Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

not featured?

About Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Takenohama Hyogo001.jpg‎,

I think that it meets the requirement of "Featured". --663h (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it needs at least 7 support votes and only got 6. --Dschwen (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The new policy needs at least 7 supporting votes and ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1.   ■ MMXX  talk  15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thank You.--663h (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic content in FPC: poll

I think it is time to have a clearer idea of what the users think about this issue. It is on purpose that I’m restricting the present poll to images with pornographic or explicit sexual content, leaving behind all other types of potentially problematic subjects. Those other types do not constitute (yet) an issue in our forum and putting all things in the same basket would complicate unnecessarily the poll. Also I have considered that each forum (FPC, QIC and VIC) should be dealt with separately as the consensus may vary from case to case. For now, a single question is put, which is whether images with those contents should, or should not, be allowed in FPC. Depending on the result other questions may be considered later, for example, how to deal with such images in the FPC list, assuming they are to be allowed.

Next is a short list with some examples of what I consider to be pornographic or having explicit sexual content. The list is far from exhaustive (I’m not familiarized with Commons’ categories) and other examples are welcome. Please note that nudity or depiction of genitals (e.g. for educational purposes) are not considered as such.

Question 1

Should images of pornographic or explicit sexual content be allowed in the FPC forum?


  •  Oppose – Because allowing those topics will prevent FPC from continuing to be work and family-safe, affecting its strong educational component and opening the door to pornographic spamming. Yes, I’m aware that some valuable artwork may be affected but that will be a small price to pay. Anyway, who wants to see this image in the main page? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support – Because Wikimedia Commons is not censored. It isn't an opening for pornographic spamming, it would be an backdoor to censorship. We already have rules for explicit content (COM:SCOPE, COM:SEX) and we shall not discriminate, but we should be mostly objective, even if ratings may not be objective in general. --Niabot (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per Alvesgaspar, until there is sound technical solution to excluding images as having such content on FP would prevent me from participating in FP Gnangarra 13:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support - As a project, we are not censored. While I accept that such content is not appropriate for the front page, surely not all FPs need to go on the front page? I know en.wp has FAs which are about non-family-friendly topics - they get the status, they just never appear on the front page. We have a disclaimer - it states that users may find some content objectionable. As Niabot said, we have rules about explicit content, and to say that an image isn't good just because it has a penis (/whatever) in it is frankly appalling. We should be concentrating on the quality of the image, and its value to the project, not whether or not someone might find it offensive. Are we going to remove everything people may find offensive from FPC? Plenty of people are scared of spiders, does that mean that these images shouldn't be FPs? Or how about politicians? Many people on the opposite side of the aisle may find their policies, or even the people themselves, offensive - should we stop those? Or how about all those pictures of women whose faces are uncovered, or who might be on their period? Those are offensive to people too. And then of course there are images like the lovely Michele Merkin - this image isn't family friendly, and is it really that far away from images which do contain actual nudity? Heck, how about this image which does contain nudity? Is that family friendly? A homeless person in Paris - insulting to French people with regard to their system of welfare? Slavery - a very family friendly topic I must say. And then of course there are pictures of children which of course brings in the whole potential paedophiles angle. You cannot discriminate against photos simply because someone may find them offensive, or sooner or later you'll end up having to deny every single image. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    That last message in a nutshell: if we start censoring one thing who knows what else we'd have to censor. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
     Comment @Mattbuck I agree with all the text. I object with the part of the children. I don't thing that these pictures (in your examples) have paedophiles angle.. Ggia (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    Well, if you believe the hype nowadays then any photo of a child brings a paedophile to an instant orgasm and sends them off to go and rape someone. The whole post was hyperbole, the last paragraph no more than the rest. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support What is pornography, what is art is not clear. As soon as military photos (and militarism) are not censored I don't find a reason why pornography should be censored. Ggia (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Per User:Mattbuck. Secret ant (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support The list given above is very odd: it contains images that could never possibly be featured because of their quality; others are historical documents worthy of interest independently of their subject. The proposal talks about "pornographic or explicit sexual content", amalgaming two completely different things without clearly defining any. I have to further criticise the proposal for its formulation, which forces people to "support" when they oppose it. Absolutely unworthy of consideration as it is. Rama (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- I'm puzzled with your comment. After all, do you support or oppose the presence of such images in FPC? As for the examples above, it would have been more effective (and more courteous) to improve the list, as suggested in the introductory text. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Then, to clarify: I do not appreciate your formulation "Should images of pornographic or explicit sexual content be allowed"; what you mean is "Should images of pornographic or explicit sexual content be forbiden". Your formulation insinuates that "pornographic or explicit sexual content" is presently excluded, which it is not.
I cannot improve on a list when the criterias to belong to the list are undefined. What is it that you consider to be "pornographic"? What is it that you consider to be "explicit sexual content"? (for instance, anatomy documentation, is that "explicit sexual content"?) Why do you bundle the two together?
You fail to prove that we presently have a large number of "pornographic or explicit sexual content" image and that it is presently a problem. You fail to explain why we should single out "pornographic or explicit sexual content" but not violence, racism, propaganda. You fail to provide adequte definitions for the terms you use. For all these reasons, I believe that we should not act upon your proposal and leave things as they are presently. Rama (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • @Rama: You are puzzling me again because your authoritative approach (not so say arrogant) is not supported by a complete knowledge of what we are talking about. Let me clarify each of the points. 1. To my knowledge, no pornographic or sexually explicit image has ever been allowed in the FPC forum. There were a few attempts during the last years (I can’t recall which or when) but the nominations were immediately removed. The last case was some days ago and explains why we are having the present discussion. 2. The definition of Sexual content is in Commons:Sexual content. A simple and clear explanation of what pornography is can be found here. The list above contains examples of both kinds. 3. I don’t want to prove anything and never said that we presently have a large number of "pornographic or explicit sexual content" images and that it is presently a problem. Also, the reason for only addressing these types of images in the present poll is clearly explained in the introductory text, which you apparently did not read. 4. Leaving things as they are presently will be to continue banning pornography and sexual content from FPC. Is that really what you mean? Finally, it is strange why you cared to vote even considering that the present formulation is not worth. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • To 1. Thats wrong. The only reason was that the candidates where mere jokes that never had a chance. The last removal (if im right was File:Futanari.png), which you removed yourself [1]. Very doubtful, that you now use it as an example. 4. Refer to (1.) 2. You said it happend some times in some years. Maybe, but what is wrong with it? To your last sentence: This is just crazy, since you try to create an Catch-22. --Niabot (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, you proposal aims at banning what you call "pornographic or explicit sexual content", not at autorising it. There are no topic bans in force presently. Your question is ill-formulated, and whit your reiteration of insinuations that some images need to be autorised to be candidates for FP, I am beginning to think that it's bordering on dishonest.
Taking a definition of "pornography" from Wikipedia in inadequate and you know it. You could as well suggest a ban on "stupid proposals", while you're at it.
If you don't think that there are a significant number of "pornographic or explicit sexual content" and that they are not a problem, I do not understand why you would start discussions about them rather than space ninja pinguins playing banjo. Or why you ignore shockingly violent content, content that promotes violence or extremism, or content that gives a distorted view of reality.
File:WTC-Fireman requests 10 more colleagesa.jpg, File:Operation Crossroads Baker Edit.jpg, File:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg, File:USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes.jpg, File:DouglasMacArthur.jpg, File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg, File:EnterpriseBurningHellcat.jpg, File:Crew of a Sherman-tank south of Vaucelles.jpg, File:Uss iowa bb-61 pr.jpg, File:C17 DF-SD-06-03299.jpg, File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg, for instance (there are many others). Unlike yours, my examples are not hypothetical cases, but images that have actually been featured. Some are blatently shocking (a burning man cut in half for instance), many actively promote violence and expose naive children to dangerous fantasies that will emperil their very lifes when then become young adults. An even casual glance at Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles will show that we are overwhelmed by propaganda photographs from the US armed forces, currently engaged in at least two wars. What is it that you do against that? Rama (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • After your suggestion of dishonesty and your abuse of this discussion to make a point on anti-military ideas, I say no more. Poor example from a Commons' administrator. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Without having all this discussion why Alvesgaspar removed this entry [2]? Ggia (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • So everybody have the right to remove (because of nudity, pedophilia, ethics, religious matters etc) an entry as soon as she/he inform the community? Ggia (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
@Alvesgaspar: my being an administrator has nothing to do with expressing my opinion on your proposal. I am also on the OTRS and an oversighter, for the record, and that's also irrelevant. Your proposal is an old canard, it's arbitrary, it's formulated backwards, and your reaction to being informed of that gives me every reason to think that you have formulated it in this way deliberately to confuse people and to make it appear that those would refuse to censor Commons are actively promoting something, rather than merely refusing to be drafed into some sort of puritanian crusade.
As for "anti-military ideas", I have contributed a great deal on military topics. I support the militaries that prevent wars, war crimes and torture, and protect the population -- I have reservations against those that implement wars of agressions, commit war crimes, engage in torture and prey on the population to further their agenda. Instead of speculating widely on my political leanings, of which you know precious little, you could explain to me how File:V-2victimAntwerp1944.jpg is less shocking than a Japanese erotic engraving of the early 19th century. Rama (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Pornographic images are rather rare. I belive in the idea of self organisation and the deletion request is a good and democratic safe system. If the DR poll is positive the community has to decide if they want to feature such pictures or not. Mostly they don't.   • Richard • [®] • 15:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Alvesgaspar, as Rama said, the above list is very odd! even if someone nominate them, I doubt they even get promoted... but FPC is not a public page and many users review FP candidates carefully and we can 'oppose' them if we feel they are too explicit! it's very unlikely that such contents (your examples) get promoted. anyway IMO we can not vote on such general terms, as you said "it will affect some valuable artworks".   ■ MMXX  talk  17:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- The above examples only illustrate what I mean by 'pornographic' or 'explicit sexual content' images, not potential candidates to FP! Anyway, please feel free to improve the list by adding or replacing the present picures. As for the nature of the FPC page, I think it is as 'public' as any other Commons page, since everybody is free to read and participate in the forum. Its strong educational content is the main reason for my opinion on the exclusion of pornography. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment We have to do lots of discussions to be able to define what is appropriate and what is not... FPC page is accessible same as the images themselves, but it is not public like the main page or FP galleries. I think we should let users review images on FPC page, IMO this nomination didn't have any chance to get promoted but you removed that before any review and I didn't see many objections! on the other hand, some of candidates should have the chance to get promoted (I didn't vote there because of strange background). we can't make a policy for such broad category but we can discuss on setting more strict guidelines.   ■ MMXX  talk  18:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Not something that should be decided here. We have a "sexual content" policy. Any material that is acceptable on commons should be an acceptable candidate here. No reason for prejudice. --Dschwen (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Dschwen, No censorship Elgaard (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Excluding Gnangarra is worse than declining to feature an image or two. We are already struggling to get balance between women and men, parents and non-parents, in our editor population [3]. There is no reason to exacerbate this. Most of you seem to agree that we shouldn't put porn on our main page, but FP is the public showcase just behind the main page, so it's not all that different. I tend to agree with Richard that this will usually make itself felt during the candidature anyway. The candidates page is fairly hidden, so I don't feel strongly about this page, but if seeing porn annoyed active participants or their family, then I'd say it's worth excluding those images. Collapsing the images is helpful, but probably not comprehensive enough since the image gets downloaded anyway. --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment I want to acknowledge and thank the excellent comment of 99of9, who has put the finger in a very important point. In order to respect the interest of a couple of users, in the name of an abstract value, is the community whiling to sacrifice the inclusion of many others? To be coherent with such value, this same community must also be prepared to allow Commons’ showcases (POTD, POTY and FP galleries) to be contaminated with pornography. Any other solution would be hypocritical. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment its not that its annoying its that I signed an agreement when in the work place that specifically restricts what I can view if online at work, as I said if there is a sound technical solution that ensures I cant view/download certain the image types at all then I have no problem but without a solution either its exlude the images or I dont participate. OK I'm at home now but as it stands until its closed the test case nomination has curtailed my ability to further participate in FP. Gnangarra 08:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question The question still lacks the essential clarity to me that would enable me to give an answer. Is this about FP or about FPC? If the first: FP should not be censored and an image within scope and with acceptable licensing should be eligible (but obviously only get the status if good enough). FPC is slightly different IMO. Its important that every legible image is reviewed in the same way against the same criteria (of course), however its reasonable to consider ways of limiting the negative impact of "shocking" images, to editors, whilst being reviewed. That's true whether its pornographic, violence or anything else. If some people want FPC to be a "work-safe" environment (I personally don't care), what's the harm in looking for ways to oblige them? And why does everything here get tackled with polls, which are evil?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info -- This is about both FP and FPC. Allowing those images to be nominated implies the acceptance of their promotion and automatic inclusion in Commons notable showcases (FP galleries, POTD and POTY). As I said above, if the community considers this situation acceptable then we will have to deal with the FPC problem. No, a poll is not the ideal way of solving things but the discussion above wasn't leading anywhere. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per mattbuck. But please forbid pictures with tulips on it. Very disgusting flowers. --Saibo (Δ) 00:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Tulips are flowers. Flowers are sexual organs. I suppose that they will be forbidden -- sorry, "not permitted" -- by this proposal. And tulip buds will be deemed to constitute pedophile pornography. Rama (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you were a parent, how would you feel about donating to The Wikimedia Foundation if you saw porn as picture of the day? Also, if we let a few 'educational' porn pictures as FP, then we risk having a flood of teenagers uploading all their favourite porn to Commons. I personally think that porn should not be allowed on Commons altogether, but I think that decision has already been made. Anyways, it's not like many will be featured (of all the porn noms so far, none have been featured, except maybe some before I was on FPC). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support per all others supporters. I'm afraid of censorship. And I am a parent of six children, who says more here ? They are educated by me and their mother, not (only) by WP and Internet. I think that pornography is everywhere on the Net, and if one is looking for porn content, one will not do a research on wikimedia projects first... Everybody knows that the Net can be the best and the worst, as the Aesopus tongue. And if "you" (who is "you" ?) forbid (not permit) tulips, please do so for orchids too (orchid ? what a porn name !!!)...--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how abstract parenthood in the abstract is often described as instantly turning people into intolerant, irrational, reactionnary bigots -- while actual parents belie this stereotype. Rama (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with censorship is there are no defining objective-definable limits what is porno and what is eductational. Porno can be easily found in internet, look for example: Porn 2.0. May-be a solution in wikipedia (in order to avoid censorship) is to require login to wikipedia-project in order to access potential unsafe pictures for children. In this way, Wikipedia has to have a field in the preferences with the age of the user when registering. Ggia (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Which is without doubt not something which should be discussed here. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Question Where does moral censorship begins ?   • Richard • [®] • 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support After a long reflection. I understand Alvesgaspar's concern about keeping FPC (and FP galleries) family-safe, and I share 99of9's one about getting balance between women and men, parents and non-parents, in our editor population. Being at one time a parent, a woman and an editor, I will speak with these three points of view. As a parent, I often encourage my daughter and her friends to seek images in Commons when they have a homework to illustrate, and to start with VI, QI and FP galleries, because I try to learn them the importance of using freely-licensed images for such purpose (not won yet ;-). So I would tend to prefer that those pages remain family-safe. As an adult woman, I don't fell embarrassed by the idea of sexual content images applying for our different labels, and I've even learnt things through Commons (for instance, what a "Prince Albert" is thanks to that discussion held in May). And as an editor, it would be inconsistent to have protested againt Jimmy Wales' recent censorship action and to oppose here. --Myrabella (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Support. The featured picture candidates are not yet pictures chosen to be featured, so the assortment here should still roughly reflect the range of images available on Commons, which includes some "pornographic" images. The presence of some Oppose votes here serves as a warning that such images will face a tough audience and many will say that they shouldn't be chosen to represent Commons at all. But this decision should be made by the voters through the usual process, allowing them to determine whether an individual image is distasteful or whether its aesthetic and artistic qualities dominate. It should not be made by some special ideological debate in which the degrees of acceptable male and female nudity are pre-specified to codify Western cultural beliefs and then imposed blindly on images regardless of quality. Wnt (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Results (question 1)

  • More than one week has passed since the poll was started and there was a single entry in the last 48 hours. Though additional opinions may still come in, it is unlikely that they will cause a significant impact or bring new arguments to the discussion. 17 users participated in the discussion/poll and the result (so far) is: 12 support and 5 oppose votes (yes, I’m counting Gnangarra’s vote; this is an opinion poll, not an election). This means that the majority accepts that such pictures are to be allowed in the FPC forum. Two relevant facts should be mentioned: the relatively small number of participants involved in the discussion, considering the importance of the issue; and the fact that a large number of them (all supports) are not FPC regulars. We have now to decide what type of protection (if any) should be associated with such nominations. In a subsection below, I propose three alternatives for discussion. As for what to do with promoted pornographic or sexually explicit images, regarding their inclusion in the FP galleries, POTD and POTY, I don’t think this is the proper place to decide.
  • A number of users considered the present poll inappropriate, either because Commons is not censored or because this is not the proper place for deciding about sexual content. I disagree. As I was told during the present discussion, the three forums (FPC, QIC and VIC) are internal processes separated from the main Commons’ end products. And if we can decide that only Commoneer’s images are accepted in QIC or that pictures less than 2Mp should not be promoted, why not decide the type of images allowed in FPC as well?
  • I was openly accused, by a Commons administrator, of being dishonest in the way Question 1 was put to the users. The accusation is false and unfair, and the FPC regulars should know by now that I don’t use furtive tricks to fool the other users. In the present case, two options were initially considered for Question 1: the present one, in which the users were asked if the problematic pictures should be allowed in FPC; and an alternative version, in which users were asked if such pictures should be banned from FPC. I finally decided for the first one because it was less prone to a wrong interpretation (a "support" means an acceptance) and no picture with sexual content has ever been allowed in FPC (Niabot’s nomination was not the first attempt, as far as I remember). One can disagree with my choice or consider that my reasoning was fallacious, but cannot say that I was dishonest.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Question 2

What type of protection (if any) should be associated with pornographic and sexually explicit pictures in FPC?

