Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 7

message: *Hello, I have been watching this page for some time and I am confused by some comments to the effect of opposing a given picture because a similar picture exists.  I don't see anywhere in the FP criteria where this is supposed to be a consideration.  It seems to me this is not and should not be a considertion. Johntex\talk 03:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not it isn't a criteria and I normally give it a lot less weight when closing a nom especially if it is not due to a a large decrease in quality or size that is noticeable that is lower in the newer nom. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There used to be something to that effect didn't there? They used the flower as an example, in that don't put up flowers unless they are really exceptional, as flowers are naturally beautiful, and there are already lots of featured pictures of them. --liquidGhoul 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought - but maybe that is really getting at a different concept - that pretty subjects should have the bar set a little higher than ugly or more ordinary subjects? Johntex\talk 04:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that we finally seem to be promoting an image per day or more, and Pic of the day is on the main page and will probably not repeat many images, I think it might be useful to start promoting additional pics of important subjects.  In any case, uniqueness of subject isn't strictly a criterion, although I do think it can make sense to oppose on grounds of an existing FP if the new candidate is inferior or adds nothing  ~ Veledan • Talk 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Pic of the day is on the main page" - I have't seen it except weekends... --Janke | Talk 20:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new design for the main page will have a pic of the day ervery day of the week. -Ravedave 23:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, slight difference between is and will... ;-)  --Janke | Talk 08:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about criteria

message: Kurando-san warning!  Subpage Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spanish shawl has no readable signed date. --Kurando-san 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know why this page is causing so many problems for the bot? I asked AllyUnion on his talk page a few days ago, but then realised he's on a break and asked to be e-mailed if any problems come up. Unfortunately his 'e-mail user' function isn't working and I can't find his address anywhere on his user page. So if anyone knows his e-mail, or anyone can help fix the problem, that would be great. Raven4x4x 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sig code appeared incomplete, I added a "-" and the double brackets. Let's see if that helps. --Janke | Talk 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Spanish shawl]] 

message: Just moved 9 FPCs to the older than 14 days section, the oldest being 17 days old.  Posted on User talk:AllyUnion.
Someone needs to work through the old FPCs however, as they're building up. Thanks. |→ Spaully°τ 12:11, 22 March 2006 (GMT)
:That is unfortunate, as last I heard AllyUnion was on a break and I can't find his e-mail anywhere. I have been archiving the FPCs for a while now, but the university semester has started, so I only really have time on weekends. Raven4x4x 11:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked over the process of archiving the FPCs and it seems fairly straightforward.  I'll give a hand and start closing some, at least the ones with a clear consensus (or possibly all of them).  Just to check, you don't need to be an admin to do this right?  I didn't see anything that would indicate that you would. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, you don't have to be an admin. If I have a moment, I'll help. BrokenSegue 13:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurando-san dead 

message: I just removed 12 noms, and I'll work through the promotions and clear the backlog in the course of this evening.  If anyone else has come here to help before I've finished, please drop a note on my talk page and I'll hand some over! ~ Veledan • Talk 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to update everyone, as far as I know, the backlog is all clear for now.  Veledan handled all but one, so thank him for his hard work. I'll be keeping a closer eye on this in order to keep the backlog from building up and I encourage anyone who has time to do the same.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done for now, between us. Cheers PS2pcGAMER for nobly handling the fiddly additions bit of some of the promotions I'd performed as well as that of the pic you promoted ~ Veledan • Talk 22:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Backlog 24th March

message: The page, IMHO, is now swamped with crap images because the FP now appears on the front page every day and there are many more cases of "mee too". Many more of the images lately are so bad they have absolutely NO chance of passing and merely constitute a waste of time to everyone involved. Would it not be warranted to place a notice in the posting guidelines to actually LOOK at the previously featured picures to see what the potential poster is 'up against'? I think this would greatly increase the interesting/good to junk ratio of posts here.--Deglr6328 00:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed the same trend.  I added a step to the nomination process to reiterate the importance of reading What is a Featured Picture? (my change).  Hopefully with more visibility, it will encourage more people to thoroughly read it (although that page is already linked in the header two other places).  Adding a link to the previously featured pictures is a good idea too. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perfect, I was thinking the same thing. -Ravedave 00:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  Good good. Bolded it. --Deglr6328 00:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Posting notice

