo Makeemlighter's sentiment: these moves usually leave messes to clean up. Julia\talk 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
We need to have one and only one type of filename type nomination for technical purposes. Standards are needed. People should either define a custom name OR define one type of filename nomination. It should either be "Image:Foo.ext", "File:Foo.ext" or "Foo.ext". Currently it is a mess as all three possibilities have more or less the same distribution.
The most reasonable thing is not handling issues on commons side. Your proposal is the most unreasonable way of handing a no brainier issue bots can handle effortlessly. The issue would have been resolved within a matter of few hours, tops.
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Requiring a particular name for nomination pages will certainly make it more difficult for nominators, although this challenge isn't insurmountable. The bigger problem is what to do with re-nominations. Once the filename nomination has been used, how do you make a nomination that won't present issues? Another issue - for Commons, not for us - how do you deal with delisted images? We delisted File:Piratey, vector version.svg in January, for example, but the Commons template still calls it an en:WP FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
This would not concern the nominators. Code could simply be run once a year or something like that. There aren't that many "filename" nominations a year. I am working for a way to keep track of delisted images. The problem I have is identifying delisting nomination page. Normally the person marking it perhaps could also update the commons page. I have updated that file as an example. I am trying to automate this which is why I am trying to simplify the problem. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if the file name was strictly formalized at the time of nomination it would not cover the common case of alternatives being nominated in the same subpage, typically edits of the original nominations, which is promoted in the end. There you end up with files being promoted which or promoted on a subpage name, which is not related in a simple manner with the promoted file name. I do think this should be solved Commons-side, with the help of data retrieved EN-side as indicated in my proposal above to fix what we have now, and then in the future assure that the promotion process EN-side also includes tagging the file at commons (as you suggest yourself above) with an overrided from default subpage name for the cases where this is relevant - such as alternatives being promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem I have with this is over-bloating parameter uses that can be avoided. If the nomination name matches the filename a parameter should not be required. There is no evidence as to why we must have the namespace in the nomination name, on the other hand I have demonstrated several problems with it. The only worry that has been mentioned is peoples watch-lists getting bot edits which is something they are willing to see unless they changed their prefs. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I think what should be overwhelmingly clear to you now is that we're opposed to your proposal. You said you would carry out the task unless there were objections: there are, and the alternatives we've suggested are fine (and something we're happy to do ourselves). Thank you anyway. Julia\talk 17:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but aside from a potential mild inconvenience to some people over watchlists, I have not seen any opposition. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1929 Belgian banknote redux

I would appreciate someone with more knowledge of legalese weighing in here (I've received an email from the bank) and giving feedback if the image is free or not. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

See commons:Commons:Currency#Belgium, says they still hold copyright, and links too [2] in footnote, which says see the PDF, which I think says for digital reproductions it must be 72 dpi, i.e. web graphic size, small, and have SPECIMEN printed across it in Arial font. My best guess is that we can't host these images here, there's a couple in commons:Category:Banknotes_of_Belgium that probably would need to be deleted. Since I don't know if i'm interpreting this right, might want to have someone on Commons who knows about these weigh in... — raekyt 09:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The bank's email is in direct contradiction to Commons on that: "The reason being that these banknotes can no longer be exchanged for euro notes at our counters". I would say that that was good enough reason to disregard measures aimed at preventing fraud. Copyright is not so clear. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've sent the reply from the bank to OTRS. They say they do not enforce copyright on works which are not redeemable for Euros... however that applies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944

Just wondering if there was a specific issue delaying the enactment of the close of this one, or whether it'll be through in good time. I'd feel stupid if there was something I'd missed waiting on me for some reason. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm lazy. I just left a comment on the map. I can close it once you respond. Cheers, Makeemlighter (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Changed, I don't think any supporters will mind and it does make sense. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arizona meets New York

This looks ready to close; a preference has been indicated by the majority, with no opposes Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=490715264"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export