Here are three options for discussion (please add other if needed):

  • Option 0: no special protection should be associated with such nominations. The problematic pictures are to be shown in the FPC page, using the default procedure;
  • Option 1: the pictures with sexual or pornographic content are to be "hidden" using Nilfanion's tool;
  • Option 2: the pictures with sexual or pornographic content are to be reviewed in a subset of the FPC forum, separated from the main page.

Option 0

Option 1

Option 2

Discussion (question 2)

  • As stated above im for Option 0 since i don't see any need for a special treatment. Any allowed picture on commons is in scope and a equal part of the project. No one should have an problem to view such an image, even if he is watching it at his workplace, since he has an valid reason to explain himself. Hiding the images would already mark them as inappropriate, influencing the discussion and voting. Option 2 would not be out of case, since it would at least make votings like "{{oppose}} sexual content" much more invalid and questionable. But since we don't have many of such pictures it would be hard to set up an self running voting-system, thats why i consider Option 2 not an good option by now. --Niabot (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment No desire to vote on any option here, as I personally don't care about seeing porn on FPC, and I don't like to pre-judge others sensibilities either. I created {{Hidden image}} template to facilitate the intermediate approach, which does tackle concerns in a reasonable manner I think.

One thing I am not happy at present about is "we have disclaimers, therefore it doesn't matter". The Commons General disclaimer is not that substantial and (on a quick read through) does not address this concern. The en.wp Content disclaimer does address these concerns - we may need to transwiki/adapt that to our needs (which is a discussion for the VP not here).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  •  Info -- I think this second poll is premature. The only thing I did was to propose the three options for discussion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO no need for an excessive discussion. The poll keeps the discussion short.   • Richard • [®] • 16:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • actually a poll stifles discussion as its start at a predetermined position with an intended destination, the three questions asked here are actually only one as option 0 predetermines the responses to opt 1,2. In reality its only a repeat of the original poll and determines nothing substantive. The real questions that should be asked are "What is FP", "What is FPs value to Commons", "Are there costs that are acceptable to retain that value, if so what are they". Look at the main page we have the banner "a database of 7,021,871 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute." I've highlighted a barrier to my participation its a barrier that is fairly standard across most workplaces, schools irreguardless of what country your in. This barrier is backed up by court case after court case of adverse findings against companies, employers and employees. Waving "not censored" and saying "No one should have an problem to view such an image, even if he is watching it at his workplace, since he has an valid reason to explain himself" is utter non-sense. From my POV what's needed is a technical solution that effectively empowers the individual user to self regulate what they view at FP and FPC rather then driving people away from participating because those people rarely return. Gnangarra 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment for those waving the "not censored" flag, I challenge you to walk in the shoes of a new comer ignoring what you know and try to find the "not censored" flag(warning/disclaimer) from the main page. For comparison its one click into FP, and 2 clicks to be at FPC. While on that point there isnt even a direct link to Commons:Policies and guidelines from the main page. Yeah I did say I wouldnt vote on FPC future because I cant participate, noneone is actually discussing the implications of the changes its just a small group beating anyone disenting or questioning of the change over their head with the "not censored" flag, unfortunately that has become the common method of discussion here. Gnangarra 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- I have to full agree with Gnangarra’s position and feel already regretful of my naivety in wanting this issue to be fully clarified. The ‘no-censorship’ flag is indeed waved in a near to mindless way, as if it should be conserved against all other values and regardless of all consequences for Commons and its users. I don’t want to make the discussion personal, but wonder if any of those people really know what censorship is (I do). I also agree with Gnangarra that starting this second poll was, in practical terms, a way of stifling a necessary discussion. Because some people may not be fully aware of what we are talking about, I have added a few examples of porno/sexual explicit images at the top of this discussion. Contrarily to what Wnt states, I would hardly be proud of showing such nominations to my kids or students, even for the short 24 hours associated with the FPX template. And I wonder if the politically correct opinions of those users will resist to some anonymous user systematically nominating all images from this_place (yes, I’m making a point now, but this is the right place to do it, is it not?) Finally, and also as Gnangarra, I will not participate in this poll with my explicit vote until the issue is fully discussed the way it deserves. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment. What's funny to consider is that the pictures at the top of this thread would by default remain in the FPC Talk page for a very long time, then be archived; while the issue on FPC itself is only whether they could be present for a week (or less if we had a snowball fail option) before going away. Before Jimbo Wales touched off the whole pornography debate, I might have seen maybe three explicit images altogether with barely a second thought - now the stuff is everywhere and everyone is looking at it. Wnt (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules of the 5th day

Is "rules of the 5th day" still applicable for featuring images?   ■ MMXX  talk  09:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was not discussed so remains unchanged. --99of9 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
So is it OK to close these two nominations (1, 2)?   ■ MMXX  talk  12:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as well as the withdrawn and FPXed (>24h) noms. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What about FPCbot?

Is it not working? --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The machine that runs the script decided to take vacation at the same time as me it seems, sorry about that. I have now restarted it again. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Objetive Accomplished

If lowering participation was the desired objective, I think that 12 nominations with little chance of achieving FP status in 5 days is a pretty good indicator of success. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic content in FPC

I have just removed this nomination from the FPC list as I consider this place to be "family free". At least, that has been our implicit policy since this forum was created. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that it is in discussion in VIC page, as an usual nomination (nothing explicitly forbids that kind of scope in VI detailed rules). --Myrabella (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that pornography (or explicit sexual content) is not forbiden in the guidelines. But it has been our practise (a wise one, imo) to protect FPC from this kind of images, as this place has a significant educational content to younger people. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • PS -- Well, a picture displaying two girls caressing each other's dick can hardly be considered a 'usual nomination'. But maybe I'm just a bit old fashioned. ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Time and again it is interesting to see that images with sexual content are considered not worthy of being displayed (or even kept at all) while images of arms, soldiers and war regularly get promoted. Always reminds me of Apocalypse Now: We train young men to drop fire on people, but their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene! Strange culture, in which sexuality is considered not "family-safe", but shooting and killing appearantly is. That said, I am also aware that some users here seem to misunderstand the purpose of Commons as being a repository for porn. --Tsui (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I totally agree with Tsui, since it is known that sexual content was part in every early and current culture. --Niabot (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
We are not clear enough with pornographic or explicit sexual content in Wikimedia projects (allowed and unfiltered to my knowledge, but without any written rule about the possibility or not for such an image to be nominated as FPC, QIC or VIC). We ought to precise the current rules. But what should we do with that image, for example, if it was nominated as VIC? As for me, I've reviewed the present case arguing with the usual and current VI criteria. --Myrabella (talk) 11:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Not sure what we should do concerning FPC, VIC and QIC's rules (if anything). But I have very strong feelings that all three forums should be kept free of pornography and explicit sexual content (not nudity though), for the reason stated above. As for this image, I don't think it falls under of any of those categories. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that older works are rated differently from newer ones. Any good reason for this? --Niabot (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The "That image" depicts a hermaphrodite exposing his genitals legs wide open; even if he is Hermaproditus himself and if the sculpture is spoiled by time, I find it quite explicit and the same pose would be very disturbing if it was a nowadays photo, wouldn't it? About the "This image", it has received support as QIC—and here I find that we collectively lack of coherence and consistency if an implicit criterion of "common sense and good taste" should be applied (personally, I desagree with that idea; we must have explicit guidelines). QIs are not a small and hidden part of Commons. --Myrabella (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I share Myrabella's concern on the coherence and consistency of our picure forums. Still this is a loose and somehow chaotic project driven by the goodwill of voluntary users, and we can't expect its organization to be totally consistent. Please go ahead and make a proposal to deal with pornography and explicit sex. But my experience tells that it is difficult to gather the attention of many regulars and still more difficult to implement changes (just browse the talk page's history to understand what I mean). Concerning the promotion to QI of the illustration, I wasn't aware of it. As for the statue of the hermaphodrite I don't find it more offensive than a medical depiction of the genitals. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've mentioned this discussion at Commons talk:Sexual content#FPC etc, as that guideline is probably the most appropriate place to include a restriction (which I personally agree with).
However I am concerned about restricting this to pornographic content. Would we want the following to be acceptable on FP (or QI or VI...):
  1. Medical images of genitalia, in particular those showing a medical condition
  2. More general medical photography, including conditions and procedures some may find disturbing (think eye surgery)
  3. Images of human feces and vomit, or defecation and vomiting
  4. Images of violence, such as images of murder victims
All of these could be within scope and legitimately hosted on Commons and could potentially have high value. Should we exclude these sorts of things as well? I'm not convinced on that.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think that image:Futanari.png or image:Hadako-tan.png are even remotely at risk of becoming featured pictures. They seem like very simple, all but meaningless artwork, washed out in white, following a highly stereotyped genre. I have seen beautiful historical Asian artworks here - these aren't among them. That said, I've already seen one comparably controversial FPC drawing (no sexual contact, but including a naked child), namely File:Kiyonaga bathhouse women-2.jpg. My strong feeling is that no ideological guidelines are required, because FPC already allows subjective reactions a forum. When you find a picture that can make FPC, you'll know why it shouldn't be excluded by some arbitrary criteria. Wnt (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    •  Comment -- I'm not concerned with the possibility of image:Futanari.png being promoted and shown as POTD but with its exhibition in the FPC page, which has a strong educational content and should be 'family-free' and 'word-free'. If people usually creating/uploading pornographic or explicit sexual content want to create a specialized forum, go ahead. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Umm, FPC is not an educational page as such in itself, rather FP is - the first is internal usage (and not designed for re-use), the second is the educational end-product. The point about FPC (and QIC/VIC) being work-safe is still valid, but its not an educational page in itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I think it is. Many users of various ages, credos and origins are learning here how to improve their photographic skills, by studying the work of others and the evaluations of the reviewers. This is, in my opinion, one of the most important components of FPC. Jeopardizing that component in obedience to an abstract value of 'free-content' will be a gros mistake.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
          • The most important component of FPC, by far, is to generate content for FP :) Keeping users interested, and providing useful feedback is an essential part of achieving its core function, so exclusion of users by including explicit content is a bad thing. However, your position is getting unclear to me: Are you against having sexually explicit material as FP (if its good enough), or merely having explicit stuff on FPC? There is a difference after all.
          • The solution to the latter problem is not a ban, its to create a sub-process at Commons:Featured picture candidates/explicit (for example). FPCs that are deemed unsuitable for general viewing (whatever classes of images that would include) are listed there, and its treated identically to the main page. The archival could also be handled separately if necessary. This allows the main FPC page to be sanitized, whilst still allowing review of other stuff. A full process like that may seem like overkill given the relatively small number of such nominations, but as I noted above there are other topics that may not be suitable for all audiences, and some of those would definitely make good FPs.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Assuming that no-one finds mere discussion of such images so shocking that it couldn't be shown on COM:FPC, wouldn't it be easier just to hide such potentially shocking or offensive images behind a link or in a collapsible section? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
              • Yeah that would work too (and is a simpler option than option what I suggested), but personally I can't see the necessity for any special measure at all. We should work out what restrictions we should place on this type of image: Definitely not allowed in POTD (or worse MOTD) or POTY, permitted in FP, QI and VI - but ensure its placed carefully in the galleries and categories.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
                • I think I pretty much agree with you. I do think that a mechanism for hiding images that some people find shocking or offensive on COM:FPC may be a good idea — not because I object to such images being shown there, but because it's clear that some others do, and this seems like a useful compromise that allows these people to participate in the FPC process while still allowing such images to be nominated and discussed.
                • I also agree that we should try to avoid potentially shocking or offensive images in P/MOTD, not because they'd be of somehow lesser value, but because those are rather "in your face" processes. We have plenty of content (including some of very high quality and educational value) on Commons that could make someone go "Oh shit, I didn't want to see that!" (or "Oh shit, I didn't want my coworkers/children/parents/etc. to see that!") if they stumbled across it by mistake, but our Main Page really shouldn't evoke such reactions if we can avoid it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
                  • I'm thinking solution is a javascript-type template on the lines of {{Collapse top}}, which can be added to these nominations and hides the image by default. This allows it to be revealed without leaving the candidate page, and a reason field can be provided, to give a message on lines of "This image has been hidden because it is of a sexual nature" (or whatever other reasons).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Not my taste but I'm amazed that anyone thinks they can censor the nominations in this way. It is up to the community to vote on anything is it not? --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This possible vote should concern the three forums FPC, QIC and VIC IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Also agree though I doubt it will raise the interest of many, as I mentioned above. As for my 'censorship', sometimes it is necessary to use boldness when that is the only way to prevent a larger damage. By 'damage' I mean the image being shown in the FPC page during 10 days while we calmly discuss if it is acceptable or not. But I'm a user exactly like any other and my actions can be undone. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with any censorship or content hiding. I recognize that the currently discussed image is generally more sexually explicit than other FPCs, though some previously accepted candidates are certainly more arousing. The only compromise I could endorse is that FPC should allow for a "Snowball Fail" option, to strike an image from the process if many editors speak up quickly and loudly for its rejection. It is probably not desirable and certainly not possible for us to prevent editors from rejecting an image because it is sexually explicit, especially if it lacks much redeeming quality; and I accept that the current proposal could likely be such a case. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Allowing sexual content to be considered for FP is a horrible idea in a legal sense. Wfm's head legal council claims that Wmf does not need to maintain model ID and age info (called 2257 records) because is not a commercial producer. Wmf's position would be greatly weakened if knowing and willful selection and promotion of these images is permitted. Wmf is exempt if it provides "telecommunications or Internet services; transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication; or dissemination of a depiction without selection or alteration of its content. See 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)." - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. FPC participants are ordinary editors. It is not Wikimedia that chooses the pictures - they are leaving that up to individual users. What is the difference between putting an image here and putting it in an article? Also, the EFF says that the regulations "appear" to be limited only to commercial distribution.[4] Though there is not one thing in that law or associated regulations that is intended to allow a definite yes-or-no answer on anything, it would seem it is not even relevant here. Wnt (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(Update) Another image on QIC, by the same author (see here. I've tried out a {{Hidden image}} template to provide the concealment desired (forcing people to click away from the review page is a bad thing for usability). As for the principle of explicit images being FP, QI or VI I have no objection if they meet the criteria the same as any other image. If promoted they should be handled carefully, but the fact its explicit (or otherwise objectionable) does not IMO mean it cannot be promoted.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, this will break the bot that is processing/archiving the QIC page. --Dschwen (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Why must commons (QI, FPC, VI) be censored at all, as long the images are in scope and not illegal to host? Wnt made the right points here. How can an image be bad, just because you decided to vote by topic and not by content? Now it are pornographic images, next are war, murder, religion, minorities, political enemies, ... All this thoughts (forbid them from QIFPCVI, make own ratings, hide the images, ...) leading into censorship. --Niabot (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The template is about hiding it on the nomination pages. If anyone finds the image offensive they could hide it in that manner. That is courtesy to the editors of these pages, as opposed censorship of the material. In fact, this is consistent with the text of COM:SEX#Categories: Images should not be placed in a category where you would not expect to find sexual images. You wouldn't expect to find sexual images on any of the nomination pages either, so why should they be forced on users?
As for the whole censorship issue I believe all images, irrespective of their content, should be judged against the relevant criteria - and that all images that can be hosted by Commons should be eligible for promotion, as long as they meet the required standards. Bear in mind that "I don't like it" is essentially valid on FPC (less so on QIC/VIC).
And the bot issue, there's no harm in closing stuff manually :)--Nilfanion (talk) 09:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Tank you for the understanding. Only shows me how commons fails to have adequate guidelines, that would make it different from flickr. I guess i won't give a damn about this ratings anymore, since it is already proven that they fail. No wonder that the old guys, that had some knowledge, more and more retire. --Niabot (talk) 09:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW: You can't force someone to watch on images. He is in the internet and has to expect to find something unpleasent for him. If he can't handle it or thinks that others can't handle it, he is just a moron. --Niabot (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Am I a moron just because I want to prevent my kids to be subjected to pornography or explicit sexual content when browsing FPC (or the main page of Commons)? By the way, I'm one of those 'old guys' who are considering to retire, though the reasons for doing so are certainly very far from what your limited knowledge of these foruns may suggest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, you're not, and I agree with you. As to why pictures of violence should be fine while pictures of people having sex shouldn't (per Tsui above): history has shown time and again that pictures documenting human suffering have been a key factor in shaping public opinion and political action to end or reduce that suffering, or prevent its reoccurrence. There is a vital public interest at stake, and that is why the press and the news show these pictures. Sexually explicit images on the other hand illustrate practices that individuals engage in of their own free will, in their private leisure time. While both types of images are explicit, the purposes explicitness serves in each case are completely different. It's comparing apples and oranges. --JN466 11:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fundamentally, I agree with Nilfanion when he says that explicit images meeting the criteria the same as other image could be promoted FP, QI or VI. In the present state of our rules, nothing forbids that kind of nomination, and those images are in Commons scope : under those rules, they must be evaluated with the same criteria. But imagine that a really good image, technically speaking, exists in the Category:fellatio. Should it be possible to nominate it for the three labels? And for VI, a debate to decide if a single image is enough or if a VI set would be preferable to show the different phases of the action? If the community finds this idea disturbing, maybe we ought to precise the current rules - in a explicit way. --Myrabella (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Come on guys. This is censorship through the backdoor. Currently COM:SEX is in development, but reached a near stable phase. Nothing in this guideline (and maybe soon policy) would forbid that image in case to be upload and used on commons and other projects. On the other hand you discriminate sexual/pornographic content, which has been part of human history since ancient times, and is the foundation of any living being. You might call it an ritual. --Niabot (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • In principle I agree that images with sexual content should be able to reach featured status etc., if they're good enough. But they really ought to have an outstanding artistic or educational value, one that is immediately apparent to the average person out there, especially if they're to be considered for the main page. --JN466 00:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My position is to vote  Oppose every time I see an image that I judge pornographic with the following explanation: “pornographic content”. We all have a freedom of Consciousness, must be used! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't see a problem with pornographic images being made Featured pictures. The one in question though doesn't seem to me to be worthy of Featured Picture status. That said, I have no objection to pornographic featured pictured per se. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy of voting against an image based on moral objections

There's a thread at Commons talk:sexual content#Featuring sexually explicit content on the Commons main page which raises an issue that I think should be clarified here.

User:Kaldari said that "If someone were to vote No on a picture due to "aesthetic sensitivity" or a "moral reaction" as you suggest, their vote would be completely ignored as not conforming to the criteria (as has happened before)."

What I see at Commons:Featured picture candidates are things like "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others." and "Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." It's my belief that the criteria permit users to vote against images simply because they don't like them, for example, because they are morally offensive, ugly, squalid and so on. To me these criteria invite users to vote for or against pictures based on whether they like them, and the associations they carry, and I feel that any moral reaction a user has is inseparable from such aesthetic judgments.

I think it is important to get a consensus on which is true in order to more amicably resolve the larger issue. Wnt (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

this already a commonly used oppose reason in FP. The fact that the composition includes elements I dont want to view for moral reason remains unknown/unsaid, unless we are going to get into detailed instruction creep theres no way to distinguish between the moral or aesthetic elements that make this a poor composition. FP already has problems with on going participation creating a situation where we have editors runnning around trying to decide whether an oppose is legitimate is only going to make FP a hostile environment that inividuals are going to avoid. FP is about our best work if someone is of the opinion that an image isnt our best work because of "aesthetic sensitivity" or a "moral reaction" so be it, if the image is our best work then it will rise above such responses anyway. One cannot wave the we are not censored flag and then pick 'n chose those opinions we agree with. Gnangarra 11:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with both of you that current practice is to permit this. I recall votes essentially based on gut reaction to: caged animals, military equipment, pornography, national icons, the language of a text, and propaganda. I'm sure there are others. Not only is it current practice, but I think it also makes sense: if enough people are morally against featuring an image, then displaying it in our galleries (and front page) as an example of our finest will put off any casual viewers with the same sensitivities. --99of9 (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The test has failed

I think it's time to have a vote on undoing the recent changes. They have gutted participation in FP. July has half the number of promotes as any other month this year, and that's despite the first third of the July promotions being under the old rules, meaning that the true numbers are likely to be far worse. Further, numerous people have expressed displeasure and left over the new rules; and we're currently getting no more than 1 or 2 nominations a day, of which only a fraction are passing, keeping us below even the 1/day needed for Picture of the Day to continue. There have been no tangible benefits, but clear problems.

As such, I propose:

  1. The number of supports needed for a promote is reduced back to 5.
  2. Nominations are merely limited to 1/day.
  3. All nominations with 5 or 6 supports (and 2 to 1 votes in favour of promotion) from the last month are promoted.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To avoid issues with the timing of closure, this vote will end promptly at 00:01 UTC August 9th, which is just a couple hours under two weeks from now.

  • According to my count there were 58 FP's promoted in June and 31 in July so far. Few points: (a) July is actually not over yet. (b) When comparing results with June one should consider that the number of nominations was reduced already by the debate, and did not only start when the new rules applied (c) 31 promotions per month appears to me a sustainable level for Picture of the Day. (d) Wouldn't have been fair to wait for the end of the first month at least, prior to drawing conclusions? --Elekhh (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:FP stat 2004-2010 (3).jpg File:FP stat 2004-2010 (4).jpg

  • This is just crap! Trying to distort reality and fool the other users with numbers taken out of context is either grossly incompetent or just dishonest. Coming from a Commons administrator, is hardly acceptable. Above is a graph showing the statistics for the past years and here are the data only for July (read #nom/#prom): 2005: 120/35; 2006: 156/25; 2007: 206/36; 2008: 153/41; 2009: 222/58. Extrapolating for July 2010, we will have about 153 nominations and 37 promotions, which is close to 2008. This poll is not serious Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Votes and comments

Support

  1. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yann (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    Sellyminime (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    Sockpuppet   • Richard • [®] • 12:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  3. Aqwis (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Petritap (talk) 08:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  5. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. PPP (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    --78.105.241.24 09:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    --81.6.65.140 16:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote   • Richard • [®] • 20:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. патриот8790Say whatever you want 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  8. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
According to Adam above, "this vote ended promptly at 00:01 UTC August 9th". --Elekhh (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I don't understand what you're claiming has failed. You think that some pictures achieved 5/6 supports and were not featured but were really worth featuring? Which? You think that someone has been consistently successful with a succession of 2 active nominations, and we are hampering them? Who? Or you are just noticing that you walked away in anger and didn't give the new rules a go? 99of9 (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Way to ignore anything I actually said, instead making stuff up. I gave numbers, you know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, this edit [5] came in while I was writing my questions. So you are just worried that the overall promotion rate is too small? Lowering that rate was part of the original objective, so doesn't seem like a failure in itself. Would you care to state what promotion rate per month you think is optimal? --99of9 (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The number is less than half what we got in previous months, and that when a third of this month was under the old rules, since the new rules only applied to nominations started after the 1st, so promotions up to the 9th or so were under the old rules. I think that this experiment has failed. It has not improved quality in any measurable way, it has resulted in large numbers of people expressing their difavour, and drove many people away from FP. All of which are clear problems, and all of which mean that we should stop doing what's causing them. There have been no actual benefits to anyone; further, looking at the FPC page now, no day has more than 2 nominations, most only have 1. As only a fraction are passing, that's below the 1 per day needed just to supply POTD. It's just going to get worse from here; this month had some participation in the first half. If we don't go back soon, it's going to be very hard to ever lure back the people who left over this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  2. 1/day !!! It's to small. I think 3/day it's correct. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • That's per person, and is, obviously, a lot more than the 1 every 5 days or so at present. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The actual rule says not more than 2 active noms per user. Or am I wrong? --mathias K 11:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Presuming you're not rapidly withdrawing and nominating new stuff - which is, I might add, being actively done, making a mockery of the supposed attempt to reduce the number of nominations with no chance of passing - you need to wait until your nomination closes. A nomination stays open 9 days, you get 2 nominations, 9/2 = 4.5 days between "full" nominations, and that presuming you nominate the instant your previous nom closes. So 1 every 5 days is about the limit set by this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  3. I don't think we should change back after this short period. Wasn't the idea to change the rules, among other things, because of the rise of FP which wasn't reviewed good enough? When the number of promoted pics is going down I see this as a sign that the change of the rules was good and works effective. --mathias K 10:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  4. Makes no sense. Abuse of bad statistics seems rather manipulative to me. --Dschwen (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  5. It is important to distinguish FP from the other reviews; its selectivity is an important feature. I'm comfortable so far with the level indicated by the data. I suggest tabling this discussion for now and revisiting this matter after the end of (northern hemisphere) summer, an anomalous time because of vacations and weather. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  6. Premature voting on an undiscussed package of changes makes no sense to me either.--Elekhh (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  7. Much 2 early for a wrap-up   • Richard • [®] • 12:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per Dschwen and Richard Bartz.  fetchcomms☛ 01:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  9. Yes it's much too early to evaluate. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  10. The only thing that failed is the ability for some people to accept the results of the previous vote on this matter. --S23678 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  11. Ditto to mathias; it is working well at the moment; before, too many pics were getting voted in that didn't really deserve it - MPF (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • The current site notice links to #The_test_has_failed. There is no summary, no wrap up of the discussion, no introduction. This shouldn't happen. Such site notices are a waste of time. --Saibo (Δ) 12:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree; I came here via the site notice and just spent about 15 minutes reading this page, only to discover that the discussion that changed the FPC rules must be buried in an archive somewhere. Powers (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don’t recognize the legitimacy of this poll, which is just one more attempt by Adam Cuerden to revert the decisions of our last discussion on the FPC process (here). That discussion involved a significant number of users, and clear consensus were reached concerning the number of support votes needed for promotion and the maximum number of nominations per user. The possibility of a test period, at the end of which the new measures were to be re-evaluated, was never discussed seriously and the corresponding poll (started by Adam Cuerden) had no quorum. If that were the case, objective evaluation criteria would have been agreed upon. The present action is no different from all the other attempts that this user has made during and after the discussion to delay or subvert its results. It is sad to realize how Commons administrators, who are supposed to be the most trusted users, use such processes to force their personal opinions against the consensus of the community. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would point out that consensus can change. The new rules are not immune to change just because of a vote, the same as the old rules were also not immune to change. In effect the new rules are on permanent trial whether we formally say so or not, and if the consensus view does change so should the rules (back to where we started or wherever else).
  • That said, one month is insufficient time to really draw any conclusions on the matter (and there's enough FPs not to worry about POTD supply for a while, so no need to rush on that argument). Exhaustive polling doesn't generate consensus either, it just polarizes debate and makes a resolution all can support all the harder. The very fact this rule change was and is so divisive means it is legitimate to question it, but to simply reverse it quoting rather minimal figures is as erroneous as saying the new rules are set in stone and shall not be altered. Useful discussion could be generated by considering the two parts separately: The increased quorum and the throttling.
  • Oh and there's more to Commons than just FP, so why should everyone be bugged every time there's an amendment here? We don't have site notices for changes in the FOP rules for instance, as that dictates what sort of image we can host, its justifiably more important than this relatively minor project.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This drove a lot of people off. Without letting them know, thwe only participants are going to be those who are still sticking around hee - a biased sample. There was suppot for revisiting this after one month in the poll, and some of the supposed supports refer to it as a test. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the last point - especially since the poll is not prepared for a site notice (see my comment above). --Saibo (Δ) 21:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Which is why I removed it from the sitenotice. --Dschwen (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • My point actually goes a bit further than that as I'm not sure I'd support a site notice notification of this sort of poll, regardless of whether it is ready or not. The frequent meta-polling here and the site-notice spam may actually have a bigger negative effect on FPC participation than the details of the rules. If I had a picture I thought was FP standard, seeing the bickering here is a bigger disincentive to participation than the fine details of the rules as the changes do not affect my one image, but the atmosphere of this sub-community certainly does affect how I'd feel about even bothering to try. Site noticing POTY is reasonable, but doing so for something minor like changing "5 supports" to "7 supports"?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is evident that there are two camps, the old rules vs the new rules. Furthermore, at least from looking at July, it is also evident that so far the new rules seem to have decreased participation, but this could also be an anomaly, so more time is really needed to determine the effectiveness of the new rules. I also perceive animosity between two users, with one resorting almost to the insult level, IMO. What is also evident is that regardless of the "consensus" that led to the changes, the changes have not sat well with some users. While some of the changes were reasonable, not all changes necessarily will be reasonable to all users, nor necessary. I find resistance to revisit the "consensus" as an expression of intolerance, for the old status quo allowed for revision, the new status quo should in turn allow present and future revisions. The system as it is continues to be a candidate for improvement. But more important than 5 days, 7 days, active nominations, etc., etc., is the development in each individual reviewer of sound criteria for evaluating images based on universally, time tested principles instead of capricious whims and pseudo photographic knowledge. That is what has impeded FPC of reaching a respectable status among serious photographers. Cronysm, ignorance and intolerance are the real obstacles. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I can only repeat: nobody opposed a critical review of the new rules after a reasonable amount of time. Check it out (4th paragraph). The problem with the above proposal as evident from the comments is that (a) is too early (b) innacurate data, inflamatory language and apparently sockpuppetry are used (c) a package of changes is proposed instead of discussing each aspect prior to establishing consensus. --Elekhh (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If this is an accusation of sockpuppetry on my part, I am going to have to ask for actual proof. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It was no accusation against you.   • Richard • [®] • 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. We'll wait another month, squander the chance of getting some contributors back, and disrupt commons to prove Alvesgaspar's point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) (UTC)

What exactly changed about the rules that would cause someone to leave the project and never come back? Powers (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be interesting to know. Are there users who contribute just for FP ?   • Richard • [®] • 15:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
If nothing else, being CONSTANTLY PERSONALLY ATTACKED BY ALVESGASPAR IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE RULES HE PERSONALLY VOTED ON, THEN CLOSED certainly is reason enough to leave the project and never come back. We have an example of one of his attacks in this very thread. Screw this all. You can have your little FP project. However, since FP is pretty much the only way Commons has to announce images have become available, I don't see any point contributing images to Commons which noone will ever know exist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of categories in Commons? ;-) Seriously, I have never - really never - found a picture by FP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Considering the rate of total contributions compared to the rate of Featured Picture nominations (not even promotions), it seems a lot of people disagree that it's pointless to contribute non-FP content. Powers (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • if you look at the graph above generally this time of year we have a peak in participation/nominations making asuposition its probably caused by the northern hemisphere summer having better weather to take photograhs, also there are two visable drops one in 2008 which coincided with the olympics and one in 2006 which coincided with the world cup. While I suspect that the change in rules contributed to the drop I also think that the World cup had an impact on participation as well. The issue will be if the participation doesnt bounce back over the next month. Also of concern is this is the first year where over all there has been a consitant decline in participation at FP if one takes in to consideration that flooding was the major concern that cause the rule change FP appears to be in trouble. What we need is some statistics on Commons overall performance to decide whether the decine is only affecting FP or whether theres something the Commons community and the Foundation need to be really concerned about. Gnangarra 17:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    •  Info -- Up-to-date graphs shown above. The number of nominations has been drecreasing from May, when it reached a peak of 252, and the percentage of promotions from November 2009, when it reached a peak of 41% -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
If the number of nominations were decreasing before this was put in, why the fuck did we go with a knee-jerk, incredibly limiting proposal? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
the decrease in May could be attributed to the discussions taking place but the figures are decreasing before then...and at a visable rate....not only have we limited the number of nominations, there also has been a big shift away from encouraging broad participation to less friendly, less considerate "not censored like it or leave" FP format. The short term figures are showing that if FP(maybe even Commons) wants a future it needs to reconsider how it approaches many things. I still dont see a problem with waiting until the end of August fora bigger sample(less outside considerations) and see if things start to recover but a longer the discussion....the less likely that people will return. Gnangarra 14:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment. You've got a roughly even split on this. Why don't you just compromise on 6 votes to support a nomination for the time being, then see if people want 5 or 7 in a month or two? Wnt (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What about the artificial and bizarre limit on active nominations, but not rate of nominations, which serves to punish those who have successful nominations (which must run the full term), but lets those with unsuccessful nominations withdraw and nominate something else as often as they wish. Presuming you're not rapidly withdrawing and nominating new stuff - which is, I might add, being actively done, making a mockery of the supposed attempt to reduce the number of nominations with no chance of passing - you need to wait until your nomination closes. A nomination stays open 9 days, you get 2 nominations, 9/2 = 4.5 days between "full" nominations, and that presuming you nominate the instant your previous nom closes. In that time, of course, anyone with the hopeless, spammy noms this was allegedly meant to prevent can simply withdraw anything not passing and put up something else, wasting the time of the voters every time they do so. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment If this is not a clearly stated point, I do not know what is. It would be very enlightening indeed to see those statistics so far. I also fully agree with Adam that the system as it is punishes the more serious participants. The sad thing really is that so much talent has left, and this definitely doesn´t help. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
On rereading, I do feel I must clarify one point: The people withdrawing noms are not at fault: That's what they were specifically encouraged to do, and such behaviour is the only way they can learn to select better, given the extreme low rate of nominations. However, the rest stands. This was supposedly implemented to make sure people "don't waste the voter's time", and to try to cut down on the number of hopeless, supposedly spammy images being nominated. Instead, it disproportionately affects people who make wise choices about what to nominate. In the end, every time a nom is withdrawn, everyone who voted on it had their time wasted, particularly if the case was still ambiguous. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion was closed after the predefined expiry with the outcome: No consensus to revert to previous rules. --99of9 (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Low visibility of Delisting candidates

Delisting candidates are right at the bottom of the page. They are also fairly rare, with frequently none under current voting. As a result they get far less attention than new FPC nominations: how many voters scroll all the way down to the bottom every time, and how many just look at the top for new FPC nominations?

I'd like to suggest that when there are candidates for delisting currently open for voting, that a fairly high visibility reminder should be showing at the end of the "Formal things" box to point out they are there to be voted on. MPF (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions on implementation? - MPF (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd just mix them in with regular candidates and mark them in their titles sections so that they stand out a bit. That is how it is done on de:FPC. Tucking them away in a separate section does not make much sense in my opinion. --Dschwen (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, although I don't participate much here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Videos can be FPs => guidelines to be completed?

Hello, This video has just been promoted FP, under the new rules and indubitably (9 support, 1 oppose). I've asked a question on the review page to know if videos could be eligible, it seems that yes. What puzzles me is that a video nominated for FP status some weeks ago had been FPXed because it was a video. Forgive me to find this somewhat inconsistent and confusing. Now there are at least two Commons FPs in Category:Featured videos. That makes precedents. About videos, the guidelines say simply "Resolution - Images (save animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels are typically rejected, etc." It would be worth to be precised and completed, including more specific criteria, wouldn't it? Some reviewers have asked to clarify the guidelines on this point during the recent review. --Myrabella (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See here. Thought you would like to know. J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is somewhat related to Myrabella's comment above. There needs to be some guideline for video FPs, or even a separate nomination template. The video I nominated here was FPXed because there is no guideline for videos. Perhaps Alvesgaspar can think of something? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Undersized noms - how small is "too small"?

These three nominations are pretty below the 2MB standard, though it does say not too be too strict with that rule. I overlooked two or three images I was gonna tag with {{FPX}}, they were like 1.8 or 1.92...

How flexible should we be with that rule? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2MB is not the same as 2MPx. Megapixels is the dimensions of the image (height multiplied by width), whereas megabytes is the size of the file. File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG is just 749 kilobytes, even though it's 3,82 megapixels big. File:Polish Army Kołobrzeg 122.JPG is 4,05 MPx (not much more) but 1,74 MB, more than twice as much. The limit in the rules is for megapixels. Wolf (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What about this one? --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
1781*1129=2 010 749. Wolf (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of the difference of filesize and detail. Sorry if I misread the rules, honestly I admired that idea because it really would force you to choose files with higher resolution and general detail. Anyway, I thought we were going on filesize not dimensions and there were only a few, like 4 that were under 2MB, that's what I get for glancing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding FPX template

I believe FPX template should be used only in a very clear cut cases. IMO might be better not to use it at all. It hurts, and drives people away.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You know though that you're always free to contest it if you disagree with its use? --Elekhh (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly   • Richard • [®] • 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, the FPX template can be contested, but that is not the point. The use of the template allows for just about ANY reason, reasonable or not, to attempt to close a nomination that is put out for the entire community to vote on, and the rationale behind the FPX may be as faulty as the image itself. IMO the FPX is a very unfriendly method of opposing an image. An oppose is enough, and just let the nomination run its course. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Isnt FP meant to be a "community" decision wheres as QI is designed for the single opinion Gnangarra 11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Correct, but FPX turns it into a single opinion, and many times a questionable one. The main problem being is that there are no guideliness on its use, and if there are, it is as if they did not exist, as evidenced by the totally subjective criteria used in the past. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment. As I suggested before in regard to the censorship debate, I think FPC should have a "snowball fail" option where you delete images receiving the number of supports and opposes needed to win a poll, but reversed. The FPX process works the same way, but it requires 1 oppose and 0 supports in a 24-hour period. I think my idea would work better, but I can't swear to it. Wnt (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhm, please do not forget that the FPX template was introduced for a reason and not just on a whim. There were plenty of nomination that were obviously way below explicit FP requirements, and they were attracting a ton of stacked oppose votes. Do you think that is any less humiliating? I don't, and on top of it it just wastes time. Plus the FPX template is a much clearer hint to actually read the requirements before nominating, while a flood of opposes may just look like people don't like the image. However I agree that its use should be limited to clear cut cases. But I haven't noticed any problems lately. So well, one of Mila's images was FPX'd recently... any connection to raising this point here now? --Dschwen (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it should actually be used more often. What do you think hurts more, seeing one FPX or a long list of opposes? If the FPX should not be used, then someone else can just contest it. Personally, I find it more painful to have six people oppose than one FPX. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    The point that a long list of opposes can be discouraging is well taken. If a nomination has little or no support and several opposes already, adding another may hurt more than help. Jonathunder (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

rules clarification please

I've made two nominations (one of them my own images, the other one the images of a different editor) with a few alternatives in each of them. Those alternatives are images of the same subjects, taken at the very same day and from the very same place. Alvesgaspar claims I have too many nominations, and that I violated rule#11 and rule#12 of general rules. Rule #11 states: "Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum." I did not violate rule #11 because i have only two nominations. Rule #12 states: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version". I did not violate rule#12. In the same comment alvesgaspar claims: "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own. ". When I asked him to point me out to the rule that specifically states that "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own" my response was a rude rant. So maybe somebody more polite could explain to me what exactly I have done wrong. If I did, I believe the rules should be clarified somehow, but I do believe that even different images of the same subject photographed at the same day and the same time should be allowed as alternatives. I would also like to understand what exactly is "A different version of the same picture". Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am more than ready to withdraw some of my alternatives, and apologize for violating the rules, if somebody will clearly explain to me what rules I have violated. It is not to discuss the rules, it is just to find one that per Alves states: "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own." In no connection to my first question I'd also like to understand what exactly "A different version of the same picture" means. For example yesterday I took 2 panoramas of the same place with a different zoom and a different number of images used File:Pano of Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco from Twin Peaks 1.jpg and File:Pano of Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco from Twin Peaks.jpg. Are those consider to be different pictures of a different version of the same picture, and why? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I find quite normal for a user to add more alternative nominations of the same subject under different angle of view, close-up, from distance etc. When we talk about different version here I suppose we don't mean only different version technically i.e. just a new crop or different color balance etc (I suppose alvesgaspar understand this).. but also different version aesthetically. Let's say that a user has a subject and tries different angles of view, different lenses, difference distance of the subject.. all of them are actually photographs of the same concept / subject.. probably these images can be nominated in a single nomination.. and the result of the feature picture (if any) will be a single image. Ggia (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ggia for your very brave input.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think "A different version of the same picture" is one of those things that require reasonable judgment. In the specific case of the disaster scene, I think all four versions currently posted are within the bounds of that, though other editors may reasonably disagree. As I see it, they all show enough of the same subject in the same condition from the same point of view. Jonathunder (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- "A different version of the same picture" (with same picture in bold) has a precise meaning: the same shot or photograph, after subjected to some post-processing operation in to order to adjust crop, contrast, saturation or whatever. This was discussed and clarified when the text of the new rules was proposed in the last discussion, and I feel disappointed (and tired) by the fact that no one cared to check that discussion before protesting. Also, we are not discussing here the goodness of the new rules but its application to two particular multi-nominations, which are evidently against their letter and spirit. Go ahead and propose a change to the rules, as to permit several pictures of a certain dragonfliy, a tunnel or the M61 galaxy to be presented as a single nomination. But please don't try to twist the facts or insult our inteligence with semantic pirouettes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I understood from the first sight that with "same picture" you mean only same picture with technical differences. If the user can post more different images of the same picture (meaning aesthetically/concept/subject) we have some advantages.. When for example a user would like to add some pictures of a tunnel (ie. ComputerHotline), of the same place.. we can say to him.. find the most outstanding images of this place and post them in a single nomination with alternative versions. There are many situations that a photographer has more pictures from the same subject. Ie. Mbz1 did now.. probably you will be the next user doing - using that.. ie. may-be you will have 2-3 pictures of Porto Covo rocky sea-landscape that you consider all outstanding.. and you are not sure which one to nominate.. In this way of interpreting the rule.. you can nominate all of them in the same nomination.. and let the community decide which is the best.. For sure a clarification of the rule is needed here. But lets make the rule work for the community. Ggia (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Even, if a different version of the same picture" is what you claim it is, there's no rule that states: "Different pictures must have a nomination of their own." So if somebody is twisting the facts, it is you, and not only twisting the facts, but making personal attacks in process. Please stop!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When the new rules were being drafted, this was discussed. I agree with Mbz1's current way of thinking [6], but both Alvesgaspar and Dschwen disagreed, and their opinion prevailed. I would still support changing the phrase "same picture" to "same subject", but we would certainly need a new vote. I don't think Alvesgaspar should be blamed for enforcing the rules as they are. No comment on the language used, I haven't read in detail, but I am aware that both Alvesgaspar and Mbz1 both use somewhat fiery language at times. --99of9 (talk) 04:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 99of9, for explaining to me what alves meant. Now I understood, but the thing is that to understand it, one should have read not only the rules themselves, but also the discussion about the rules. It is not the way it should be. Whoever wrote the rules should have wrote rule #12 that way: "A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version. A different version of the same picture means the same shot or photograph, after subjected to some post-processing operation in to order to adjust crop, contrast, saturation or whatever. The different images of the same subject photographed at the same time and on the same place do not consider to be a different version of the same picture and should have their own nominations. " Now, when I understand the rule, I will comply with it in a feature, but I disagree with it.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- My previous explanation being identical to the one provided by 99of9, I can only understand Mbz1's behaviour as bad faith. Playing dumb in these circumstances reveals intelectual dishonesty and a lack of respect for the community and its agreed rules. I am tired of seing Mbz1 being treated with white gloves, as if she weren't a responsable adult. We all know the practical result of such treatment: frequent disruptions and personal attacks against those who dare to oppose her pictures or go against her will (not only me, as all know). I'm no more and no less than any other user and I have the right to express my opinions, to protest agains improper behaviour and to enforce the agreed rules whenever I think it is appropriate, without being insulted. No, I'm not going to provide any links to previous incidents or present a formal protest in the usual place. But will gladly support a generous forced rest if someone takes the initiative. Right now, the only thing I'm going to do is to insert a FPD template in those multi-nominations (as I should have done before). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
@Alvesgaspar before applying FPD templates wait till this discussion to finish. Adding now this template seems like you want to use it as a personal attack to Mbz1. Ggia (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I took the templates off and withdrawn the nominations not because I believe alves is right, but because I am tired of endless confrontations with him and lycaon.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It is unbelievable. I asked for rules clarifications. My comment was here for 48 hours before 99of9 was kind enough to explain what those rules meant. Adding template to this nomination that is to expire on its own in just a few hours was a harassment in its worst. Ggia and Jonathunder also seem to have difficulties in understanding the rules. Are they playing "dumb too"? Are they also reveal "intelectual dishonesty"? Why 99of9 instead of screaming that I was "playing dumb" and "reveal intelectual dishonesty" took their time to explain to me clearly what it was about. You did not even bother to link to the right discussion. you just linked to archive#9! Watch your language, stop personal attacks. If you have a problem with me, it is not the right place to discuss it. You know how to file report to AN/U don't you, alves.
The rules as they are written now do not provide a clear understanding what is a different version of the same picture, and until they are fixed do not add any template to my nominations! --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nominations to close

Ghabara foolishly nominated 8 images at once, of them 4[7][8][9][10] were tagged for being too small. I'm removing all but the 2 oldest that weren't tagged, removing their FPD tags and archiving the rest, we've already got over 70 active nominations. If I'm mistaken just revert. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Please don't remove manually the pictures with FPD templates. That will be done automatically by the bot, which will archive them in the proper place (which you didn't). Also, you cannot choose which pictures are to remove and which are to stay. If there are 8 pictures nominated by the same user, the two older ones are to stay (that is not what you did). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • {{FPX}} says that an image can be closed 24 hours after it has been tagged with it if no one contests it, and I explained which ones I "chose" and why I did above, because they were the oldest, meaning all but the first 2 that had been added to the candidate list that were left after closing the ones that were FPX'd. Also it seems to me that I did archive them correctly, it says to move recently closed nominations to the bottom of the page, I put them in order of oldest to youngest (though the procedure really needs more clarification for what to do in the case of non-featured closes). Why's the bot so slow for anyway? --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Your intentions were certainly the best but something went wrong, as the two oldest pictures were removed and replaced with #3 and #4. This is a boring, time consuming and prone to error process, better to leave it to FPCBot (I did it by hand during some months, some time ago). I'm not sure why the bot takes so long to react. One of the possible reasons is when there are comments inserted after the FPX or FPD templates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Image notes

Image notes are currently disabled. Should the introductory text "to add or modify image notes" be removed until if/when image notes are restored? - MPF (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well they're back now so no action needed - MPF (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

New rules

I don't think that the new rules on two active noms each is working. Most of the pictures that really have no chance of making it are nominated by newbies, who rarely nominate more than one at a time anyhow. On the other hand, ComputerHotline or Archaeodontosaurus have dozens of feature-worthy pictures, but they can't nominate them, because of the new rule. So basically, it's not cutting down on the very poor-quality nominations, it's just causing trouble for dedicated Commons photographers. This new rule was made to help reviewers out; well, I'm more active as a reviewer than as a nominator, and I have not noticed any decrease in low-quality nominations. Am I alone in thinking this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, ComputerHotline was one of the reasons the active nomination limit was conceived. People did not want to see twenty tunnel pictures followed by twenty waterdrop pictures etc. Most of his pictures are good, making it hard to just dismiss them, but I'd be very careful in declaring them all feature-worthy. Just my two cents. --Dschwen (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, not to mention the countless NASA images. Or the prophets of disgrace, who vaticinated the slow death of FPC. On the contrary, it seems we need to make the rules even more strict! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It is good news that plenty of high quality pictures are waiting at the door. It means that (maybe) we can raise the bar so that we keep promoting the same 30 pics a month or so (with obvious damage to my own pics, who cares?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by "prophets of disgrace"? I don't think we should remove the new rule although, twenty images at once is a bit extreme. How about raising it to five or so? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I really don't understand the need to restrict nominations. I think it is good to have more than 30 FP every month. Yann (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Restricting nominations and having 30 FPs a month are not mutually exclusive. The new 2 active nom rule is fulfilling its purpose and should stay. A more stricter assessment of the others is still an option though. Lycaon (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine with the limit of two for self nominations and I think this is the reason for the new rule. However we should be free to nominate as many other pictures as we want. It's not stated so clearly right now. Otherwise if I see two pictures of the same quality and one is mine I nominate mine. This is not serving quality. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

(restore indent) -- When this solution was proposed it wasn't meant to address the excessive number of self nominations only. I remember some users nominating piles of NASA and flickr pictures and, if I'm not wrong, this was the real problem. As for the number of monthly promotions, remember that a FP is supposed to be the best Commons has to offer, not just a quality seal. And if the general quality is increasing, so our assessment bars should do the same. 30 is only an indicative number, given by the need of showing a FP in the main page every day. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I know the rule has its purpose, for instance newbies who don't read the rules nominating 8 images at once, but I do feel kind of inconvenienced by this rule as well, now I have to wait every 5 or 6 days to nominate something, plus I think newer and older nominations get most attention while users seem to be to lazy to pay attention to the nominations in the middle. It's good and bad really, we might have our little stash of images we want to nominate, but if there were too many active nominations people might get too lazy to examine all the images and vote. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
What's wrong with NASA or flickr images? Some of them got to the final round in POTY, and even in the first 3 winners. I do not recall yours ever did.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Alvesgaspar that a dozen of NASA pictures of ISS from top, behind and below is as boring to review than self nominations of the same antelope from front, back and the side. But if a user has found potentially excellent pictures of different subjects I don't see a necessity to limit the number of nominations as far as they are foreign nominations. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, This restriction doesn't prevent bad images to be submitted. It also doesn't prevent people to submit the same kind of images all the time. There is no proof that such a restriction would ever improve the overall quality of FP. I don't see it could anyway: there is no relation between this restriction and the quality of submissions. The FP should be selected by quality and other relevant criterias alone. This only annoys some contributors. Yann (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Then what if we made a rule that you have to specify which FP category the nom goes in and you can only nominate one category at a time? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
One category or one picture per category at a time? Wolf (talk) 20:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
One picture per category at a time. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It would make a lot more sense. Yann (talk) 09:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
That proposal is a step towards te right direction. I would be fine with two images per category. A whale and an elephant are are hard to compare. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If there are many photographs of the same subject probably a good idea will be to propose some of them to be delisted (ie. keeping the best images aesthetically). Ggia (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Then let's have a vote.

Supports

  1.  Support If the proposer can vote. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  2.  Support the general idea.. but needs also some more discussion. Ggia (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

How can you start voting without a clear set proposal? The discussion above contains a lot of statements and vague proposals. Please first prepare an unambiguous proposal, discuss it and then move to a vote. Lycaon (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

All right, here is the proposal in full detail.
  1. That the rule about nominating only two things at once be abolished.
  2. That one can only nominate one picture in one FP category at once.
I think this would be of more benefit because it would avoid flooding (e.g. ten tunnel picture, ten insect pictures) but on the other hand not restrict those who have many diverse things they wish to nominate. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Supports and opposes

If you have seven support votes, but have at least one oppose, as here, is it featured? Because 7 - 2 = 5. Still ,it does have seven supports and at least a two-to-one ratio. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correctly featured. Opposes do not subtract, they are just doubly weighed against the supports. --99of9 (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

derivative works - alternative versions

I have the following question. When we see an Image as feature picture candidate (or generally speaking in commons) and we want to enhance it (ie. correct brightness, remove noise, tilt etc..), shall we upload it as a new version (derivative work) or we just update the original file?

i.e. here [11] Mbz1 uploaded [12] as a derivative work.. Later if you see the history file of [13] I updated the original file with the (alternative) version of Mbz1.

i.e. here [14] me (ggia) uploaded [15].. when I asked [16] a permission to update the image Alvesgspa said to upload new version [17].

i.e. here [18] I corrected the tilt and I directly updated the old version of the image without asking permission [19].

I believe (and we can discuss it).. that a new version of an image that has technical improvements should be an update to the original image. If the owner or the community doesn't like it.. there is always the option to return to the original version (the old file is in the history, it is not removed).

In cases that some creative crop or creating a new work (ie. combing a set of images), there a new version should be uploaded separately. I think that in cases that a user tries to correct some technical problems.. the image should be directly updated..

Using a retouched version of an image as alternative option for voting.. looks a little strange.. i.e. here [20] both versions are almost identical.. It will be strange situation for one picture to receive 5 votes.. and the other 4 votes (by different users) and not to be promoted as feature picture.

Ggia (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Hello.
  • I have to say that I dislike "alternative versions" in FPC. IMO, it is the responsibility of the nominator to chose the version he wants, not the reviewers (agree with Alvesgaspar here). Furthermore, I think that the nominator has to chose only one, without alternative in the same nomination.
  • Alternatives by others : If I chose a black background for a masking, it is my choice. I disagree to see near my nomination a thumb with a white background ! In these cases I don't understand for what we are voting. "Support this one, decline this one, prefer this one etc" (agree with Ggia just above).
  • One can suggests improvements, or make comments, or support or decline, the nominator can ask for help or advices, but that is the only things acceptable in FPC nominations page, no uploading nor showing other versions.
  • Everybody is free to change or re-work my own pictures, but not to nominate in FPC the "new" version, even "improved" (Remember the chalice ?) as an alternative version during the voting period IMO.
  • Once or twice, sometimes, I've corrected the perspective, a tilt or minor issues for other users. As it was fundamentally the same picture, I uploaded it over the original version in the file page, but reverted immediately to this previous version, with a message to the author, because I think he is free to use it or not.
  • The community rejected recently one of my nomination (in QIC) of a bust of Pompey, because of too soft masking. I re-worked the pic, and submitted another version, after withdrawing my first nomination. Now the new version (promoted at the end in QIC) will maybe be rejected here in FPC because of a too strict cut off. That is MY problem. If rejected by the community, the community is right, and I'm wrong. I'll wait until the end of the voting period, re-re-work my pic, and maybe (not sure) submit a new nomination. But I surely would not like to see now, in FPC nominations page, near my work, an "alternative version".
  • One nomination means One photo. No exceptions. Only words as comments.

Thank you for reading this, sorry for my english.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Change of the background of an object (from black -> white) it is is not a technical improvement of an image.. but a new creative derivative work. For exammple masking the sky or other parts in order to have more vidid colors, correct the tilt.. or generally make the image look a little better.. for me it is not derivative version or alternative version.. but it should be uploaded/updated in in original image. Ggia (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As all know, I'm against presenting various pictures of the same subject in the same nomination. I also agree with Jebulon that improved versions of a picture should be presented only by the nominator (after a suggestion, for example). That is a question of courtesy. But I'm not against showing more than one version of a picture in a nomination, as a response to suggestions made by the reviewers. This is better than replacing the original because it is possible to put them side by side and make an objective comparison. In the end, all spurious versions should be deleted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Alvesgaspar that it can be useful to add new versions in response to reviewer's suggestions. There is also one particular situation where I find uploading over the top of an existing nomination to be very inconvenient. This is when a reviewer has made annotations as part of their review, and in addressing them, the nominator uploads a file with a different resolution (e.g. due to a different crop or restitching, as in this nomination after Sting's comments). Then the annotations are no longer visible, so it is difficult for other reviewers to follow the first reviewer's comments. --Avenue (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version of File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg which fixes the issues raised in the previous candidacy. How can I nominate it again? bamse (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help !!

I've made a mistake in the "delisting section" because of my misunderstanding of the process, and I don't know how to correct. Can somebody help ? Thank you and sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell is what and were the mistake is? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The same or a different image?

Please take a look at the alternative version in this FPC nomination. IMO, and according to Rule 12, it is a different image and should not be nominated as an alternative. The considerations made by Ggia about the original being a cropped version of the alternative is not convincing. Thougths? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The most important is to finalize the previous discussion Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Proposal_to_change_the_rule_#12 and not to start a long discussion about this specific example.
Let's say that you are right and the alternative image is removed. Soon Mbz1 can nominate it as a new nomination. All these discussions seems that we don't like photos by users to get FP status. Our goal here is to have more FP as we can get.. not building walls using the rules in order to stop users to nominate more high quality images.. If a user likes his/her photos (that are high quality technically - aesthetically) to get FP status we have to give congratulations to him.. (a FP status is a kind of reward by the community).. We have to make users to upload more and more high quality photos under open license (ie. creative commons license 3.0 sa).. not to build walls using the rules. Ggia (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
A basis for a civilized discussion is being polite (it is also a rule). Please explain us what do you mean by "Please spare all us of the rethoric"? Ggia (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Ggia, for stating your opinion. That post actually has nothing to do with the image at all. It is not about image, it is about retaliating to me personally for this. The image was nominated on October 18 and nobody complained about this up to now, October 22, (for more than 4 days), but today the time came for retaliations. You see, Ggia there most editors come here to evaluate images, but a few trolls come here to retaliate to a photographer they do not like. Here's a great example of what I am talking about. It was said about the image supported by 17 editors and opposed only by three trolls. So please do let it go, as I let it go. Trust me on this, it will be safer for you. I know.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you never stop evaluating other people by your own standards? Will you never stop spilling your venon? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I apologize if my comments seemed unpolite. But yours weren't very constructive either. We all know that the agreed rules have to be applied (as fast as possible) while a new concensus is not reached, which is the case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info -- As no further comments were made on this specific case, the nomination was closed in accordance with the present rules. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • However, one of the interested parties (Mbz1) removed the template twice. I refuse to participate in an edit war though the rules fully support the use of the template and no further arguments applying to this specific nomination were presented (other than the one by Jebulon, in the nomination page, who supports it). This was a trolling action which seriously disrupts the normal functioning of the FPC forum. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • It is silly to close with an FPD when the nomination has run so long. Alvesgaspar, please refrain since you are clearly in conflict with Mbz1 at the moment, and are thus an involved party. --99of9 (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Before I address the main subject, let me clarify something: I was not in conflict with Mbz1 at the time I noticed the problem and wrote the first comment in the nomination section. Memory is short and people may have forgotten that I was involved, in a consistent way, in the recent attempts to unblock her. Maybe a visit to Mbz1’s archives will help to refresh our little grey cells! So, my warning left at the FP nomination was not a consequence of my conflict with her, it was the cause! Second: we are all volunteers here and the maintenance work is not properly organized. That explains why some problems related to nominated pictures run unnoticed for some time. It has happened in the past and will happen again in the future. I’m no inspector here and cannot be blamed for not noticing this specific problem before; neither can I be blamed for trying to enforce the rules only four days after the nomination was made. Is it really silly to close a nomination which does not comply with the agreed rules some time after it was made? Please think carefully. If that is indeed the consensus of the community maybe we should reflect it on the rules! I will comment no more on this issue but sincerely expect that a reasonable decision is made. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • PS - After Mbz1 called me a liar in her talk page, I have to admit that when the above comment was written another conflict was already going on, related to this nomination. I apologize for not having been accurate. However, the accusation that my action was a retaliation is outrageous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I didn't say it was retaliation, just that you are too involved at the moment to take this kind of action. If someone else wants to take action, I suggest that they strike through the alternative, since it's only the second image that exceeds the current limits.99of9 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome template

Should we have a welcome template for the newbies on FPC? Something like:

Welcome to the FPC project! Here, we nominate files to become featured pictures. Please read the image guidelines carefully before reviewing and nominating. If you have any questions, you can take them to the project's talk page. Again, welcome! ~~~~

this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading edits directly over existing image pages?

Please see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User_Nightscream_-_uploading_edited_images_over_pre-existing_image_pages. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Something is broken here...

... when Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarychev Peak.jpg gets featured. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that Avenue's version is better and its size is similar to that of the source file. It appears that most reviewers did not have an opportunity to evaluate Avenue's version. It may be helpful to add an admonition to the FPC criteria to avoid increasing the file size significantly when editing the file. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to change the rule #12

For the last few days a few users expressed the wish to allow the nominators to nominate alternatives even if those are different images of the same subject. That's why I'd like to propose to change the rule #12 like this:In addition to an original image a nomination might contain up to 2 alternatives. The original image and the alternatives, if any, have to be images of the same subject.

Example

Please take a look at this nomination and at this nomination. They both have alternatives, but the first nomination is in violation of the rule #12 as it is written now because the alternative 1 is a different image, taken 6 minutes after the original. The second nomination is not in violation of any rules because the alternative is a different version of absolutely the same image. Under new rules both nominations will be OK, and only one image, if any, of those nominations will get promoted.

Supports

  1. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Ggia (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. In such situations as here and here, everyone will have different opinions on which is best, so it is best to select it by discussion. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. Agree. It like to nominations FPC in English Wikipedia with alternatives. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Let's not make it impossible for nominators to put up images. We don't need rules for everything. --Muhammad (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  6. Agree, but... From my point of view this is one of very low important rules here. If image is really good, it is voted by poeple very easyly by high number of participants. If there is "something" with it, the nomination of alternative image helps only in minimum cases. And I agree with Muhammad Mahdi Karim: We don't need rules for everything. --Karelj (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  7. Agree. 99of9 (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  8. Agree. It will enrich the discussion and add new perspectives. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  9. For me this makes perfect sense. For me part of the review process is to react on the feedback in the review, and if the response indicates that another photo of the same subject in the creators personal archive taken a little sooner or later could better address the points raised by the reviewers, I can only see that as beneficial for the objective of promoting the best possible pictures. It is not without risk to nominate an alternative. It is well known that some reviewers will prefer the new version and oppose the original, leading to a spread of votes and a larger risk of none of them being promoted. I realize that some creators are better at finding the optimal nomination initially. It depends on the person, and if alternatives works better for others, I do not see why not. Having said that I sometimes see that some creators seem very eager to shoot, upload and nominate without really doing their homework first and scrutinize the photo for defects, check that criteria are met etc. Whereas this is understandable for new users on FPC, some "veteran" nominators could frequently do better on this aspect and thereby save some time for the reviewers in the review process. --Slaunger (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Resulting from the discussion below, I would like to propose that, initially any nomination should only contain one image, and that up to two alternatives (an alternative being defined as a different version of the same picture' or a different picture in a series of the same subject) may be added in subsections as a response to suggestions from reviewers received during the review. That is, something like A new nomination only contains one original image. Based on suggestions from reviewers up to two alternatives (an alternative being defined as a different version of the same picture or taken from a set of pictures of the same subject at approximately the same time) may be added as subsections during the course of the review. This may be rephrased more compact and concise by a native speaker, but I hope you understand the idea. --Slaunger (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  10. I like that this gives a nominator a loophole to the 2 nominations rule. It allows you to nominate a couple of images at once, this isn't just being greedy! It allows you to get reviewer opinions much faster than having to wait for another eligibility. It's good for photographers because they can get reviews of different techniques and styles much faster.
    What I don't like about this concept is that this is FPC of an image depository. If it were Wikipedia where only one image is allowed to demonstrate a subject it would make more sense to allow voter consensus to select from whichever image they really think is the very best demonstration of that subject, and I have made that argument there before as some of you know, so in that way it kind of makes sense just to nominate one image of a subject at a time since Commons is a bit more about the image than a subject. But the good outweighs the bad to me per my above paragraph, so I support this redefinition. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposes

  1. As before. In my opinion it is the responsability of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to make the best choice among the available images of a certain subject. Furthermore, I don't believe it is possible to write a consensual definition of "same subject" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think a black and white line is really necessary. If the images are so different that they are not of the same subject, the nominator is shooting themselves in the foot, because if nominated separately they might have both become FP. --99of9 (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • My opinion is that such facility will open the door to nominations in trios, as a way to increase the chances of promotion, thus subverting the spirit of the last improvements. Not to mention the extra burden on the reviewers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  2. Always the same people who want to avoid or circumvent rules to their own advantage. Just accept what we have agreed on. Lycaon (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • To my own advantage? I have only added another version of a picture once to twice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The way that you write this seems like having something personal with some users. I support the idea but I never used alternative versions. What do you mean "own advantage". If somebody has the lot of featured pictures here wins something?, ie. earns some money? Ggia (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't make this discussion of a rule change personal. Your opposing statement tars every supporter with the same brush. --99of9 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Who are the "always the same people?" Name names, provide evidence. The actual rules replaced older rules, and it was done via consensus, but the consensus was not to cast the new rules in stone... and just as the new rules were brought upon as an improvement, new contributions to existing rules is an improvement on an improvement... it is called evolution... and this particular proposal makes sense, because it allows for more flexibility and invites photographic dialogue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. I say the rule should be about categories in which an image will appear once featured. Wolf (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
    • I do not understand what you mean, and how it relates to the proposal. Could you please clarify it in Comments section? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It's been discussed in the New rules section; FPCs fall into specific categories, like objects/vehicles, so: one image per category at a time. If more clarification is needes, I will do it below. Wolf (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Wolf, a new proposal has nothing to do with this. I believe my English is not good enough to formulate the proposal better, but please let me try to do it one more time: Of course only one image from all alternatives will be promoted. Please see section Example I just added. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  4. a FP image should stand out clearly without variation, there are always alternatives but you should choose a picture, otherwise the impression that you want to force a FP, that's not good. l.g. sorry for my english --Böhringer (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  6.   • Richard • [®] • 08:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  7. In my opinion it is the responsability of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to make the best choice among the available images of a certain subject. Furthermore, I don't believe it is possible to write a consensual definition of "same subject" -- Alvesgaspar It is perfect exactly what I think. The FP with the most votes are generally unique and have no options. -Böhringer. I fully agree. If I nominate a picture in FPC, I think I show the best version. And then, it is no more time for improvement discussions, only for judgement discussions. The nominator can re-upload a new version over the old one (and then inform the previous reviewers), but the practice of alternative versions is very confusing, and has furthermore a contradiction with the rule of only two active nominations per nominator. Other argument against the proposal: I think that if you have a choice between "1" or "2", you are tempt to choose (I dislike "1", then I have to support "2". It is human, and very well known in psychology as a mental manipulation practice (It is not a problem here !!!!). It forces FP IMO (as says Boehringer ? My english is not so good...) I prefer open choice (yes or no) than close choice (one or two). Example of open choice: "do you want a fruit ?". Answer is Yes or No. Example of close choice: "Do you prefer apple, or banana?". Answer is "1" or "2", but never "strawberry" (except for my younger son...), nor "I really dislike fruits". --Jebulon (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  8. One and only one image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrals

Comments

Let say that a user propose 2 alternative versions and both of them have the same number of votes (positive-negative) and the ratio between positive/negative votes is good enough for the images to be featured.. which image will be featured? I suppose that talking about alternative versions we mean that in the end one of them will be featured.. Ggia (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course only one image might be featured. If the ratio of the votes are the same, It should work as that: If an original has the same ratio as any alternative does, an original is featured. If alt 1 and alt 2 or alt 3 have the same ratio,then alt 1 should be featured, and so on. Why? Because a nominator usually nominates the images in the order he/she likes them best.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- The text is ambiguous. Same subject may have different meanings. Are the "same river" or the "same biological species" or "the same tunnel" or the "same person", shot at the same or different times, considered the same subject? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd say, yes.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
for example let say that you make a portrait of a human. ie your photo [21], alternative versions will be other photos that girl with different expressions.. It is normal for a photographer to make 10 photos of a portrait.. then (s)he finds 2 of them interesting.. but (s)he is not sure which one likes more.. I think it is normal to nominate them as alternative versions.. You are right that this text is ambiguous.. but we can all use common sense.. I can give more examples if you like.. Ggia (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing General Rule 12

When Alvesgaspar wants to make a change, no consensus is needed. even when it's part of a campaign of harassment against Mbz which has very nearly got him banned from interacting with her. (Struck personal attack and link to an unrelated dispute. Please see Gnangarra comment below and en:WP:PA. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

When a majority vote against his recent change, suddenly a majority is not enough to overturn his no-consensus change to the rules.

86.132.7.73 22:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess, is that you Adam? --Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
On a more serious note, dear anonymous, I think the whole problem is that the proposal to change rule #12 was never closed and thus not formally adopted. I agree that currently it has a majority of 8 for changing the rule and 6 against, and so it seems to point in the direction of a change of rule #12. It would of course be better is such a rule change could be reached by consensus than by simple vote counting, especially when the number of votes is so low, and the difference between supports and opposes is so close. I would therefore tend to agree that currently there is no clear consensus for a change of the rule. I will now go up and vote as well, thereby adding to the statistics as I have now carefully considered the pros and cons and made up my mind. I do not think that the bringing up of the underlying intentions for doing this and that edit is particularly constructive. We are trying to look ahead and the relations between mbz1 and Alves seem for me to have improved. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a consensus for the "clarify" edits either.[22] It seems wise to me to not make that change without first seeking a consensus through discussion. If I may make a general observation: when making a substantive change to criteria, it is helpful to provide an edit summary that describes the substance of that change. Doing so makes it easier to trace the history of a particular provision. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your observation regarding this particular edit and your general recommendation to provide an edit summary referring to the discussion leading to the "clarification". --Slaunger (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the most fair thing currently would be to roll back the rules to the Sep 19 revision just prior to the discussed edit by Alves, wait for a proper closure of the proposal to change rule 12, and then implement needed changes if relevant. That would be fair and unbiased IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If some users find this rule change as a "hole" in the rules for users to nominate more images.. which means that the problem is the limit of 2 images per nomination.. then a new proposal for rule change can be made in order the number of active nominations to be i.e. 3 or 4. Ggia (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but for me it seems rather unlikely that this is really a problem. In the end only one of several alternatives can be promoted, and as noted above there is always a risk involed introducing alternatives because support votes tend to be dispersed among them and there may be more oppose votes on versions the individual reviewer does not like. This leads most often to a general lower chance of promotion of any version. --Slaunger (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Slaunger. Alternative images.. it is not a "hole" in the rules for a image to be easily promoted as a featured one. Ggia (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • when I made the original proposal of active nomination limit not Alves it was a two part proposal, the first part was to put onus on the nominator to make a critical choice(1 active nom), the second part the exception for alternatives was about edits like crops, rotation, colour balance, that occur as these edits are important component of the FP process. While that exception has morphed to include alternative perspectives and focal lengths providing that only one image is promoted it really should be a non-issue. My original suggesion was 1 active an alternative of 2 active was put forward almost immediately then a few days later 5 active was proposed, not one of those options was by Alves. The thing is this wasnt about harassing anyone it was a dicussion over time that produced many proposals that the community then voted! on, towards the end the most pointy of arguments was between Alves, Adam and myself over the process because the 5 active nomination wasnt IMHO given sufficient time for consideration compared to the alternatives. Consensus was there for a 2 active nomination variant and it was closed that way, much to my disgust about the closing process. For an annon editor to come here and link to a dispute isnt even associated with the it and thats well on the way to resolution/recovery is unacceptable I have half a mind to block you for being disruptive...... Gnangarra 15:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Gnangarra; Thank you for your history of this matter and your opinion that including "alternative perspectives and focal lengths providing that only one image is promoted it really should be a non-issue." I agree that the anon's intemperate words are unacceptable and I have struck them. Earlier, I rewrote his/her heading to be neutral.[23] Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Shall "Proposal to change the rule #12" be closed as approved?

The edit by the anon implementing the "Proposal to change the rule #12" has held since November 3.[24] Slaunger's suggestion to revert to the Sep 19 revision (above, November 3) was not implemented. Since Slaunger's summary, another support has been added making the tally 9 to 6 in favor of the proposal. Gnangarra in his/her comments in this section seems to support it as well, but has not voted on the proposal.

It seems to me that Alvesgaspar's words, that alternative versions "should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version" are sensible and should be retained. Discussions that do not follow this guidance may be confusing.[25] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  •  Comment -- Something is very wrong here, as the text of rule 12 now appears as if the proposal to change rule 12 were approved. As a matter of fact it was not and I see no clear consensus that can replace the strong one we achieved some months ago. I intend to roll back the whole thing up to this version: [26], unless some better idea comes up. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • PS - Changing the text to 19 September' version makes no sense, as the change of 24 September was intended to clarify rule 12 and was explicitly asked by Mbz1, who claimed it was not clear enough. Do we really want to revert the rules to a version which is considered ambiguous by the same people who are trying to change them? Please let us be serious here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reverted to the 19 September version, per the suggestion of Slaunger, above. Your edits of 24 September are disputed. A number of editors think that your words are too restrictive; similar pictures of the same subject should be permitted as alternatives. You wrote, "In my opinion it is the responsability of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to make the best choice among the available images of a certain subject. Furthermore, I don't believe it is possible to write a consensual definition of 'same subject'". I think those are good points and I thank you for making them. However, Slaunger, Gnangarra and other serious editors have a different opinion on how restrictive the language should be.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The 19 September words were proposed and discussed on 02 June (Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_9#Guidelines_changes) and implemented on 14 June. In the 02 June discussion, it is clear that the intent was not to include "alternative versions of the exact same subject". Participation was limited; only 99of9 and Alvesgaspar participated in this discussion about this item. It may be difficult to assert that a consensus existed then for this wording given the objection by 99of9. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment -- If, according to the present rules, similar pictures of the same subject are already permitted as alternatives, what are we deciding here? Please notice that only an anonymous user contested the clarification of 24 September. Yes, there is a number of serious editors who agree that the rules should be less restrictive. And the purpose of this poll is, precisely, to decide on such matter. But reverting a good faith editing to a less clear version just because an anonymous user says so is irrational and unconstructive in the light of the present decision process. Not because the older version is ambiguous (in my opinion, it is not) but because it legitimates the anonymous trolling action and may be a pretext to re-start previous attempts of multi-nominations. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Slaunger, Gnangarra and I variously characterize the anon as unconstructive, unacceptable, and blockable. I'd like to think that I'm sensitive to your concern about abuse of the process, also, But, the poll above suggests to me that your words would not gain a consensus and should not be added without that consensus. Instead, it may be more fruitful to make adjustments that would garner more support from those who think it is too restrictive. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • If I understand well, you are already trying to anticipate the expected result of the poll (in a surreptitious way?), which is questionable. Because logic arguments seem not to have any effect, I give up my participation in this thread. Just an hypothetical question before I leave: what will happen if I nominate now two or three different pictures of the same subject in the same nomination (as a well-konw user did some time ago)? Will it be refused or accepted? If it is accepted then the present poll is unnecessary; if it is refused, the present rules still apply in their original meaning and my clarification edit is innocuous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
              • @Alves If you nominate two or three different pictures of the same subject in the same nomination, the current Sept 19 rules state that the alternatives would have to be "different versions of the same picture". This implies for me that if they were taken from different angles they would not be the same picture, and thus not allowed in my understanding of these rules. The proposal to change this rules adresses that it could be different versions of the same subject. With this I understand, if it was approved, that alternatives taken at different angles of view, times of day, etc. would be acceptable. Moreover that proposal would set a max to two alternatives. I agree that this can be clarified further. In my opinion, and this is something I realize now when rereading the proposal to change the rule #12, it should not be allowed to create a new nomination with more than one image in it. Alternatives should only arise due to suggestions in the review process from other reviewers. That could be clarified. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I think it is better to reach a consensus here than to abuse da Wikipédia para provar um ponto de vista (en:WP:POINT) as you appear to suggest. You are welcome to propose your wording. It may be a language problem, but I'm puzzled by your use of the word "surreptitious". If you are suggesting that I'm prejudging the outcome of a poll, I accept that criticism. My goal is to find words that reflect a consensus (or at least a a clear majority) among FPC reviewers. I don't think your words do that. That is just my opinion, as I stated above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
              • For God's sake, we are not seeking a better wording here! While a new consensus is not reached, the present rules apply! And those rules state very clearly that each nomination should only contain one picture and its possible variations (in crop, color, etc.). That was the result of the previous discussion. Is this so diffcult to understand? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)~
                • Alves, I do not think you are being fair to Walt now. I do not see Walts comment as a suggestion not to follow the rules as they are now until a new consensus is found. That previous conclusion is just being revisited now. I do not understand why that should not be allowed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • Slaunger, the problem is on the refusal of Walter to accept my edit of 24 September, which is only a clarification of the agreed rules (still in force). Please read more carefully waht has been written. I give up. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Descriptive version of Rule #12

An alternative approach to rule #12 is to be descriptive rather than proscriptive. "A nomination consists of a one picture and (optionally) a different version of the same picture (with variations in crop, color, contrast, etc.) added as a new subsection inserted after the original version. Some reviewers think it is helpful to allow a similar image of the same subject as an alternative. Others think that it is the responsibility of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to make the best choice among the available images of a certain subject and may not look favorably upon alternatives of this sort." Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IAre we seriously saying that where a rule is widely held to be ambiguous and unclear, that if a majority vote for one interpretation, that we can ignore that completely unless there's a supermajority?
One of the two interpretations needs to pass. We can't just pretend that the option with fewer supporters is the one that should hold because we don't have a supermajority. The poll should be closed as approved, using simple majority, or the rule itself should be scrapped as no consensus on interpretation.
{Personal attack removed.Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)} If there is no consensus on what a rule means, the rule should not exist at all. 86.132.7.73 23:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, was this rule even ever voted on? Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_9#Guidelines_changes does not mention it anywhere, it just suddenly appears, without previous discussion, in Alvesgaspar's list of changes. If noone can point to a vote where the old wording was specifically approved, then either the majority version from the vote above should be used, or the rule should be scrapped outright. oing with a version that never went through any attempt to gain consensus, and which a majority disapproves of, is wrong.'. 86.132.7.73 00:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Above, I suggested that the record indicates no consensus for the 14 June version of Rule #12.[27] That is unanswered. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FPC bot and abnomral support votes

The use of "Strong support" and "Weak support" votes, which are not part of our voting system, is making the FPC bot to close nominations prematurely, as if they didn't have any supports. Please keep to the normal "Support" and "Oppose" templates and add, if you wish, the 'strongs' and 'weaks' after. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I strongly agree. We have rules for voting templates. Simple words are available too to bring some reservations IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Views: Weak and strong votes should..

IdLoveOne

  • FPC Bot or volunteer closers should work with weak and strong votes.
  • A weak vote should only count as 1/2 a vote. Life isn't all black and white, all or nothing to some of us.
  • A strong vote should count as 1 vote, but should cancel out a weak opposite vote: Ex: 1  Weak oppose + 1  Strong support should just count as 1 regular  Support and vice versa. If the voter feels strongly that an image should or should not be promoted they should just use a regular full or strong vote or change their vote to one.

--IdLoveOne (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. This would only encourage tactical voting games and make some user's votes count more than other peoples votes. Unfair. We decided a long time ago to get rid of the strong support nonsense. --Dschwen (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Their vote would count less by their own choice. A weak vote should mean just that if the person doesn't feel strongly enough to offer a full pledge of support or opposition, and in this case it would be like a technical persuasion, though I will agree that number arguments probably should be avoided. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have some concerns:
  • I think it would complicate the evaluation process and make it less transparent. I foresee complaints that votes were added incorrectly.
  • It is difficult for new users to understand the evaluation criteria. Fractional votes may divert users from this.
  • It isn't clear to me that the result would be more accurate or useful to Commons editors or would further the goals of Commons.
  • User_talk:Daniel78 has put a lot of effort into FPCBot. It is exceedingly useful and remarkably dependable. But, in light of my other concerns, I feel reluctant to request changes, and possibly make the bot less reliable, unless we can be sure that both users and the Commons community will benefit significantly. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Dschven and Wsiegmund, please keep it simple. In the meantime, the present rules apply (see the Voting section on the type of templates allowed), meaning that other templates used for voting ma be removed by any editor. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info The text of the template may be overrided with a different one via an optional parameter, if you really want to express a graduation in how much you support or oppose a nomination. For instance {{s|Some Kind of Support}} gives  Some Kind of Support. The bot is robust against the use of this optional parameter to the standard voting templates as far as I know. In the end it is just counted as either support, neutral or oppose. --Slaunger (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Per Dschwen, Wsiegmund and Alvesgaspar. Only three clear choices : pro, contra, and neutral, with the good, frank and clear templates, legible by the bot without problems. Everybody is free to write further explanations, with words. You know what ? In my opinion, using other templates should make the vote null and void.--Jebulon (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Null and void for what reason, other than you just not wanting to use them? Is there a good, unbiased argument? --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, deal with it. --Dschwen (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There isn't one there so I'm still waiting, Jebulon.... --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • You are making discussion unnecessarily difficult by refusing to accept the consensus and rules implemented by the community. Instead you you decide at you own whim what a good argument is and whether it is biased or not. And if you want to have a private conversation with Jebulon then don't write on a public wiki, send him an email. Otherwise drop act and accept that anyone how feels like it may actually address you and answer your questions. --Dschwen (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • @IdLoveOne. I think it is a fair question to ask for reasons and not just refer to "those are the rules", and "we have always done that" types of arguments. Here are some reasons why I think we should not have more finegrained votes.
      1. FPC rules would be lengthier and more alienating for new users. The rules are lengthy and rather extended already, and they should not be further complicated unless there are significant and objectively substantiated reasons for a "refinement" to improve the promotion process. I.e., that the randomness in the promotion process is significantly improved. With a limited number of voters it is such that sometimes the coin will "flip wrong" for borderline images. That is so independent of how finegrained votes are counted. In theory it could be improved a little, assuming voters understood the rules, but I doubt the potential gain outweighs the downsides.
      2. The complexity of the implementation of FPC bot is increased by weak and strong votes. This increases the risk of errors in its tentative vote counts, and makes testing a larger burden for the bot maintainer.
      3. The administrative burden of the human closer verifying the vote counts by the bot becomes much larger. The risk of miscounting or misunderstanding the more complicated voting rules increases, leading to a larger risk of wrong closures. We have a significant influx of candidates, and it is important that an adequate balance or compromise between a simple and fair process is found, where we do not die in administrative burden. I do not know if you have tried confirming FPC bot closures? If you do this chore for a few days, I am sure you will appreciate how easy it is to count votes now .
      4. The advantage of the hard decision logic we have is that we avoid a lot of the consensus arguments seen in other featured picture programs. They drain mental energy, lead to conflicts, and distract from the review process.
    • I hope this answers some of your questions concerning this. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • @IdLoveOne: please understand that courtesy is the only reason why those abnormal templates were not already striked or replaced. The golden rule is: democraticity in the decision process and strict discipline in the implementation of the decisions... Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please be mindful of en:Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (de:Wikipedia:Verhalten gegenüber Neulingen and fr:Wikipédia:Ne mordez pas les nouveaux). IdLoveOne is relatively new, is trying to improve FPC, and this is the proper forum to discuss proposals for improvements. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I see it, it is IdLoveOne who is trying to bite the vets, by forcing his/her own points on the FPC page after being informed, more than once, about the proper procedure. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I understand democracy or however you put it, that's why I created this section here, so that in case other people had views about specific types of votes they could share them and we could all have a proper debate/poll, and I don't just mean people who agreed with me. I'm not the only one who uses the weak/strong templates, you can go through recent archives to see that for yourself. The other users of it either have not seen this talk page in recent days or less likely they're just too scared to explain themselves lest the olde admins take swift vengeance upon them for dissent and insubordination. I'm very familiar with Daniel's hostility from Wikipedia, didn't miss it when I started coming here instead, and here it bears mention that he's somewhat hypocritical. I asked for a reasoned personal argument, such as Slaunger and myself were willing to offer, instead he just posts the rules (and I still haven't read an argument yet for why the weak and strong templates should be null and void or how it's justifiable to overlook a vote that a user took their time to add just because you have an unexplained issue with their choice of template), kind of interesting that on Wikipedia he was the loudest user against the still-in-place 1000px-minimum dimension rule, but that's another issue.
        @Alvegasper - No, I'm not biting or forcing any views on anyone, to repeat that's the whole point of this discussion here on the talk page. Jebulon said something I thought deserved further explanation and I asked. Me disagreeing through the proper forum here on the talk page is not biting and the fact that we're having this conversation and that users do use those templates is simply proof that the consensus for your side of the debate might not be as strong as you think it is and you can't accuse me of bad behavior just for being the messenger of what must for you be bad news.
        @Slaunger - Thank you! Other users here could learn some lessons from you about how to make a proper, civil, reasons-based counter-argument. Thank you for understanding, Walter Siegmund. I've done a couple of closes here (that got reverted because users would rather the bot does as many of them as possible, I had performed them correctly though) and a few dozen on Wikipedia, and I did know about that parameter thing and I guess you may as well use that if we're going to count all votes, even weak votes as 1, but my original point was 'why do that?' Meh. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • @IdLoveOne Just to clarify a possible misunderstanding. The bot does not close the nomination, but preprocesses nominations whose voting period is over. After that there is still a human step of confirming the vote counts, and do various other tasks, which the bot cannot do. Thereafter the bot takes over again, tagging images, put it in the right FP category and gallery page, archive the nom, etc. Another thing that came to my mind. I think that a partial reason for the harsh tone (which I do not appreciate, I should say) in some of the responses you have gotten, is probably due to the fact that the whole thread was triggered by you and others not following the current rules, which very accurately lists which templates currently are allowed. It is OK to suggest changes to the voting system, but it is not OK to use other templates until an FPC decision is reached to change it. I do not think there is any reason to bring in personal conflicts from other wikis here. It is not relevant for the discussion. --Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
        • You asked for a "good unbiased argument" not to use those templates. A good and, I would argue unbiased, argument is that the community has decided against their use. You did not request a "reasoned personal argument". Or at least your post lacked clarification. As for the other "points" of your post, sorry, but they do not make much sense to me. What has the 1000px stuff to do with anything here? Why do you think it is ok for you to call me hypocritical and yet complain about my hostility? --Dschwen (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • @Daniel. I do think it is OK to revisit old rules set in stone from time to time. When did we last discuss on these talk pages the use of graduated votes? I do not recall any discussion in recent years, I tried looking through all the archive pages, but maybe I overlooked something? Back in 2005 I found some discussion about the creation of vote templates. You argue that nothing has changed to make us consider this rule again. I do not agree with that argument. Time has passed, the community has gradually evolved, new users join, others depart. I think it is always healthy to question current rules to see if we still recall why and if we think they are still as they should be. For me at least it was a good process to reconsider and express in words why I think the current voting system is OK. --Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
              • You seem to be missing (or have forgotten) my initial reply to him: This would only encourage tactical voting games and make some user's votes count more than other peoples votes. Unfair. Only after that reply he started making demands for good and unbiased reasons. It does not get more unbiased than the existing community consensus, his position is "biased" as well. How is that good discussion style to dismiss and ignore arguments. I do think it is OK to revisit old rules set in stone from time to time, yes, it is, and I said just that here. --Dschwen (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
                • No, I did not miss the initial comment, which also contained the phrase "We decided a long time ago to get rid of the strong support nonsense". I was looking for an old discussion debating this, and I did not manage to find one? But thanks for clarifying your views. Yes, you do state this is the right place to discuss things. It just somewhat drowned for me in what I perceived as non mellow communication. --Slaunger (talk) 13:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • None the less, I think I'm hearing some frustration in the tone of your post. Phrases like old admins take swift vengeance [..] for dissent and insubordination, paint a grim picture you must have of commons. Don't get me wrong here, this is a discussion page, it is for discussing stuff, and it is certainly the right place to make suggestions. But it is also the right place to reply and comment on suggestions. I made a direct reply to your points which was echoed with a few dittos. My link to the existing rule should have provoked a thought: a decision had been made in that matter. Now what has changed since that decision was made that would justify overturning it? If you come here with a suggestion you should take the possibility into account that it does not meet unanimous approval. And the reason might not be fear of punishment by the evil admin overlords, but actually the suggestion being not a substantial improvement. --Dschwen (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I said it because it's true, because your own example is partial proof of my case - Which is that just because something is a rule does not necessarily mean arguments can't be made against it. On one hand you suggested to me that I should've been totally ok with the current rule because it's a rule, however you yourself have been known to do the opposite yourself - Disagreeing that a rule is unsqueakingly valid just because it's a rule. I want you to understand that I felt that way about this issue, that just because some admins here said 'don't do that' doesn't totally negate the reasons for someone would or should decide to do that. And I thought I did imply that I was asking for a good case to be made in my original reply to Jebulon, but if I didn't then I apologize, but your 'deal with it' reply and harsh comment afterward certainly didn't suggest you being willing to listen to a different opinion or felt you had to explain yourself.
            The thing about the admins isn't aimed at the Wiki admins, it's human nature for most people to be afraid to speak up for themselves if a more powerful person feels oppositely, hence why I said 'less likely', not that Alvegasper and your previous comments that I'm biting by disagreeing doesn't unfortunately match. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Trying to re-focus: I agree with the rationale put forward at the beginning of this discussion by Walter Siegmund, and in particular that the proposal would unnecessary "complicate the evaluation process" and "isn't clear that the result would be more accurate or useful". Furthermore,valuing a strong vote above that of a normal one, could give more power to more emotional participants, which is hardly a desirable outcome. The assessment process should be based on arguments, not on who shouts louder. As a last point, I think it should be expected from a reviewer to do the effort and make a clear choice (support-neutral-oppose), after all the expectations from the authors are also very high. --Elekhh (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I agree, in particular on the point that a strong opinion should be much easier to argue in a short comment. It is then up to the other reviewers if whether they are convinced and agree, or disagree and elaborate in a comment of their own. In my opinion the quality of participation would be lowered if we shift the focus from arguments (and convincing voters in a fact based discussion) to flashy symbols (which automatically increase the weight of your vote, completely independent from rational arguments). There is one further point to consider, however, the multilingualism of the project: in the past template oriented voting was seen as the lowering of language barriers. And in that respect I think quite a bit has changed in the last few years. With the increasing quality of automatic translation services such as google translate I believe these barriers are already lowered enough, so that we can expect most of the users to follow critical discussions on FPC. --Dschwen (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry I forgot to came here recently. I really don't understand the problem (if there is one) with the expression(s) of my opinion(s).
    It seems to be clear, and I strongly agree with Elekhh's last opinion.
    Furthermore, nobody has the right, here or everywhere, to force me to explain further, and certainly not with contemptuous and injunctive words. Those who are still waiting may continue to wait a bit, I'm afraid.
    I wrote what I wrote, and that's enough for me. Then I'll read you, maybe discuss to, and I will vote when it is time to. As a free adult man.
    Je veux bien ne pas mordre les nouveaux (j'en suis encore un) à condition que les roquets ne m'attaquent pas les mollets. But please, let's take a decision at the end, not a mi-chèvre mi-chou one as usual.

Please never forget how it can be difficult for a non english native speaker to understand everything, every words and idiomatic expressions you use here... And I thought I did imply that I was asking for a good case to be made in my original reply to Jebulon is very difficult to understand, except the last word.
I'm not sure about the following but: if some here think that I agree with Alvesgaspar because of false reasons (just too scared to explain themselves), This one doesn't know us both very well, here...
It seems to me understanding that in this discussion some problems are personal, not in consideration to the subject, and may come from other wikis, like English Wikipedia. It is not the first time, and I think "Commons" is not the good location.
And Remember : One picture, one nomination only. One vote, three templates only. Sancta simplicitas !! Thank you and have a good night/day --Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Even for this native speaker, that passage you quote isn't too easy to follow. Shorter sentences can help a lot. E.g. "I would like good reasons to be given. I thought I had implied this in my original reply to Jebulon."
I like having the option of weak votes at en wiki's FPC, where there is typically more in-depth discussion than here, but I think the current Commons FPC voting system seems to fit the community here pretty well. Keeping things simple is good not just for the bot and the closers, but also the multilingual mix of voters here. --Avenue (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe all reviews should be written in English

If a user has difficulties with English, he might use Google translate or any other free online translation himself. It does not make sense for everybody, who wants to read a review to translate it sometimes even without knowing the language it is written in. It is much easier for a reviewer to translate his own review only once.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Per Mbz1 / if the user knows a little bit of English s/he can refine the automatic translation. Ggia (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm, we should not enforce that "rule". If someone decides for whatever reason to write in his mother tongue another user can always provide a translation. --Dschwen (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

@Dschwen, Well, in the latest situation I simply did not know what language the review was written in, and I do believe that it should be a reviewer responsibility to provide a translation (if he wants together with a review in his native language)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if you know what language the review was written in, Google Translate has source language autodetection. The only intellectual feat that is needed is recognizing that a different language was used and not made up gibberish :-)... ...but even that you can find out by trial and error in Google Translate ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I knew there should be something like that, but I could not find it. If there's an option I should have selected?--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, it is the default option: "From Detect language to English" --Dschwen (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Now I found it! And it works. Thank you, Daniel.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Mila, are you honestly saying you did not realize that it was Turkish? I mean you have beautiful images from Turkey, and the user has nominated several images from Turkey. But if in doubt, just ask. --Slaunger (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I hope you do not imply I am lying, do you? No, I did not realize it was Turkish and tried a few different languages before my husband told me to try Turkish.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not implying that you are lying. --Slaunger (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Then if I may suggest, it might be a good idea to use more careful language in the feature communications because I hope you'd agree a question like this "Mila, are you honestly saying you did not realize that it was Turkish?" without even smiley sounded as you were.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear from your comment that you perceived it as such, and if I had added a smiley, it would have been clearer, that this was not my intention. My apologies. Providing a reply as Dscwhen above, would have been more helpful. --Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC).
I almost feel baited .
I know this discussion is triggered to some extend by recent comments in Turkish from Ozgurmulazimoglu. Until recently, this user recently reviewed in English, and got a lot of negative feedback from nominators and other reviewers who felt the reasons given were not good. Following that I recommended the user to shift to his native language in line with the current FPC guideline "English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review." Since then the user has shifted to Turkish, and since then there has been no complaints (except regarding the chosen review language).
I personally find it very hard to understand written Turkish myself. Yet, it is still a language understood by 77 million people, which is quite a bit, so just because 5 million Danes as myself and 300-400 million English speaking people do not understand it, it should be allowed. Commons is multilingual, yet we have far more anglophone(?) users than what is representative for the world. That implies we do not have the diversity of subjects and cultures we could have. I think that is in part due to non-English speaking users feeling discrimitaed by the predominance of English as the de facto written language here. Sure, autotranslation helps, but we have seen many recent examples where autotranslation has led to severe miscommunication and abrasion. If you do not feel comfortable about writing in English you can not get the nuances right in what you write, and I do not feel comfortable submitting an autotranslated comment, as I do not really know what I am saying. Now, if comments are written in the native language you can get the nuances right and you have the "ground truth". There may be misunderstandings in users trying to relate to the comment in other languages, but they can be resolved if needed because the ground truth is there.
Moreover, we have this imbalance in the current rules that a reason must be given for an oppose rule, but not for a support. If comments should be submitted in English, that imposes an extra barrier for opposing for non-English proficient users, as you have to surmount the language barrier. Something, which is not needed if you support. I think it is well known by most regulars that it is not always easy to oppose. If the reason is not properly balanced and nuanced nominator can easily be offended by an oppose, and the opposer is met with unfriendly remarks. A remark which may be due to a unintentional detail in the language not being translated right.
One thing I could suggest, would be to encapsulate the comment in a language template, i.e.,
English: This comment is in English
.
Dansk: Denne kommentar er på dansk
, but do we really need that? --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here to make one of Slaunger's points, but I'll settle for repeating it. English is my first language. When I read an English comment by someone who is not a native speaker, I have to remind myself (and sometimes forget), that s/he is not necessarily fluent in English. If a user writes in Turkish, Russian, or another language I don't know, I don't need to be reminded that the translation of his/her words into English may be imperfect. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dschwen and Slaunger, above. Multilingualism is to be encouraged. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely fine with a review written in a native language, but I still believe English translation should be provided next to it by a reviewer, and then it will be up to everybody, who is interested in the review to read it in a native language or in English. It simply makes more sense, if only one person will add the translation versus few persons going to Google translate or other online translator. In any case this approach (writing reviews in one native language) does not solve communication problems that prompted to offer it in a first place.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I think a "Turkish/English" (for instance) google translation is not the panacea, because English is not the panacea. I notice that recently a turkish-language concept was not really understandable with an english Google translation. But it was, with a "Turkish/French" Google translation... I think I improve my (written) english here with all of you (Thx for this !), and I try to use it the more as possible to me (for me ?). I hope you understand me well enough, but sometimes I'm afraid of use (using ?) wrong/bad/false words, and maybe hurt some of you. When I hurt some of you, I prefer when it is deliberate (I do this very well in French...) . Please let me keep the possibility of using my native language as a tongue crutch, or as at last resort.--Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
A non-English review with an English translation provided by the reviewer would be my second choice. I think it is fine as a voluntary option (the de facto status quo). But, I don't think it should be mandatory.
  1. It doesn't give another reviewer an opportunity to slow down and to try hard to understand the review. With only the non-English review, I'm more likely to look at both the Google and Yahoo-Babel Fish translation; also, I may look at the meaning of one or two important words.
  2. It would increase the barrier to participation by new reviewers by adding an additional requirement.
  3. It may cause double counting of votes if the reviewer translates his support or oppose tags.
  4. Some may see it as devaluing their language, or the work of Anglo-hegemonists.
  5. Some reviewers will write longer, more useful, and more interesting reviews if they are not required to translate them.
  6. Many of our participants are fluent in several languages (all those commenting here besides me, I think). For them, a review in one of those languages needs no translation.
  7. This guideline, in one form or another, has been in place for more than a year.[28] I think it has worked well.
Thank you for suggesting a change to this guideline, but I don't think that efficiency is the paramount consideration on FPC. After seeing many instances of disputes coming to the Administrator's Noticeboard from here, I have other worries. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe all reviews should be written in Mandarine Chinese

Sounds strange, no ?
But why not ?
It is the most spoken language on earth...
No other comments...
ça ne sera peut-être pas un grosse perte, mais le jour où il sera décidé que l'anglais est la langue unique de "Commons", je disparaitrai à l'instant. --Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Prefiero español, pero ingles es el idioma universal aunque no sea el idioma mas hablado del mundo. ZooFari 00:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Le fait de dire que l'anglais est la langue universelle est une assertion contre laquelle je m'élève vigoureusement. Mais j'aime bien l'espagnol aussi...--Jebulon (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
My plea is for more Babelboxes and a few words about where you live (no details) and your interests on your userpage. That may help us understand one another a bit better. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree, as you may see on my own user page...--Jebulon (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

removal of withdrawn nomination

I withdrawn my last nomination because of a technical problem (my mistake).
When the problem will be solved (very soon), I would like to renominate the corrected picture.
I think it should be clearer and nicer if the previous withdrawn nomination were "destroyed".
How could the withdrawn nomination be physically removed from the FPC page ?
How could it be done more quickly ?
By the nominator itself ? By a bot ? By an authorized personal only ?
Thanks for answering.--Jebulon (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


✓ Done by myself --Jebulon (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
But not completely, I'm afraid. Impossible to re nominate...--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't get an answer. Are you suggesting a change in the rules or guidelines? What happens when you try to renominate? Thanks. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Another new user (?)

Please take a look at the user contributions. Some images were voted upon in less than a minute between each other. Were they even reviewed? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Probably not. I think it is very embarrassing and it is a nuisance. Regarding my own pictures, if possible, I would like that these votes doesn't count for a promotion, but how to do ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think he's a very good reviewer yet, but he is making a real attempt. He judges by overall impact not by technical excellence, and while that wouldn't be appropriate for QI, it's ok here. The fact that he's got a higher bar than most newcomers is probably a good thing. --99of9 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    I am not sure I understand the difference between reviewing QI and FP, and besides are you positive he is a newcomer? For example franklin.vp created quite a few socks (lost count) on English wikipedia and at least 3 known socks on Commons so far. How one could be sure it is not a new sock of franklin.vp? But even, if he is not a sock, how one could possibly review two images,vote on them and write a few words review in less than a minute? Such "reviews" by a bran new users should not be taken into account IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Even assuming it is a new user (and I do not recall seeing any user neither old, nor new, who voted on all 40 + FP nominations at the same time) I do not believe reviews that took less than a minute should be taken into account. It is quite impossible to bring up full resolution of an image, review an image, edit nomination, write a few words review, save it, and do the same with another image, and everything in a minute. For example those two: # 19:00, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 7.jpg ‎and # 19:00, 27 November 2010 (diff | hist) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vilnius Pilies street.jpg , but there are more like those.‎ Any good faith new user should of course be given a chance, but not for the cost of the nominations. A nominator has some responsibilities, and a reviewer should have some too IMO. I believe that no matter, if it is a new user or a sock, a reviewer should not count his votes for now. It is one of the reasons the nominations are closed by humans and not by bots. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Puppet voting

I've just blocked yet another puppet account in a series that has strayed here from en wp. I've rolled back the contributions that I could do like that but don'y have the time to deal with the ones I cannot rollback. The user's contributions are here. I do think they should be removed in order to show that we do not tolerate such continuing puppet account behaviour. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

 Question And who is the puppeteer? The fact that someone votes prolifically does not make him a puppet necessarily, does it? However, if the puppet is identified, so should the puppeteer. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who the "original" puppeteer was as this has spilled over from en wp. However the background can be found here. I've now blocked quite a few accounts on Commons that are part of this. Hopefully that helps. --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and on English wikipedia they investigate practically any new user, who cause even a small suspicion. For example this SPI came out negative. It is really sad that because of one abusive sock good faith new editors should be checked.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I would be very concerned about such an approach on Commons - wikipedia can do what it likes. CU is not to be used like that. It cannot prove that someone is not a puppet of someone else - it can only indicate that they may be. The rest (a lot) is down to the abilities and experience of the CU. --Herby talk thyme 17:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I assure you I am not happy about anything connected to that puppet at all. I did neither filed nor commented on the SPI I linked to. I did not know about it, when it was filed, and only saw it much later. If I were asked, if the users in question behave as franklin, I would have said "no". I just linked the SPI to show what's going on at English wikipedia with this particular puppet.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unwelcome criticism ?

Concerning this comment I am disturbed by the implied indiscriminate assumption of bad faith (or lack of intelligence?) of those who expressed critical views of the nomination. FPC, in my view, is a process of selecting images based on merit, not a populism contest, and if criticism cannot be freely expressed, and is not properly valued, the whole process becomes meaningless. Perhaps the introduction section on the FPC page should prepare nominators that criticism is part of the process, and "if you cannot take criticism, don't nominate" or similar. --Elekhh (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The best is resuming good faith.. being polite and clear when you make comments to others nominations.. some people will say that you didn't let a lot of space around your subject (aka let the poor thing breath), others will find you image too noisy.. some people will oppose without having a serious reason or just mentioning "no wow for me".. this is how community votes works.. If an image fails to get FPC status it doesn't mean that it is a bad image.. If an image get an FPC status.. it does not mean it is one of the best images you have made.. Ggia (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Ggia.I assure you that I am absolutely positive that everybody, who opposed the image voted in a good faith, and I have no shadow of a doubt about their intelligence. There are some images that are different. It was not a sunset image. I personally will never oppose an image of something I have never seen myself, never seen a picture of it and do not know how an image should look like. It was probably wrong of me to nominate this image at all, but on the other hand, if during the nomination somebody was able to learn something new, and will spot a glory next time he flies, my time was not lost. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Mbz1 the comment was not to you.. it was a general comment for everybody. Everybody can get upset of other comments.. I suppose that everybody has arrived to a situation to see a user making strong comments to others images.. and when this user nominates an image you wait for an image - example of excellence but you see an average image.. The essential think you can do is to assume good faith.. Voting here has to do also with the aesthetics.. and every users has different view of was is nice/beauty and what is not..
If you want a comment for you.. you have many (a lot) featured images.. the community already supported all your FP.. you must be the one that is assuming good faith even if some images receive negative votes.. I think that you over-reacted when you withdrew your image in the comment [29] (that Elekhh mentioned). Ggia (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume good faith. I have many images of a better quality than that one, but this one is very special. making it FP was not about adding a star to the image. I do have more than enough of those. It was about introducing something new and different to feature pictures in order to educate wikimedia readers, who could have learned something new while looking over FP. I personally was absolutely amazed, when I first learned about glories, and I will never forget the feeling, when I saw my own glory for the first time. I did feel upset, when the image was opposed for so called "minor EV" and because it is "not FP image" with no explanation why it is not, and then the same oppose reasons were repeated over and over again. This image is a special image. I guess I should have learned a long time ago not to nominate special image here. Well this will be a good lesson to me.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Personally I enjoy black & white photography by film.. I enjoy film grain in b&w images (I like most image with people in b&w shot by my manual film camera).. But these images will not have any success here so I don't nominate them (for sure they will fail because of noise).. (also most of my b&w images are with people and probably they don't have enough EV). Ggia (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This image is not special because of any special photographic technique used. It is special because of the subject and because probably never again I will able to see such glory again. This is different from what you refer to. Anyway, I said what I had to say, and I will not comment on that thread anymore. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Contributing images into wikipedia.. IMO is something that we do because we like to share knowledge.. even if some of our images fail to become Featured Pictures.. Don't stop contributing images like because some users voted against this image. Ggia (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thulium sublimed dendritic and 1cm3 cube.jpg

 Question According to the guidelines, what is a personal attack ?
 Question Is it possible to have and express divergent opinions here ?

  • Trying to ridicule insidiously, but nominatively, two reviewers because they have not the general feeling is unacceptable. This is UNACCEPTABLY OUTRAGEOUS to me.
  • Remember history: public humiliation because you don't think "good", even if it is hidden behind false humour, is one of the first steps to fascism.
  • Because the "nominator" suggested previously the purchase, for me, of new monitor and/or new eyeglasses, I have a season suggestion for Santa too : a new straitjacket for our friend.
  • I expect and I hope, now, a reaction from administrators.
  • "J'attends." (Emile Zola)

--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

So element images should not be featured anymore because we have enough? Does this rational also applies for birds and insects having sex? Esby (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jebulon, you have to admit though that you're collecting sorry-s at the moment :-). On a more serious note, I feel it would be nice if you could withdraw some of your over the top comments. --Elekhh (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I admit about the "sorry" s. But I Jebulon really don't need sorry, I Jebulon need nothing here. But my pictures need fair and useful comments, and my own comments are not to be judged or ridiculed. If some disagree or want/hope a special discussion, I have a talk page, and an E-mail. That's what we do with Alchemist-hp now, and the issue is solved because of our peaceful exchange.
  • Therefore, I withdraw the over-the-top word "straitjacket", because it was personal. Nothing else was "over-the-top" in my opinion (are you afraid of words ? I'm afraid of behaviors).--Jebulon (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Jebulon illustrates the magnesium powder, a spark and it exploded. But the explosion happened it is again very stable. We are a self-regulated, and this little slide shows the limits of our institutions. Thank you for Alchemist has his regrets, and if jebulon wanted to recognize that these remarks were a bit strong, we assemble all the example of our society. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with suspicious accounts?

  • From time to time accounts are created with the apparent sole purpose of participating in the FPC forum/discussions or, more specifically, of supporting/opposing specific nominations or proposals. It happened in our past debates and, more recently, with Grinatyou and The.famefactory (account created today). Although in most cases their votes do not affect significantly the outcome of the decision process, they are disturbing and maybe we should have some effective way of preventing them. I don't have a specific proposal but think that some simple method should be found, either based on the number of edits or the age of the accounts. A slight different case is the use of a IP account by a registered user, as a way to stay anonymous during a discussion. It also happened recently and I consider the practise ethically improper. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Combination of number of edits and account age can be used as a measure how suspicious account it is. Ggia (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
How about requiring that a user has uploaded at least n files at Commons as a prerequisite for voting? n could be 5 for instance? The images do not have to be own creations, but should be within Commons scope and not have license problems. If you have shown that as a user you have some basic idea what Commons is about. n should not be too high to avoid accusations of being a "VIP" club. --Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This will not work out. For example Grinatyou (he's also Speedlight) uploaded two images to Commons, and even edited one FPC image, but did it make him less of a sock? Nope.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe not, but 2 < 5, which is the tentative limit I propose. It will weed out meatpuppets, who just create an account to support a friends image. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
To respond to Alvesgaspar, I suggest that reviewers should be encouraged to politely flag dubious reviews and votes on the review page according to a list of criteria. I propose the following criteria.
  • Account age 4 days (semiprotection criterion)
  • Five unchallenged uploads (copyvios, no source, etc., don't count)
The closing editor may evaluate all votes, especially those flagged by others and reject those meeting the criteria. Reviewers may politely flag or remove reviews that are uncivil or disruptive. Such votes may be rejected by the closing editor also.
Mbz1, I agree that the above won't stop Grinatyous. As Slaunger suggests, it will raise the barrier a bit. It is good that Grinatyous are rare. It is not good to make policy to respond to exceptional instances.
That said, raising the upload requirement to 10 or 20 would be fine with me as long as the threshold is 5 or fewer on VI and QI and offer a low barrier for participation. Fortunately, those forums seem to attract less disruption. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we could have a simple rule to filter out sock votes. Similar rules have been set up at various FP projects. On the German Wiki, accounts have to be 6 Months old and have 60 edits, on the Spanish Wiki 100 edits, on the Hungarian Wiki 1 month and 50 edits are the limits. I am concerned that a small numeric threshold on uploads-only can be circumvented by spam (but technically correct) uploads, so I would suggest a longer time limit, the equivalent required to understand the FP process, yet not too long to become deterring from participation (maybe 10 days?). I would suggest that comments should be allowed by any user, the restrictions should only apply to voting. --Elekhh (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand why FPC has to work this way. Just ask a checkuser or file a request... ZooFari 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think because just asking a checkuser is not a just for many users. Not that it is hard to ask a checkuser, but simply because doing a CU is considered very intruding for the targeted users. I recall over the time, that there has been a few cases of suspicios looking new user accounts that were accused of being socks, yet turned out not to be. Setting some activity bar for vote participation is a gentle and undramatic way to filter out some spontaneous. 1. "Create account." 2. "Vote for some personal reason not related to image." cases. --Slaunger (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
An account activity criterion along the lines of what Elekh suggests would also be fine for me. And I agree, it should only apply to voting, not nominating, commenting or participating in talk page discussions. --Slaunger (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me summarize the activity criteria suggested so far (to be used alone or in combination):
  1. Account age (A)
  2. Number of edits (N)
  3. Number of undisputed uploads (U)
My sympathy goes for a combination of criteria 1 and 2, as a prerequisite for voting on nominations and FPC polls. In POTY 2009, voter elegibility consisted in A>6 months (more or less) and N>200. No need for such large numbers, in my opinion. What about A>=30 days and N>=100 ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd say A>10 days, N>= 100 edits. It is easier to remember, and we should not require a too long account age because otherwise we will scare of some good faith contributors coming here with a good attitude just waiting to get started. One reservation I have about edit count is that you may have had edits, which are laregly unrelated to image assessment. You may have been doing categorization, for instance. On the other hand, it is a metric, which is easy to check. --Slaunger (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
These things will be checked automatically by a bot or by us? Probably the best is to have a bot if it is feasible to program it (checking the Account age and number of edits).. and leave a warning message to the talk page of the user.. Ggia (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
IMO a bot would be nice, but I do not think it is strictly needed - at least not for getting started. The inflŭx of new users in the FPC review process is relative limited and I think it can be checked quite easily by hand. --Slaunger (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I support the idea of a bot.. It is better a bot to notify a user that her/his vote is not valid because the account is new or there are not enough edits etc... rather a user to do that.. The user should understand that this is not something personal (if a user do it manually).. but it is a rule that automatically checked by a bot.. And from the other point of view.. who will do this kind of patrolling? It is easier with a bot.. Probably the same bot can be used to add the welcome template to the talk page of the user.. Look this proposal by The High Fin Sperm Whalen: Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Welcome_template.. Ggia (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point. It makes sense. --Slaunger (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The idea of a bot is all right but I'm not sure it is worth the effort. It won't be a trivial task to write such a piece of code, considering r that the verification should be done permanently, not only at the time the nomination is closed. On the contrary, it is very easy to do it by hand because we only need to check the unknown users. Since the result of such verification is 100% objective, I don't see how the operation can be considered as personal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If done by hand, I think we should at least create a specialized (friendly) template for the purpose to put in the users talk page. The template should link to the location of these activity prerequisites for voting in the rules. In that manner it is more likely to be perceived well by the receiving user. --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that A>10 could be sufficient, as it eliminates the possibility of account creation with the sole purpose of interfering in an ongoing FPC discussion. I think N>50 would suffice, still very easy to check. --Elekhh (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this is a big enough problem to be worth the cost. The cost is that new, genuinely interested users (which are the majority), who see our FPs and want to get involved immediately, may get sent away with dismissive messages about rules. I think our regulars are good enough to spot bad faith attempts to influence a vote. I haven't seen anything bad get featured because of vote stacking. --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No cost at all. To check new users is straightforward, quick and objective. On the contrary, it is tricky (not to say impossible) to prove that a new account was created in bad faith. As for pictures being promoted, or not promoted, because of vote stacking, such statistics has yet to be done. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • A dismissive message would be discouraging, but a well-worded message that suggests interim participation on VI and/or QI may be helpful. My first FPC edit was after 60 uploads, 200 edits and 10 days. If that is typical, most editors would be unaffected by most of the criteria discussed above. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • rules, rules, rules, rules, rules where's the mellow people everybody recognises a duck when it quacks deal with it. If the account is a sock account telling them how to blend in is silly, if its a disruptive account sending them off around Commons to do more harm is silly. Yay its new account thats wants to be part of our community why stop them this isnt someone asking for the keys to the tool shed nor is it some deciding on who can. Mellow out its not the end of the world, we dont need to line people up for hours on end, heard them thru x-rays machines, metal detectors and full body searches just smile and nod as the pass thru the door offer to help them find the coffee machine you'll find you'll make more friends who'll want to stay around. Gnangarra 23:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a contributor who has donated hundreds of photos and has just created an account User:HeroidShehu, how do you want to measure him?
This so called "donation" consists of uncategorized, poorly named, encyclopedically useless and mostly out of scope images. My first reaction is not measuring but blocking the user and deleting the contributions. --Dschwen (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
There are some pretty good ones in there, some might have to be deleted. I uploaded them btw. you want to delete all my contributions? I think there is value being added here, some good shots of the mountains, nature, differnt animals. waterfalls, houses. cows. It is some form of documentation. Categories will be added, descriptions will improve. we are the beginning of a long process. Mdupont (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dschwen. Very limited value, and all the personal portrait photos are completely out of scope. Sorry, but I do not understand why you have uploaded them. --Slaunger (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh boy, we are sinking in trash if no action is taken. I endorse speedying all the portraits and OOF images as out of scope. I don't even see the use of the landscapes without any location info. --Elekhh (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am working on the location info, and categories. Please be patient. It is a long term project and a lot of work. Also my work on prizren was welcomed, people helped out. and that is why I continued, now zou treat the photos differently. These pictures form the basis of articles, and even if they wont all be used directly, they can be used indirectly. Please refrain from mass deletions and give us a chance here. I am working on a brand new geocoding tool using a map selection. It is part of the transiki code branch from h4ck3rm1k3 on github. Thanks. mike 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, yep indeed there are lots of pictures which shouldn't have been uploaded by Mdupont they can be removed, and the ones that are needed for encyclopedic purposes they can be used of course, and yep the names should be changed as well, i hope until we finish this you guys can support us or at least give us some time, a deadline until when we're going to finish the stuff (which will be very soon), and yes i told mike to use all my pictures but i meant he could use the ones that are needed for the encyclopedia... HeroidShehu (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Then why isn't anything happening? I deleted about 400 of your 900 pictures. No description would have helped here. Completely useless stuff. Why was there zero filtering of the uploads? Commons is not an image dump. Please be respectful of the contributors who have to clean up after you. Anyhow, I looked through all the uploads and there still is quite a bit of potentially useful material there, provided that sensible descriptions are given. I was quite inclined to just delete everything and have you reupload a selection of images with sensible filenames and descriptions. Some people just should not have access to upload bots. --Dschwen (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have been working on this for a while. There are a bunch of photos from prizren, we have added in all types of descriptions, please dont delete them. This is the first time I have gotten any negative feedback. I guess it is beacause i commented on this thread. Mdupont (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
People noticed it because you commented here. And that is why you got a negative reaction. I can only speak for myself, but I don't see the need to delete any further pictures now. Good luck adding all the descriptions. Take a look at Commons:Geocoding please. Geotags would enhance the images (im particular the landscape shots) a lot. --Dschwen (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_10&oldid=708170862"