message: Should the voting for nominations of anything (featured picture, featured article, etc) be anonymous? This way, more people might vote and it prevents people from peer pressure or outside influence, which could create a bias in the voting. For example, a well known wikipedian supported a featured picture, and people see that and think they should support the picture as well. This could lead to several people supporting the picture, even though that picture might have some serious flaws to it or just is not up to par. Please talk about this and decide if changes should be made to the voting system. Thanks. --Ryz05 06:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that this is a problem, but I don't think this is the way to resolve it. - JPM  | 07:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "well known wikipedian" should have sense enough to vote intelligently, and not support an inferior candidate. If (s)he does, then other well known wikipedians will certainly rebut... I do not see a problem here. Besides, flawed images can, and have, become FPs, it all is a balance between positive and negative aspects. For instance, see how the Pirate image fares right now - it's well below "agreed" minimum size, but it still gets a majority of support, thanks to its other qualities. --Janke | Talk 10:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree with your first point Janke. Even the most intelligent, well-meaning, and open minded individuals can sometimes have sincere disagreements.  I cite as evidence that you and I usually vote in common but we disagree on this :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure we can disagree. And both our viewpoints may be sensible and intelligent, no contest there... ;-) But how does that affect the votes of others? Do they blindly follow you, or do they follow me? Maybe they will even think for themselves! I don't see why anonymous voting would change anything to the better. --Janke | Talk 19:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think unsigned voting would encourage sockpuppetry. Those of us who close nominations could probably spot that and take it into account, but new or occasional voters unfamiliar with the page (and we are getting more with Main Page exposure) might not think of it or be deterred by it, and the distribution of votes/comments already on a page can seriously affect subsequent voting and whether people who agree with the apparent consensus bother to vote. I think you have a point, but anonymous or unsigned voting would create more issues than it would solve ~ Veledan • Talk 17:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are there all these proposals for FPC to change the consensus procedures that seem to work fine on the rest of Wikipedia? There is nothing special about pictures that means that the well established procedures are suddenly flawed. –Joke 19:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an idea: I think it is much easier to make a highly subjective judgement on an image than on an article. Can an article pass for beeing pretty or cute? Makes sense to me that the the rules on FPC try to counteract. --Dschwen 19:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A comment similar to Ryz05's was made on the Main Page redesign poll. The truth is, there is no voting on Wikipedia, only discussion. Adding Support to the front of your comment is just a way of making your position clear. By not permitting anonymous voting we force people to stand by their comments, and hopefully discourage frivolous "votes". Secondly, closing administrators (are supposed to) favor well supported and reasonable comments over the "me too!" chime ins. ~MDD4696 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Voting 

message: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/POV-ray has crossed the 14-day mark and it's clearly going to be promoted but neither of the potential candidates is ready yet! Janke has asked for the nomination to be held until such time as they are ready - I figured the best way to do this would be to create a new temporary section for it. It'll only get in the way and cause an awkward obstruction/confusion if we try to leave it amongst the active nominations, and it wouldn't be right either to put it in the 'Finished, no more comments' section.  I'm not aware of any precedent/guideline for this but I hope my solution is OK with everyone. If not, feedback here please! ~ Veledan • Talk 22:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good solution to me. ~MDD4696 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think this is the right way to handle this situation. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did it in a novel way, and did it right. --Janke | Talk 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The POV-ray nomination 

message: I used a DB dump & sql to list the largest 1000 images on wikipedia > 1000px. I also did the 1000 largest images on commons. I inspected them all and below is the list of the ones I thought were promising, with some sorting by me. So far I am 1/5 with my nominations so I thought I would let others decide. If you like an image nominate it and remove it from the list. If you find one you know will never make it put it in strikthrough. Several of them are good images but need to be placed into articles and/or moved to more prominent positions. I will probably not be nominaitng any more images unless I find another awsome one like the SR-71. -Ravedave 05:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I go though any more of those, I have to share concern about this methodology. FPC should not just be nominated based on prettyness, size, beauty, cuteness or cuddlyness. The should be nominated based on these terms. So I'd rather have people stumbling on amazing pictures while reading articles than working this list. I fear this only floods FPC with pictures that have substantial deficits in the encyclopedic department. --Dschwen 09:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats part of the reason I made this list, I don't have the resources to fix them all. Several of these pictures should probably be the most prominent ones in the article or have an article created for them. I dont plan on making another list after this one, looking at 2000 images will probably net < 5 FPs, not a very worthwhile investment. I might however provide a public list for commons, where encyclopedic value isnt taken into account. -Ravedave 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images to nominate? 

message: I was clearing out :Category:Wikipedia featured picture candidates (removing the ({FPC}} tag from closed nominations) and I came across an image of the peacock tail.  I distinctly remembered there be a nomination for it, so I went digging.  I found that the nominator blanked the nomination.  I reverted it because I wasn't sure what to do.  Basically, is it "acceptable" to let the nominator withdraw the nomination?  I don't think that blanking it was the right way to close it early, but if there is a consensus here, I wouldn't be opposed to closing nominations withdrawn nominations early.  --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominator withdrawing nomination? 

message: I made the instruction on the FPC page numbered, so they are easier to follow and I spaced out the sections so it is easier to read . I also edited  What is a featured picture to emphasise that the pictures must be high quality  and I added some examples of bad images. Anyone care to improve even more? -Ravedave 03:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a bit uneasy about picking on certain pictures as examples of common errors, unless you have the consent of the photographer. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but on the other hand you should know what you get yourself into when submitting to FPC. And there is no need to feel personally attacked. The example captions are objective, correct and professional. Call me socially handicapped, but I feel it is rather counterproductive to tip toe around possibly hurt feelings and not speak out the issues we have with the pictures.  --Dschwen 10:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did add a note on the page about images being "otherwise good" despite specific faults. This should alleviate a bit... --Janke | Talk 13:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, you put it nicely! --Dschwen 13:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is editable by anyone, if they don't like thier pic there they can remove it. On the otherhand if anyone has any photos they created personally that demonstrate near FP quality with some flaws, they should replace the ones there. I added this HTML comment to the page: -Ravedave 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's also good. My, are we a smart bunch... ;-) --Janke | Talk 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to help newbies 

message: This proposal would shorten the length of the FPC closing to 7 days.
*Support - This would reduce the current page from 60 to 30 entries. None of those enties had meaningfull additions after 7 days. -Ravedave 18:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change FPC length to 7 days

message: This is already policy, and was clarified about a year ago (/Archive2). ed g2s • talk 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allow early removal - Copyright issues

message: This proposal would allow the nominator or creator of an image to remove the nomination at any time for  any reason, even if the picture would have been promoted. 
*Support - Ravedave 18:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allow nominator or creator to remove at any time

message: I suggest that when moved from the voting section to the closed and pending action section that they be de-transcluded since other than determining consensus and adding the closed template there is no need to have the nom open, at most you'll need to have the image page open. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 03:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "de-transcluded" you mean make them a link like so: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Steve Robinson EVA Rather than , right? If so then I would support. That would vastly shrink the page length at this point while the backlog is cleared out. -Ravedave 03:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my suggestion but only for the over 7 day limit section. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 22:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good idea that was a lot tidier and it was just as easy to close the noms ~ Veledan • Talk 23:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion