Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11

Proposal to temporary change number of active nominations

Its been rough year around Commons for many editors, there has been a lot of heated disputes and nasty comments thrwon around, FPC hasnt been immune from these problems. What I propose is a temporary change to number of active nominations(excluding self nominations) for the period from the 14th December 2010 until 31st December 2010 lets encourage people to appreciate and recognise what others are doing to make Commons a better place. Gnangarra 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

•  Support Gnangarra 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Are you proposing an increase or decrease in the number of active nominations? Powers (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • unrestricted for the period(17 days) Gnangarra 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the community wants more than 2 active nominations per user.. it is something that can be discussed.. I find no-sense to have unlimited nominations for a period of 17 days.. Ggia (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • please re-read the propsal, its sole intention is to encourage people to appreciate and recognise what others are doing after whats been a very poor year with many fine contributors leaving due to disputes, abuse, nasty flame wars surely theres sense in doing that. Gnangarra 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a noble call, one can only hope will be listened to. It can be achieved even without a change to the rules, as anybody can put aside her/his priorities for a few weeks and nominate images by others instead. --Elekhh (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • A nominate other peoples images week (or month) would indeed be even more in the spirit of appreciation. Good idea. --Dschwen (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, I was always in favour of having looser limits on non-self nominations. A short period would serve to show how good for spirit it is :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you for the proposal, Gnangarra. I think it is a good idea.
  • But what are we going to do with those who continue self-nominating "business as usual"? Many nominators do not follow these discussions or find them hard to understand, because they do not understand English well. I mean if we disallow self-nominations for a period (which I do not mind personally), will the nominator not feel as much hostility as we are trying to "repair" with such an initiative by being told, "Oh, you must not self-nominate, you have to withdraw that." If we do this, we need to take care in announcing it on relevant pages, perhaps the nomination page should be preloaded with a multi-lingual template instructing the user prior to nomination, that we have this initiative?
  • Moreover, as I think the number of nomination will go down, I think we should relax on the "two active nominations per nominator rule". Perhaps we do not need a limit in this period, but if so, it should perhaps rather be "max n nominations by a specific creator". That could encourage nominators to go look for new, yet undiscovered talents on Commons, who might feel honored that someone else has nominated their image for FPC. And that might recruit new reviewers and give a synergy effect. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the initiative should be for a full month to be meaningful. One week is too short of a duration. To make it a full month, we may want to start it January 1, 2011 as a fresh start on a new year? That also gives some time to spread the word and make the proper announcements. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it should be compulsory (i.e. rule) rather an appeal, maybe presented as a friendly banner on the top of the FPC page. I think the two weeks period over Christmas as proposed initially is a good idea. --Elekhh (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- Why not? As Elekhh suggests, we could make it appear as a Xmas gift's banner. No reason why we can't start right now, after a minimum consensus is obtained -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that we could start earlier, maybe next Monday. --Elekhh (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment we have to consider that the users in wikimedia are not all christians.. if we do it for x-mas.. lets do it in March in the Iranian Newroz celebration (Iranian new year), Muslim festivals (ie. Festival of sacrifice), other cultural celebrations... etc. Ggia (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support (edit-conflict) As a non-compulsary appeal. I do not think we should mix it up with a Xmas present though as that has cultural/religious associations. We might call it a seasonal or end-of-year appeal. --Slaunger (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • When mentioning Christmas all I wanted to point at was that it is a holiday season in most countries (including many non-Christian majority ones). I don't think the proposal should be directly related to it, so I agree with you, "end-of-year" sounds good.--Elekhh (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Please dont get side tracked this has nothing to do with any event its to help move Commons community forward past the recent unpleasent events, with the dates I just thought a week to get the details sorted, then run until the end of the year. Its great to that everyone is positive about so lets just make it happen and appreciate the efforts of everyone. Gnangarra 10:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Since nobody else volunteered I made a draft, please feel free to directly improve this draft or provide alternatives, or feedback.--Elekhh (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Celebration of other authors' images

(14th December 2010 until 31st December 2010)

You are invited to show your appreciation and recognise what others are contributing to Commons by nominating their images instead of yours.

We hope that this action will help to make Commons a better place.

• I think it is very adequate at flagging what we want to flag. Thanks for taking your time to design it. Should it be mentioned that two noms per nominator is relaxed meanwhile as long as it is creations of other users work? --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added a sentence mentioning this (and revised the title). --Avenue (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) New title is OK with me. As expressed previously and consistent with Dschwen's comment above and with Slaunger's concern, I think that the rule should stay. The action would be much more powerful if the appeal is to nominate other author's images instead of one's own, not on top of one's own. --Elekhh (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I'm not wedded to a change in the rule. But I thought my addition reflected the general consensus above, where three people supported somehow relaxing the restriction (99of9, Gnangarra, and Slaunger), and I didn't see anyone saying there should be no change to the rule. If that was implied by Dschwen's comment, I guess I missed that. Since you also object, it probably doesn't have a consensus, so I'll remove my sentence. (To save anyone from having to look through the history for it, it was: "For the rest of the year, nominations of others' images will not count towards your personal limit of two active nominations.") --Avenue (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wonderful idea! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I like this too. Let's see how it works. Jonathunder (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• I think we should restrict the authorship of those pictures to Commons users (no NASA, no LC, no flicr, no etc.). I still remember some guy nominating 20 NASA's images of galaxies on the same day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that should be clear enough from the text as is... --Elekhh (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks clear enough to me. Gnangarra 04:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• All right, I put it up since it's already the 14th. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not good with multilingual templates, but could a language switch be added such that translation into other languages would be possible, or am I just making something which was supposed to be simple too complicated ? --Slaunger (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Language switch is there on the top, but currently the banner is only on the English version. Would be nice to have it translated to all the other languages, and as a priority to French and German, given the current number of users. Any volunteers? --Elekhh (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Festival des Images des Autres !

(du 14 au 31 décembre 2010)

Montrez que vous appréciez le travail des autres ! Vous aimez ce qu'ils font ? Choisissez et proposez, librement, les images d'autres contributeurs individuels de "Commons".

Vous participerez ainsi à mieŭx faire connaître "Commons" et à valoriser la richesse de son contenu.

or something like that in french. It is not a "word to word" or literal translation, but the "spirit" of the idea is here, in my opinion. One may understand that the choice of images made by others has no number limit, that the rule of two self nominations is still here, and that it concerns only individuals contributors, not Nasa, Army, Flickr etc. Did I understand well ? I wish, please, the opinion of other french speakers. Thank you !--Jebulon (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastique, merci beaucoup. --Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm magnesium powder, yes, but not only. --Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking over it again, in the English version there is an important "instead". As noted previously the call is to nominate other author's images instead of ones own (i.e. putting ego aside) not simply additionally to ones own (i.e. sort of charity). So I took out in the draft the "En plus des deŭx vôtres" and the emphasis on "librement". Also removed the link to the same page it appears on as superfluous. Does it still sound OK? --Elekhh (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that misunderstanding. That's what I was afraid of, and I disagree with the idea ("instead" meand for me not "ego aside", but "artificial overdone sacrifice"). Let's go anyway. But in this case, I have three active nominations now. My own (nominated before the present situation), and two regarding work of others. Is it an issue ? Furthermore, I think the "additionally" is not a "sort of charity", but I'm pretty sure that the "instead" will strongly reduce the succes of this operation...But I repeat: let's go now.--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO we should not close one of your now three nominations as the third nomination of a different creator was done in good faith. As I have written previously, I think a more relevant limit for nominations is n (e.g. 2) open nominations per creator and not per nominator. That will also encourage nominations of others work more than the current rule. --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Its a non issue the proposal was for unrestricted nominations of other users works Gnangarra 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• That was also my understanding! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Seems that we have slightly different views on this, but that should not stall the process. I will not contest any nomination of images by others beyond any limit, however I don't think that in the invitation it should be explicitly called for unlimited nominations. When the limit on nominations was set up, its aim was to make nominators more responsible, encourage quick withdrawal of poor nominations, and to facilitate higher quality reviews, and I think we still need all of these. After all there will be no joy to anyone if images of others are nominated only to be FPXed. --Elekhh (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

---

Nomination customs

Hello!

Is there any informal or explicit agreement how a nominator shall deal with a nomination of his own work, when it comes to state a vote? I often see a  Support but I'm used to make a  Neutral/ Abstain vote on German FPC in such a situation. What do the local regulars say about this point? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable. I've seen users support, abstain and even oppose their own images. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would take an "oppose" from the image author as a wish to abort/withdraw the nomination. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What is an Edit?

I think that the account age requirement is ok, just so people get the feel of the place, etc., but requiring a number of edits is ridiculous. It is almost a Catch 22. What constitutes an edit? Adding a coma to a sentence is by definition an edit. The definition of edit, per Webster, is the following: a : to prepare (as literary material) for publication or public presentation b : to assemble (as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c : to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose <carefully edited the speech> <edit a data file> So what definition do we require? a, b or c? In anycase, editing has absolutely nothing to do with voting. No amount of editing comas, periods, colons, semicolons, etc., etc., prepares anybody for voting in FP. It would be so easy to circumvent this requirement by going to just about any page and changing something absolutely meaningless. Requiring edits in order to vote sets a bad precedent. What could come next? Requirements for edits before one can upload a picture? What kind of requirements will people dream up to impose upon FP nominations? What is surprising is how fast this issue was run through when other requests were just bogged down or simply ignored. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is correct that even a very simple edit adds to your edit count, and that changing a comma add one to your count. But as always, if you abuse the system by making 50 meaningless edits we still have a fall-back to Common sense. That it is evident that a user has made 50 meaningless edits just to vote. Rules never cover all instances.

Edit count is an inaccurate metric for user experience. It is not perfect, but it gives a better indication of user experience than by no data. Despite being far from perfect it has the advantage that it is easily measurable and it also has the advantage that requiring an edit count (which is quite small), you add an extra barrier to those wanting to create a sock account just to vote. Especially, this requirement is good for keeping away meatpuppet votes from good-faith friends or family members, who just want to be kind in a misunderstood manner. Although it does not require a huge ammount of effort to do 50 edits, like with hotcat to add 50 meaningful categories to uncategorized file pages, it is still something you need to do an effort for. With respect to the time the rule cange has been discussed i think it has been long enough. The users who voiced an opinion by-and-large agreed and the consensus was very clear. Significantly clearer than many previous polls on FPC. Thus, in my opinion, closing the poll as has been done was entirely uncontroversial. I do not know if the community will come up with further requirements. Hopefully, we will not need to for the coming time. --Slaunger (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the poll duration was long enough to adequately sample community opinion. I suppose that "edit counts" is defined by any of several tools linked from en:WP:WikiProject_edit_counters. Edit counts are imperfect but have some merit, in my opinion, but I wonder why someone hasn't constructed a tool that is a better metric of participation than edit counts? Perhaps after a few months of experience, this discussion will be reopened and this criterion modified or deleted. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FPCBot temporarily down

Just a notice that the bot will be down this weekend (2010-01-15 - 2010-01-16) due to some electrical work that has to be done at its location. Should be up and running again Monday morning. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Already up again. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Are files being updated after removal from list

File:Mandarin.duck.arp.jpg was removed from FP list recently, but the file has not been modified to indicate this. Does a bot do the work or is it done manually? Is there a special template? Snowmanradio (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Freudenberg-014.jpg

Under Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Freudenberg-014.jpg it was recommended to crop the pic. Concerning this recommendation I have a question. Can I (or: is it allowed to...) crop File:Freudenberg-014.jpg (even if it is a QI), load it up as a new version under the same name and nominate it again for FP election? --Danny (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't upload over the exact same name; but you could certainly crop it and upload the new version with "crop" (or the like) in the name. Jonathunder (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! --Danny (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to continue the "Celebration"

I think the experiment is good, and I like it. I would like to propose the continuation of this, with the same limits (only two active own nominations), after the end of the year. I don't see problems, disadvantages, nor risks. I would be happy continuing to nominate pictures of others (only individuals), with my two own.--Jebulon (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC) No need of a long debate IMO, just vote.

•  Support--Jebulon (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Snaevar (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the proposal, and I support both current limit, and Slaunger´s idea of 2 max edits per creator.--Snaevar (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support But I also support an alternative permannent adjustment to the rules changing it to a max of two per creator, as the core of the previous problems were nomination floodings by creator. This would still encourage to nominate work from non-FPC regulars. With that rule we would discourage two friends from teaming up, nominating each others works with unlimited numbers. --Slaunger (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional  Support -- I agree with the spirit of the proposal, with the restrictions mentioned by Slaunger: a maximum of two pictures per nominator per creator (where 'creator' comprises both Commons' users and sources like NASA, flickr, etc.). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support -- I agree with the spirit of this and with the restriction of two per creator but we need to clearly define the creator suggest something like being author(aka:User Foo), source(aka: NASA, flickr.user Foo, State Library QLD), or uploader(aka:User Foo) Gnangarra 07:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Two per creator does have some potential for abuse - one could potentially spam pictures from someone that wouldn't pass, denying them the ability to nominate ones that would. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • no it wouldnt because you would still be allowed two self nominations, and an editor deliberately disrupting FP in such a manor would be blocked very quickly and the nominations closed Gnangarra 08:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I see your point Noodelsnacks. Actually, my proposal was meant to include self-nominations. However, if the creator is also allowed to withdraw a "poor" picture nominated by someone else, as suggested below, this problem is solved. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support 2x actual nominations from "one" creator. Although ... ;-) The creator can still withdraw his own image nominations from other nominators! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• • My proposal was : two active own/self-nominations, + no limit for nominations of pictures from individual other authors, as it was for the "Celebration". "Official" pictures (made by Government Agencies for instance) are not concerned (could count for one self nomination maybe ?). Well, nothing can be simple here, I'm sorry for that. I just wanted to continue this nice experiment, but decide what you want if you want something, I give up.--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Yes, this is the perfect compromise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding rule change

Four days and why (please read)

I don't know if you guys have considered that FPCbot will close a nom after 5 days if no one has voted on it. I think this is unfair to new users: That the image they are allowed to nominate could slip to oblivion and is entirely dependent on users who have been around longer to keep it afloat (the concept of image popularity being something else we can discuss later). Which is why I finally get to he point: I believe every user at least 4 days with their one/main announced account should be allowed to vote on their nomination; I don't have an opinion about if on other images. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure of understanding the issue here. Are you worried about those nominators who cannot vote because they have recent accounts or less than 50 edits? But in which the rule of the 5th day is concerned, the nominator's vote doesn't count, which means that nominations with or without a nominator's support are equivalent. Anyway, I don't see the difference between having 1 vote or 0 votes. We are here to chose the best Commons has to offer, remember? Exceptional pictures are always recognized by the community whether they come from a newbie or not. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Further commented down here. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Conclusions

• Currently there are no new votes coming in and voting seems to have stopped. I think it´s time to reach conclusions on this matter.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree. I think this is a more representative sample of the community´s opinion in this matter. --189.196.70.28 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am closing this vote and reverting to the old rules, meaning that the requirement for 50 edits and 10 day accounts is removed. The community had the opportunity to vote and has expressed their opinion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted your change. There's no consensus on that point (10/9). - Benh (talk) 13:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Benh: When you get a 50% plus one majority behing your edits, I will respect them, before that you are a vandal. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with ben's assessment of the situation. That is not a clear consensus. --Dschwen (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree, also. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, I don't see a 10/9 vote as being consensus for reverting to the old rules. There does seem to be substantial discomfort with at least some aspects of the new rules, though. --Avenue (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• 10/9 is a 10% majority, and if we count the striked vote, it would be a 11/9, a 20% majority. This vote was open to all, advertised, unlike the past vote, where people were not made aware of it, and therefore the rules were changed. Had there been a promotion of the issue, the vote would not have probably favored the rule change to begin with. This is a majority opinion, therefore it should stand, it is the only honorable way. This forum belongs to all, not to a small minority who wish to impose their rules when they want and disregard the will of the majority. Behn, Dschwen, Walter, you speak of consensus, but where is the consensus on consensus? Is it wiki policy? What swhould it be? 60-40? 70-30? 90-10? By what authority do you all impose your will over a majority? It was a much more fair call to vote than the previous attempt. 10 to 9 folks, that, in any democratic group is called a majority. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well of course 10 is greater than 9. But we can't call this an overwhelming majority. Both votes are on par. You're right on that there doesn't seem to be a clear policy on the vote counting itself. We should have mentioned this before the vote. We could have used a 2/3 majority rule, like on FPC page. I've just had a look at the previous vote, and I don't think I'm in bad faith if I say the consensus was far clearer. Note that the poll was on number of edits but that you also changed the age of account. Finally, look at how the consensus seems to be with me on the fact there's no consensus (!). I'll revert your changes again. Funny game, I think I'm going to like it a lot. - Benh (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• If Tomacastelazo could restrain from reverting my changes again... Please wait for an admin to review the process, like in a democracy as you like to say. This is for stability sake. - Benh (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• If Benh could refrain from reverting the will of the majority, I would not have to revert HIS changes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've requested a review by an uninvolved administrator.[4] Please allow him or her to judge this matter. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes but in the meantime, I think we should stuck to the old rules. - Benh (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am an uninvolved administrator, but there seems to be something wrong in the process:
• 1. One month after a consensus in Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11#How to deal with suspicious accounts? - proposal, an attempt is made to overrule the decision made by large consensus
• 2. Three weeks later, the same person tries to close this vote by declaring a consensus (and better voter's representativity whatever that means), which is clearly not a consensus. Wearing voters out by repeating the same votes and discussions is a way to win majority, not consensus.
• An uninvolved administrator should close this case. --Foroa (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Comment The original proposal was instituted in order to deal with suspicious accounts. Besides the above stated, a few things can be said on the process:

1. The original vote was done by 12 people aproxx, and this was done by 20 people who represented both sides of the story, unlike the first attempt.
2. The promotion of the rule change was not posted on the main page, and people hardly visit this page. I posted the issue on the first page and unlike the first vote, got a better sample of the population.
3. To show how your bias attempts to subvert a democratic opinion, just look at your language: I never used the word consensus, I used the word majority. It is a very, very clear majority. Whether it is a large majority or not, it is a majority, resulting from an informed process, unlike the previous one.
4. If the original voting had been done in a transparent manner, with community members informed adequately, I would have no beef with the issue. However, it was not so. Look at the numbers. Had people been informed, as I did, I doubt that the rule change would have passed to begin with.
5. And again, the issue: The rule was instituted as a way to “deal with suspicious accounts”. Where is the evidence that this rule change would have dealt with the issue? Where are the metrics? Where are the results so far? At the very least I would expect a body count by now, but there is none. Who is monitoring the effectiveness of the measure? Who is keeping track of those suspicious accounts? A blunder does not have to stay a blunder just because of personal egos and as an automatic response to unpopular editors. What we have seen is victims so far, people who have attempted to participate and have been turned away. And how many suspicious accounts have been prevented?
6. And last, a majority is a majority. Whether small or large. This is the will of the community. What is it about that that you just don´t seem to get?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've asked for an admin to revert your changes and to block the page for writing, time for us to settle this without changing rules every 12 hours. No time for playing anymore Tomas. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Not playing... vote settled the issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let just some "external" admins settle this. Depending on how we look at this, any of us can be right, so my guess is that we could go on reverting each other forever. My point now is not the rules themselves, but how a consensus is understood on Commons. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Benh, just get this, this was a fair vote, open, without "canvassing", and a majority was obtained. You are the one making an issue of this. You did not even participate in the first debate, which makes me wonder whay you showed up here, perhaps as the result of an "invitation"? or perhaps as a result of my posting? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was uninvolved in this recent vote, and I support Foroa's analysis. Changes to wiki procedures require consensus, not majority. There is no consensus here for reverting the rule. --99of9 (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Clearly no consensus. And my opinion expressed above was a clear oppose as well, even if not counted as a "vote". --ELEKHH^T 02:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Where is it stated that changes to FPC rules require consensus? In the absence of policy, majority rule is fair enough, good, solid democracy. Why do the zealots come out after the fact and not during the process? Why were the rules changed in the first place? Give us a body count on the suspicious accounts that have been prevented! If anything what we have here is a bunch of sore losers. I brought the subject up to a democratic vote, as a productive user, with good intentions. There is no personal gain here, just my conviction that the new rules were stupid and do nothing except to hinder participation by new users. Please guide me away from my error, show me the body count, show me the metrics, who is monitoring the new rules? The point is that the new rule was instituted as a way to deal with suspicious accounts, so where´s the meat? Show it or shut up. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't turn it the other way. Why don't you show us the meat that proves the new rules are not better than the old ones ? And how could you be so sure in one month only anyways ? By the way, there's no personal gain for anyone... And please be careful with your language. I don't think anyone spending a bit (or a lot) of its time contributing would tolerate being asked to shut up. - Benh (talk) 06:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• No, Benh, you are the one turning the issue around. The issue is very simple: A user, just like you or I, decided one day to change the rules in order to “deal with suspicious accounts”, and decided that the best way to deal with that issue was to require new users to have x amount of edits and x amount of days in the account. How that measure was to deal with “suspicious accounts” was never explained, nor a consensus was reached as to whether “suspicious accounts” were a problem in fact. The incident derived from a single common incident, not a recurrent serious problem, or nothing that was not dealt with adequately already. Culprits were routinely unmasked. He just decided, out of who knows where, that “suspicious accounts” were a problem and that this was a way to “fix” the problem. So we have an undefined problem, with a solution that no one seems to explain what it is supposed to fix, when, how or by whom. The vote was set up not to accept or reject the measure, but to choose what version of the measure was to be instituted. On top of that, little diffusion of the vote is made to the community at large, but kept to a small cadre of sheep and they pass a measure to solve an undefined problem with an unproven method. What is clear by now is that a few new participants have been turned away by this change of the rules that have so far not provided a body count of what it was supposed to fix. So to change the subject to “consensus”, Give the new rules time to work (work what? We don´t know what they are supposed to fix! Nor do we have metrics, methodology nor enforcers!!! So wait for what???) is in fact changing the ojective of this discussion. My proposal was clear, transparent and democratic. So to bring the issue of “consensus” into the discussion, where it is not clear what percentage consensus must represent is to introduced an uncontrolled, non-measurable variable into the discussion. Just as ridiculous as the original rule change. Some may say here that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it an authoritarian institution, it belongs to all. So all have equal rights, democrats and despots. So if a despot does not recognize my contributions, in equal measure I do not recognize theirs. This is an encyclopaedic effort, and I do find it quite curious as to the undemocratic nature of some users.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• This is a Catch 22 situation. I was not (yet) allowed to vote in the first series of votes because of account age. I would have added to the opposition. Now that I can vote my vote is worthless because a majority is not honored. Why don't you turn the clock back and start from scratch, thinking real hard this time in advance how to interpret and imply the outcome. I suggest not applying a new rule unless you have at least 50 participants voting, or even better: 100. Ruling seems to move from a democracy via an oligarchy towards an autocracy. W.S. 13:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • throwing around the big words... guys you best get those out of your mind. A simple majority has never been enough, and commons is not a state. Whenever I read "censoring", "democracy" etc. my toenails roll up. --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
•  QuestionSo what is Wikipedia Dschwen? Not a democracy? What is it? If a simple majority is not enough (in Lybia even a large majority is not, definitely) then what is?. Why stiffle debate? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, right. There is no debate to stiffle, just the drama you are creating. Now you are comparing commons to Lybia. Am I Gaddafi? You are the freedom fighter, the martyr? Get real! Stop talking for one second and listen what all the other people around here are telling you. --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Dschwen, this is what I hear: 10 votes in favor or repealing the new rules and 9 people in favor of keeping them. Why are you not listening to those people? Do you only listen to the ones that agree with you? There is no drama created by me! The drama is being created by thse on the minority opinion. I just put a question out for a vote. Debate in favor of keeping the rules, explain the rules, I posted a few questions below. That is, after all, the issue. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Final conclusion

I was hoping that my comments on the process where the advocate plays the role of the jury and execute the decision was deemed not proper, would settle the case. Thank you for the people that understand the problem for which user:Wsiegmund gave the perfect example.

Now I come to the ground of the case. Each community has to organise itself that for important decisions, qualified members of the community assist in the decision taking process. This is a de facto rule in Commons where we have to find the balance between openness and protection against noise, sockpuppets, canvassing and jokers. This rule has been confirmed and quantified in a previous voting round and backed up by users that represent hundreds of thousands of edits in the community. If one takes the jury process of FP, POTD, ... seriously, one needs a minimal noise protection filter, and I feel that from the community point of view, this basic rule is not negotiable; the way it is implemented might be but that will always be arbitrary for someone, such as the minimum age for driving, voting, drinking, ... --Foroa (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

 Question So what is the final conclusion? In a democracy it would be very clear: a majority has spoken. What is so ambiguous about that? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Olive Branch

I will refrain from bringing this issue up for discussion if someone intelligently will just answer a few questions for me: Considering that the objective of the rule change was to Deal With Suspicious Accounts I ask the following:

1. What constitutes a suspicious account?
2. How many suspicious accounts were detected prior to the rule chance so that the issue could be declared a problem?
3. How many suspicious accounts have been averted so far?
4. How is the effectiveness of the measure being tracked?
5. Who is keeping track of the effectiveness of the measure?
6. What is the methodology for monitoring the problem?
7. How many new users have been affected so far?
8. What is consensus?
9. Who determines consensus?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought so...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I settle for the first three! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote.

The nominator should be excepted -- Andyso (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

a 1000 edit is have nothing to do with a better eye..??? Good nom --...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 13:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Or counting the nomination as a vote. --Foroa (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:08, 2 February 2011

There have been some raised concerns on the admin's board and some couple of revert wars in the FPC history, so I have reverted to revision as of 17:08, 2 February 2011. I thought the best option to handle this was to revert prior to the conflicts and request that the issue is looked in more consensually before proceeding with changes. Thanks, --ZooFari 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

A Wiki Story

User: Sheep, hear me out: “I suspect that there are “Suspicious Accounts” around here.”

Sheep: Yes there are! Yes there are!

Mule: Why?

Sheep: Because there must be! He says so!

Mule: What is a suspicious account?

User: An account that looks suspicious!

Sheep: Yes! An account that looks suspicious!

Mule: But tell me what does a suspicious account look like?

User: The ones that look suspicious by consensus!

Sheep: Yes, the ones that look suspicious by consensus!!!

Mule: What is consensus?

User: Consensus is when others agree with me.

Mule: And if I don´t?

User: You are a troublemaker.

Sheep: Yes, you are a troublemaker!!! Yes, you are a troublemaker!!!

Mule: And if others do not agree with you?

User: They too are troublemakers!

Sheep: Yes, they too are troublemakers!!! , they too are troublemakers!!!

User: So my friends, in order to deal with suspicious accounts, I declare that all new users are suspicious!

Sheep: Yes they are! Yes they are!!!

Mule: Why are they suspicious?

User: Because I say so!

Sheep: Yes, because he says so! He says so! So they must be suspicious!

Mule: But maybe they are not!

User: If they are new, they must be!

Sheep: Yes they must, yes they must!

User: So suspects, in order to stop being suspects, must do hard labor.

Sheep: Yes, they must! Yes, they must!

Mule: Did any of you had to do hard labor to be here?

User: Troublemaker!

Sheep: Yes, troublemaker, troublemaker!!!

User: By requiring new suspects to do hard labor, we will weed out suspicious users.

Sheep: Yes, we will, yes we will!

Mule: How?

User: Troublemaker!

Sheep: Troublemaker! Troublemaker!

Mule: But explain to me how do you know that by requiring hard labor will keep suspicious people out?

User: Because I say so.

Sheep: Yes, because he says so, because he says so!

Mule: So any new user is suspicious?

User: If he is new, he is suspicious.

Sheep: yes he is! Yes he is!

Mule: And if he is innocent?

User: He can´t be, he is new.

Sheep: He can´t be, he can´t be!

Mule: Can´t we change that?

User: Only if there is consensus.

Sheep: Only if there is consensus! Only if there is consensus!

Mule: Can we put it up for a vote?

User: Only if there is consensus for a vote.

Mule: Can you put it up for a vote?

User: No, I don´t agree, so there is no consensus.

Sheep: There is no consensus, there is no consensus.

End of story... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dschwen, Please do not delete this. Your opinion of it not being constructive is just that, your opinion. You can express that. This is a humorous way to illustrate a problem, with the intention to make people reflect. Inspired by the work of George Orwell´s novels 1984 and Animal Farm. Probably a very badly executed exercise due to my own shortcomings. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, George Orwell sure, I get it, this is a totalitarian regime. That old song... --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a totalitarian regime, but we must make sure it does not become one ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We also have to make sure it doesn't turn into a messy anarchy, as what would implies changing law every month. - Benh (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

... And the mule just turned his head from side to side... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the mule being used as as symbol of stubbornness? --Dschwen (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

*Well, Dschwen, of course, and the user is the symbol of intolerance and reckless action, and the sheep the herd that just goes Baa, Baa. The mule, however, as stubborn as it may be, toils and produces...

And by the way, since you and Benh have come out on the defense of the new rules, and have argued against reverting them despite a majority opinion, so you must have all the reasons why not, however unstated so far, and then surely you must know what you are defending with utmost clarity. That little point still escapes my perception, so I kindly ask you, so I can understand the issue, to clarify what it it that you defend, and the road to my understanding of your defense for the new rules, is by understanding the precedents and rationale that led to them. Surely, your stalwart defense of them, must be based on the fact that you are well versed on the issue, for why else would you defend the passing and permanence of the new rules? which are the object and motive of this controversy, so, please enlighten me with the answers to the following questions. Convince me and the majority of the people who voted to have them overturned by answering these simple questions:

1. What constitutes a suspicious account?
2. How many suspicious accounts were detected prior to the rule chance so that the issue could be declared a problem?
3. How many suspicious accounts have been averted so far?
4. How is the effectiveness of the measure being tracked?
5. Who is keeping track of the effectiveness of the measure?
6. What is the methodology for monitoring the problem?
7. How many new users have been affected so far?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Everyone is just tired of arguing with you. One might as well talk to a brick wall. a 10/9 "majority" is no basis for a rule change, it needs a "consensus". Full stop. --Dschwen (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You used too many words, Troublemaker, troublemaker baa, baa, baa!!! would have been enough. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tomascastelazo; I don't have a strong opinion on this rule. You may well be correct that it should be removed. However, you failed to gain a consensus for your view. It this case, a consensus was particularly important because you were seeking to reverse a rule that had just be adopted. To allow a simple majority to make changes leads to instability and is a poor use of resources because it encourages people to reopen a question in the hope that chance will lead to a decision more to their liking. My advice is to spend a couple of months accumulating evidence and constructing a strong case. If it is convincing, you will have the necessary consensus, and the rule will be removed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Walter: The whole issue is ridiculous and stupid, considering:

1. A user declared a problem without proof, analysis or definition.
2. The user proposed a solution to an undefined problem, therefore lacking methodology and an unknown result. If the problem is not defined, how can there be a solution?
3. The user proposed several options to a solution to an unidentified problem, without the community first considering if such proposal to the unidentified problem was warranted. Much like taking unproven medicine for an unknown disease.
4. People sheep-like voted for a change without the option of voting for things to remain the same. They were told: A change will take place, pick your option. A flawed principle.
5. As a result, new rules were instituted that have no clear objective and whose effectiveness cannot be measured.
6. And comically, considering all the talk about consensus, etc., etc., the 50 edit rule was achieved by a 7-5 vote. Is that the proportion for consensus? According to the logic of my friends here, that is clearly no consensus.

Last, I´ve asked to have the defenders of the new rules just to answer the questions posed above? Why don´t they? I dare anyone to do it. I promise not to comment on them. I am very curious as to their possible answers.

When I point out to a democratic result, people say that is no consensus. People have a lot of time to write and defend a vote, but all the discussion could easily end if someone were to answer the simple, relevant questions I ask, but instead I am told that people are tired of arguing with me. What is clear to me is that there is no one capable of intelligently defending the main issue: the new rules. Heck, they don´t even know what they voted!

If rational thought cannot fit between egos and stupidity, so be it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Loved this. Thanks Tomas :p --Muhammad (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

response to challenge:in kind to that of the thread

1. but a problem was observed is that not enough...
2. we live with undefined problems all around us we recognise that the answers often define the questions we ask, science teaches us that by observing something we can theorise the cause, and propose solutions.
3. there was several options put forward to the problem because multiple solutions were formulated. Given these solutions one can draw a conclusion that the problem must exist because the solutions exists like in maths (1 + x = 5) therefore x has a value be it 4, 2², (5-1) or ... so we test theories to find one that works
4. I checked out the survey I didnt see a Template:Baa on any vote! so how can anyone conclude that they are sheep, I checked WP for sheep tests but all I can find is a test to declare if someone is a duck.
5. the rules do have a clear objective they define who can 'baa !vote on FPC becuase we know that after 10 days and 50 edits one so much more enlightened when judging if a Photo is FP worthy
6. ahh the final conundrum(gee if only I could spell it) when is more enough, well consensus isnt about votes its about the herd community accepting that the majority exists,

I took the challenge and provide answers to the questions but remember rational thought is never rational, Commonsense isnt all that common and hindsight only works if you look backwards. I think(a dangerous occupational hazzard, even here) people do observe the falicy of the rule and the logic in your questions but because a solution exists to remove the rule will create anarchy recreate the problem that once existed. Until an alternative solution is propossed that addresses the problem that the rule addresses the rule needs to stay in place even if its flawed because a rule is better than no rule at all, since the rule was implimented the problem hasnt occured so therefore the rule is working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs)

Some statistics:

• 9 accounts have been averted since the rules where implemented.
• 32 averts have been done since the rules where implemented.
• 7 out of 9 users where only adverted once.
• Four users have kept track of those rules, those are: Snaevar, WS, Alvegespar and George Chernilevsky.
• No adverts have been made since voting against the rules began.

--Snaevar (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Snaevar, Where those averted accounts suspicious? Or new users who could not participate and were prevented to do so by the new rules? It is important to make the distinction, for the new rules were about preventing suspicious accounts. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• The idea is with those rules was that the number of edits and account age would be a measurement of how suspicious of an account is. This idea was first mentioned in the original discussion Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 10#How to deal with suspicious accounts? witch I do recommend that you read, if you haven't done so already. Since then, a minority of adverts and adverted accounts have been new users and personally I do think that both suspicious users and non-suspicious users where averted.--Snaevar (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Body Count

Users prevented from voting on their own nominations: 2

"suspicious accounts": 0 (unless you count the new users who suspiciously vote on their own images)

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Users that get so aggravated they start posting random meaningless statistics with overly dramatic section headings: 1

--Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Users that get so aggravated by the truth they start posting meaningless statements as to shift attention from the issues: 1

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the dramatics and finger pointing! But a rule which prohibits a user from voting for his own image simple because he's new sucks and is unwiki like. Would a sockpuppet release images under a different name as well? --Muhammad (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That´s exactly my point, which I raised civily, and when I put it up to a vote and obtaind a majority vote to repeal such unwiki-like rule, the minority, armed with the complicity of (some) administrators, simply ignored the issue. If the the expression "tap dancing around the issue" ever had a practical context, this was it. The detractors simply did not address the main point, did not answer relevant questions and keep attempting to discredit the evidence to their folly. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Careless reviews, Part II

• Some time ago I started here a thread on the poor quality of FPC reviews, with the comment: In my opinion the FPC bar is getting dangerously low. This may seem nice and popular, especially for the newcomers and for those interested in accumulating FP's, but is ruining the project. The forum will lose credibility and good participants (both creators and reviewers) will abandon the boat for lack of interest. This is mainly due to careless assessments, as the most exigent reviewers have apparently gone and those staying seem a bit absent. Some users support everything, or almost everything, and the good habit of scrutinizing carefully the pictures is lost […]. Looking at the FPC page of today, my feeling is that things are now as bad as they were (if not worse), although the rules were changed following the discussion and more strict conditions were implemented. In my opinion the forum has already loosed most of its credibility and very few exigent creators and reviewers are still around. What’s the purpose, guys: to show how warm FPC is to newcomers? To get the sympathy of other reviewers to our own nominations? Or just to destroy the whole thing? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I do agree on Alvesgaspar. Featured pictures are considered to be outstanding. I dislike to critisize but what has been shown in the last time is not very convincing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The instructions makes it is easier to support than to oppose images when they say that explanations are especially important for oppose votes. To support you only have to write "{{support}}~~~~". But if you do the same when opposing you will get replies questioning the vote. /Ö 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the instructions, then. One option would be to require that reviewers must mention what they think are the image's best and worst points. Another would be to allow unexplained support and oppose votes, but have them count less. For example, 1 point for a "naked" support or oppose, 2 points if you just say what you like (for supports) or dislike (for opposes), and 3 points if you say both what you like and dislike. (What would we do with "per Xxxxx" votes?) But these approaches have drawbacks too. They might discourage people who don't feel comfortable explaining their vote (e.g. if they are not confident writing in English - not that English is required), and they would break the FPCbot. --Avenue (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Why the presumption that because someone places *{{support}}. ~~~~ that the review is careless, FP has lost sight of w:WP:AGF. The more the FP process get complicated by rules, points and instructions the less likely people are even going to bother to participate. What makes an image FP is a personal choice and people see different factors as being important and other factors as not, even so called technical ones. Some people look at the overall image the composition and subject others spend time looking at the fringe of every edge looking for ca, or stitching off by a few pixels. Yet others just look a go wow this is a beautiful photo, everyones opinion is welcome and everyones opinion is valid because they differ from your's doesnt make it careless, or invalidate it just makes it different. Its about time people realise that FP should be about recognising work that people appreciate for what ever reason. Gnangarra 01:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

* SupportGood points. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to encourage all reviewers to make substantive comments referencing specific criteria. However, Avenue's suggestion may raise the barrier for participation too high, make the process less transparent and be difficult to automate. Our experience has been that Commons is not harmed by lax standards on FPC. However, we have lost good contributors as a result of harsh negative reviews. These have led to accusations of inconsistency and bias. With a minimal threshold for participation, FPC can never be a very meaningful assessment of picture quality. To the extent that it encourages participation and helps contributors improve their skills, it furthers the goals of Commons. But, efforts to tighten standards may foster conflict and discourage contributors. I would like to see COM:QI and COM:VI given more prominence. Perhaps the FPC introduction might encourage new contributors to gain experience submitting and reviewing pictures in those venues. FPC may benefit from the experience gained by QI and VI reviewers. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Walter, so why did you vote to keep the "new rules" which tighten participation, making it harder for people to participate? This was precisely the point in the previous vote, which got a majority vote but was rejected because of lack of "consensus." --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• That's your point of view. It is mine that many users here take C:FPC and their supposed expertise of image critiquing and photographic technique far too seriously and add a negative atmosphere to C:FPC. It is also my opinion that some users here are so sure of their opinion of what is aesthetically correct in images that they're straight-up closed-minded against nominations that might not be something that they're used to seeing and immediately post  Oppose Composition is bad. ~~~~ when they're isn't anything technically wrong with it[5][6][7][8][9], not I would ever complain or do anything to show disrespect for their right to disagree with me ;-). There are words for this type of behavior... but this "careless reviewer" will just call it "less than civil".
  An image that you don't like getting promoted is not the end of the world, democracy isn't perfect and just because some users are more free with their opposes than others doesn't necessarily mean they've done a better job critiquing than the next person - in fact I have supported images that failed, but had, IMO, pretty good reason to deserve support that seemed to have gone ignored, like this one. And sometimes certain users with high opinions of themselves oppose for IMO faulty reasons, like on this one. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Good points. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Maybe instead of oppose votes each reviewer gives the image a value between -1 and 5, then a fp is any image that gains the equivellent of 7 votes of 5 ie 35, If an image draws 35 1 single votes then its FP the same as one that draw just 7 5 points. Using a template with 3 fields, value|comment|sign then a bot can do the sums, where a value is outside the limit just ignored or registered as a zero. This way also gives value to high volume. If an image reaches say 50 within the voting period then its automaticlly promoted. Gnangarra 05:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it might be nice to have more leeway with our vote instead of definite yes, definite no or neutral. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't think that works: it would allow fairly average images which nobody considers among the best on Commons (for example collecting 12 x 3 points) to become FP. Since participation is fluctuating, the outcome would be aleatory. If the voting would be changed to a grade/points system, than the average or median would need to be considered, not the sum. Actually I don not think the problem is with the voting system. IMO the problem is that the basics of FP are too often forgotten: FP's stated aim is to reward the "finest" images, not simply any good image. --ELEKHH^T 07:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• I have to disagree with Gnangarra on the two points he raised above. First, a careless review doesn't necessarily mean that the reviewer is in bad faith. When some user, experienced or not, come here and casts his vote without assessing the picture carefully, taking the image guidelines into account, he/she is being careless. This may happen when supporting as well as when opposing, though the first case is more frequent. However, it also happens that the vote casted by a user doesn't address the picture but some other (more or less) hidden purpose related to the nominator, the author, the reviewer or the situation. No need to give examples, as everybody knows what I'm talking about. This is technically bad faith. The second point is more important, as it addresses the very raison d'être of FPC. The purpose of our forum is to recognize the finnest images Commons has to offer. In order to achieve this, our assessments should be as objective and careful as possible, and take into account the technical criteria described in the guidelines, just like in a common photograph contest. All votes should have a rationale, both the support and the oppose votes, and the explanations given by a reviewer may and should be contested by other reviewers. FPC is not a popularity contest or a social event where people come to share cute images or give a quick opinion. It is a forum where excellence is recognized and only the best of the best are to win. In that sense, it is elitist (as it should). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• In my opinion, FPC has been going well recently, as measured by the level of civility of reviews, and the lack of FPC-related posts COM:AN and its subpages. While I think that explanations by reviewers should be encouraged because they help our contributors and other reviewers improve their skills, I'm disturbed by the suggestion that contesting reviews should be the norm. I fear that may lead to rancor, less effective communication, and more FPC posts on COM:AN. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Joaquim for most part, and there was a time when I truly was amazed when I visited FPC page (where have Richard Bartz, Diliff, Fir0002, LucaG, Luc Viatour, Chmelh... gone ?) and was very happy to submit some candidates myself, to "check" if I was up to the high standard they set. What annoys me the most is that several reviewers don't even seem to understand some basics of photography (and with some of them having even reach a milestone of something like 50 FP !) and yet their opinion weighs as much as other. It's natural in a sense, and that's what makes wiki**** so powerful. But putting anyone on same level has its weaknesses, as pointed out by Alvesgaspar. I also find out that most don't dare opposing (at the risk of losing some potential support ?). I'm afraid there's nothing we can do. We have to accept the fact this is a wiki open to anyone, and anyone means many different points of view, which may look exotic to others. - Benh (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Nobody is better or more infallible than anybody else, and neither are you. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah I was sure you would take it for yourself. Nonsense words. Only people living in their magical kingdom still think so. I'm clearly not the most valuable contributor of FPC and wiki in general, but I try to talk about things I know a bit contrary to some. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Discussing about FPC.. Let's suppose that some images of some Magnum photographers are distributes in a free license. This one will probably fail [10] (photographer Josef Koudelka [11]) because a lot of people will state that it is tilt (if the image is tilt isn't it FP?). Most of the images of en:Sebastião Salgado (ex-magnum member) are noisy (he used 400 ASA Tri-X Kodak film [12]) and they will fail due to noise. What makes an image a FPC? The one that has been made with the latest digital low-noise sensor, without CAs etc? Can an image become featurable if it is made by a film.. ie. with noisy Tri-X 400 ASA film today? For sure not.. Ggia (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, Photography is also a form of Art but we don't deal with such component here, as Commons is supposed to be a repository of free educational media, not an art gallery. That is why we give so much importance to (objective) technical perfection rather than (subjective) artistic value. As for automatically attributing a high value to some photo just because it comes from a well-known agency or author, well ... I use to call it the "argument of authority" and am always prepared to say that "the king is naked" if I feel like it. I wonder if the photogrpah you give as an example would deserve a second look if it were taken by me or you. But, of course, this discussion has nothing to do with the issue here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Question Where is it stated that Art is not dealt with in here? Why leave the art value out of photography while it is granted to other disciplines? Art in painting is featured, photography being the medium, Art in architecture is featured, with photograpphy being the medium, Art in nature is featured, with photograpphy being the medium, so why can´t then the Art of photography be featured? Photography as art is also educational. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• • • Ah the elephant in the room(I wonder if the photogrpah you give as an example would deserve a second look if it were taken by me or you. But, of course....), the work or comments of some does appear to carry more weight than that of others. Its not because their opinions are anything special its because not following those opinions can been recieved as being detremental to ones own success, that also generates careless reviews. Unfortunately that also permeates onto talk page discussions as well, meaning we end up with rules that suit particular editors, that deters participation of new people, forces other leave or be excluded from participating. Gnangarra 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
      • It would be nice to give some examples of each of the kinds you mention: (1) users to whom the rules suit; (2) new users deterred from participating by the rules; (3) users that were forced to leave because of the rules. Please make it "talented" or "valuable users", instead of just "users", as we should always keep in mind the goal of the project. I don't think my opinions are anything special or carry any special authority. And cannot believe that people here are intimidated by them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

        • I read someplace that someone said in this thread "No need to give examples, as everybody knows what I'm talking about." This should apply to Gnangarra as well, for what he says is common knowledge too. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

          You still need examples? First, Second, Third (never voted upon, since directly removed by the will of User:Alvesgaspar, which had [no need to answer me). Same goes of course for this discussion. After reading this. How could anyone assume that a participation on FPC could be fair. I don't need to remind you, that both images are used in more than 10 languages, but "they are not educational". So now: FUCK OFF. --Niabot (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• • Ggia; I agree. Tilt, noise, perspective correction, CA, noise and the like are often given undue emphasis. But, I'm not sure that anything can be done about that. Restricting participation to more experienced reviewers or contributors is unlikely to change matters since some of the most experienced emphasize those criteria. Many editors on our sister projects care little about technical quality, in my experience. Please see en:Talk:Glenn_Highway#Photographs for article for a discussion that I had last fall with two editors on enwiki. Those editors were unimpressed by the high resolution and low noise of my 20 MPx image (:File:Matanuska_River_8701s.JPG). I think COM:VI helps by recognizing images that are useful and of adequate quality. To some extent, I worry that placing more emphasis on subjective criteria on FPC may engender conflict and may not be helpful to our contributors since it is difficult to explain what makes the image you cite exceptional. But I do not support Alvesgaspar's view of this matter, either. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree there is a technical bias (although understandably more justified here than on en.wiki), but don't see how it relates to the problem raised by Alvesgaspar. The issues are the childish group self-reward culture instead of critical debate (in part a spillover from QI) resulting in biased promotions as observed in this recent comment in a withdrawn nomination which makes FP appear unfair, and of hostility towards criticism (I remember not so long ago a reviewer being systematically bullied for his critical opinions with ridiculous 'you show you can do better if you so smart' type comments thrown at him/her). Rules addressing these issues could be invented but would not fix all the problems, and I don't think that more rules is what the project needs. --ELEKHH^T 21:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Some users are downsampling images. As you have observed an image that is downsampled can easier pass thes technical bias in FPC nomination. Ggia (talk) 08:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is ridiculous and unfair to judge images based on their particular resolution instead of a common standard. I had this argument many times. On the other hand, I am not sure if excessively high resolutions which add no significant detail but deter viewing due to slow download are really more valuable. --ELEKHH^T 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• @Elekhh and others.. what about the argument "no wow"? Somebody can easily spam around using this "argument". This "wow" issue has been also mentioned in this discussion by Gnangarra [13] Ggia (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, "no wow" as a stand alone comment IMO shouldn't be used as is too ambiguous. Nevertheless let's not put all the blame on the reviewers, nominators should have the courage to defend their work, debate it, and ask for more detailed explanations when required, but without becoming personal and hostile. --ELEKHH^T 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
• Well, well, well, back to the old argument. I find the comments of some users stating that FPC has seen better days nothing more than self rightious bullshit. This is what I think: old users just get tired from all the bullshit and simply walk away. Meaningless technical arguments are used to shoot down perfectly viable images, giving preference to form over content. Some older users push for rules upon rules that instead of fostering participation, in my opinion, hinder participation. For example, just look at the discussion I put forth above regarding the "new rules." For years I have stated that the way of the community, from the photographic point of view, is just plain wrong, any semi decent photographer knows this and this is probably the reason photographers stay clear of this place. Statistically speaking, given the relevance of Wikipedia and the amount of decent photographers out in the world, the general lack of quality in FPC has to be the result of environmental factors (environmental in the FPC context, of course). The facts are clear, photograpphically speaking, FPC generally sucks in quality, content and evaluation, with a few exceptions; the current state of affairs is the cummunlative result of the actions carried out by this community or the ones that have hijacked it. So we are all to blame, including, and probably more so, the old timers that now cry over the good old days. So please don´t come in here crying about something you have created. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 Support and signed --Niabot (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• My last words: FPC is strongly biased and i don't want to participate anymore. Thank you very much for any trouble, useless comments and poor knowledge. --Niabot (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment -- This thread was started some three days ago and already we can see some significant improvement in the quality of the reviews. Thank you all for the participation and help. But now the discussion has shifted to more subjective issues and I don't feel in the mood to participate, sorry. As for the wiki-terrorism episodes, please don't worry: they come and go just like the showers. All we have to do is wait patiently. An interesting coincidence is that they are usually followed by very good examples of careless/bad faith/canvassed reviews and voting. Cheers. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment The above comment is really something. The user throws in a stink bomb and walks away resolving nothing. If his concerns were legitimate, I would expect proposals, not just self serving, unsubstantiated comments. It is indeed interesting in light of this exchange [[14]]. The user has actively participated in the promotion of rules that have, in my opinion, made FPC a hostile environment for new and old users alike. If he is to accuse people of wiki-terrorism or carless/bad faith canvassed reviews, at least the community should have the courtesy of having him point to specific examples, not blanket accusations, otherwise, noting is accomplished and he brings the issue down to the gossip level. Is that where FPC belongs? The sad thing is to realize that FPC, having the opportunity to be a great photography/graphic arts forum, has become what it is. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment @Tomascastelazo read this: Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas.. cheers! Ggia (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment @Ggia: LOL!!! Thanks! really enjoyed it! I guess there is nothing new under the sun! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment @Ggia: Also enjoyed it. ;-) The sad thing — its so true... ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ --Niabot (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Having just read all the fore-going, ending with the above comment, I wonder if some people ever indulge in self-reflection? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• There are still three characters to assign among the actors in the farce: the Troll, the Buffoon and the Fool. Suit yourself and please don't fight. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Trolling, canvassing & etc

A group of editors, some of them apparently canvassed by User:Niabot, have taken charge of FPC. Editors were harassed for opposing the pictures and someone is trying to prevert the rules. I've been doing what I can to enforce them, and was insulted and accused of puppetry in the process. However I'm no saint or policeman and feel a bit alone in all this. Please someone else take care. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is the opposite as you state? I mean you bend the rules to remove legal votes. You remove candidates at will (discuss later). Whats next? --Niabot (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Shit deleted by alofok* 10:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been disappointed with the incivility and personal attacks that I've seen lately on FPC. Much of Alofok's post immediately above is an explicit attack on Alvesgaspar. I suggest that s/he strike those remarks as unhelpful. Also, s/he may wish to remove his/her recent post on Alvesgaspar's talk page. Please avoid personal attacks (de:Wikipedia:Keine persönlichen Angriffe). In the future, it would be helpful and germane to bring allegations of misconduct, with diffs, to COM:AN or its subpages, with links to the rule, guideline or policy that is alleged to be violated. It is disruptive and pointless to discuss such matters in a FPC review. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the {{o}} pornographic content/unrelated reason/proved to be false reason voters would ever participate in an discussion that is not part of FPC or image related. Personal questions on user pages (for example [15], [16] and notices on basic rules [17] (such as COM:CENSOR, COM:PORN) are regularly ignored. In other words. Some part of FPC ignores the guidelines and policies. Since a 2:1 ratio is needed and such votes are not forbidden (at least nobody cares about it), 2/3 are unhappy with the results and 1/3 is happy to have proved how mighty they are. (Ratio relates to latest votings on pornographic content) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 06:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• I think there are some fundamental misconceptions about what FPC is. FPC is not some rule driven machine for selecting good images (by whatever criteria). FPC is a crowd sourced method of selecting images that the community likes. The idea is that if images pass muster here that they may impress the wider world too. There are lots of guidelines to try and educate people about what to look for in addition to just liking a particular image. There have been successive attempts to add 'rules', mainly to simply keep the number of submissions manageable - but fundamentally people are free to vote how they see fit. One of the main ways to corrupt the system is to canvas for votes, and harass opponents --Tony Wills (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that exactly the last is the case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict I was posting in reply to Alofok but he withdrew the post, oh well I'll say it anyway)

Commons does not have any particular problem hosting the images in question. POTD, FP, QI, VI are not "Commons", they are not mandated by some wiki god. They are just projects started here by groups of people to promote certain things (select a new picture to display each day, highlight impressive pictures from our collection, encourage wikimedians to produce high quality images, highlight images that may not be technically superior but are none-the-less very valuable to the wiki projects ). Each of these sub-projects has its own followers and participants, and I suppose even a "sub-culture" of its own - so if there is an issue it is how to draw new people into each while maintaining the essence of the sub-project. It is a balancing act, are new demands (eg new classes of image) accomodated within an existing project, or are there sufficient differences that it is sensible to create a seperate sub-project? For example: Some people saw that FP wasn't recognising certain images which had high merit, subsequently QI then later VI were born. Another example "Meet our photographers" section was begun to highlight good photographers but that left out illustrators and restorers. Are we certain that a project set up to evaluate photographs is a suitable place to evaluate art? --Tony Wills (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If this projects are not "Commons", then why we spend money to support them? You gave the answer yourself: "[to] encourage wikimedians to produce high quality images". Do you think it is encouragement for users that care about side-topics, and get demolished inside this projects that are, by own introduction, created to show the widespread variety of Commons? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1. ) The costs of Commons are running the servers and paying for bandwidth etc, these little sub-projects (FP et al) are insignificant in additional storage and bandwidth and the participants are certainly not paid. The unpaid volunteers (you and me etc) have taken it upon ourselves to try and enhance the wiki-commons resource at no extra cost :-)
2. ) "[to] encourage wikimedians to produce high quality images" is a QI objective, completely different from FP (this is a discussion only about FPC).
3. ) I think you are right, sometimes users are discouraged, badly treated, and their hard work not appreciated. That is a problem right across the wikipedias - the long term contributors have put enormous amounts of their time into the projects and understandably want to protect what they've built. You have certainly been discouraged, and that's not good. As I've said before, it is as though wikis have an anti-body defense system that attacks invaders :-). It's not just a problem in our little corner of the universe (FPC) but seems to be almost inherent in wikis as they grow old, and not simple to solve! Don't take it personally :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections against protecting projects in which you participated for a long time. But i have objections against the way how it is done:

• Provocative comments with an lack in explanation
• Intentional ignoring of given facts
• Playing stupid, while voting
• Ignoring comments or questions directed at the user (either on voting page or personal discussion page)
• "Calling to arms" effect, when users never participated (or at least for a longer time) are back to vote against exactly the submissions of exactly one user and nothing else

If this is the way how FPC works, then we could/should call it a closed community, which is exactly that what the projects of Wikimedia aren't supposed to be. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Koto's vote

The support vote of User:Dr. Koto in this nomination should not be considered according to #4 of our General Rules above. Nowhere in the discussion and proposals that originated this change (here) it is mentioned the concept of “global account” or that the nominator’s vote should always count. As a matter of fact, the criterion that was applied to all previous cases is that for an editor to vote it is necessary that his Commons account has at least 10 days and 50 edits. We may, of course, start a discussion on whether this rule should be adjusted or not (and I may even agree with a change). But before that happens it should continue to be applied consistently. Allowing any kind of exceptions, most especially those imposed by force, is a dangerous precedent to other arbitrary actions. Please understand that I'm not starting any kind of poll here but only drawing the attention to an anomaly that should be corrected. As explained above, it is not my intention to do it myself. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

While the concept of "global account" was not mentioned or present in the establishment of the ridiculous rule change, neither the concept of "commons account", and while Commons is a sub product of wikipedia, I believe that in the absence of the term "Commons account", then the "global account" concept should be above anything else, as well as the edit aspect of the rule. The stated purpose of the rule change was to "deal with suspicious accounts" and obviously the refered vote cannot be considered suspicious considering both, account age and number of edits. The absense of clear definition on the part of the proponents of the rule cannont be subjeted to a posteriori interpretations of the original intent. If we allow this type of reasoning, what will we have tomorrow? An FPC account? and after that, an FPC account that agrees with a particular set of users? As far as starting a discussion on the rule, it is clear that that is only lip service, for he termed that last attempt to "adjust" the rules "bullshit." User Alvesgaspar promoted the rule change and he has been the enforcer of such a rule and opposer of revisions, the record is there for all to see. So he should, out of principle, strike the votes that he deems outside the rules. He promoted the rules, he should enforce them. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

If the original intent of such an rule was to avoid socket puppets or suspicious votes and it was not strictly wrote as that, then also edits of users that aren't considered sock puppets or manipulation accounts should be counted. In this case user Dr.Koto has more then 1.000 edits on the German Wikipedia alone. I doubt that the original reason for this rule applies in this case or was intended. Of course I´m not uninvolved in this case, and my thoughts may be marked as not neutral. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 19:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alvesgaspar. As many claim commons is not wikipedia, we should act acording to that. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you decide to block invalid users (sock puppets) or everyone that is not involved in current procedure? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 22:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• It would be useful to hear directly the opinion of User:Dr. Koto, as his nomination on Commons and his global edit story (the last edit on the German wikipedia was on January) may raise suspictions of meat pupettry or worse. For what we have withnessed here in the last days I think that the possibility of improper wiki behavior should be investigated. I will be the first to apologize (contrarily to User:niabot, who falsely accused me of sockpuppetry) if my suspiction is found groundless. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

That is bad suspicion and subornation of false testimony. Dr. Kotos last edits are not even days old. [18]

I need also to apology if you thought i meant you by my comment on sock puppets. But it was not directed at you. That part was your own interpretation of my wording. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry for the mistake. I can't read German and must have pressed the wrong tag on the list at left. The offending text was striked but my request to hear from the user remains valid Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I can leave him a comment on his discussion page, to prove himself valid. Additionally he is (like me) a trusted user on German Wikipedia: Dr. Koto, myself -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes like the one of Matthew Proctor are a problem, too, the only activity of this account seems to be to take influence in votings, see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Matthew_Proctor. Please correct me, if I am wrong. The problem to judge the value of a vote is getting stronger. I don't really like the idea of closing our discussions for newbees or users from other wikis, but I fear that it might be necessary to create criteria to regain control. Perhaps it is not too hard to claim a minimum of own pictures on the commons and a certain time of activity. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• I quite agree with you, but your proposal was addressed recently in this discussion and the rules adjusted according to the result (see General Rule #4, above). It should be clear for anyone who took part in the discussion or participate on a regular basis in FPC that such rule refers to a Commons account, not a global account. That was, I repeat, the criterion applied in all previous cases. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you expect from repeating that only Commons-Edits are counted? The only thing that comes to my mind is the denial of Dr. Kotos votes. It would have nothing to do with the declared aim to exclude sock puppets, which Dr. Koto definitely isn't. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 11:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please niabot, calm down, we have real problems here not only concerning this single picture and I would be happy if you help us finding a consensual solution how to reduce theinfluence of users who are not really active on the commons.

1. The rule know:

"Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote."

Matthew Proctor now fulfils this rule, but his only edits are votes.

2. The problem to accept voters from every other Wiki is that knowbody could check the votes any longer. It is really impossible, to check all avtivities specially on Wikis where I can't even read the letters.

So I think we should add "on the commons" to the rule.

3. New rules necessary?

I think we need rules which make it more difficult to construct puppets. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the proposed changes. But you can easily see that "rules with numbers" aren't a good solution. For example: You change the rule to: "The user must have provided at least 5 images". What will be the result? Less sock puppets? I doubt it. What real sock puppets will do, is to upload 5 copyright infringements and then starting to vote. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 12:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Something importand: This "rule" must be in every language version the same one. Some people aren't able to read english, but they can write in english. alofok* 12:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Mbdortmund: my experience here shows that it is quite difficult to find the correct balance between having an open and friendly forum, where everybody of good will (and hopefully with some talent) can participate and learn, and defend ourselves against manipulative practises that may distort the outcome and affect the mission and credibility of FPC. I believe that the present rules are effective, not only in preventing socks but also in reducing other forms of manipulation, such as national/group/thematic canvassing. This is because many canvassed users are often recruited from other wikis and don't have a regular activity in Commons (see for example, here). On the other hand, the rules are only a minor nuisance to newcommers. I very much doubt that any good faith contributor, really interested in participating, will be chased away by them. We can, of course, made them more strict (in the age and # of edits) and consider other forms of participation, such as the number of uploaded pictures. But the adjustment won't probably make much difference. Finally I do agree that the expression "Commons account" should be used in the General Rules above. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that my answer took so long I was the weekend not at home and so I didn't know from this discussion. Well, I'm not a socketpuppet an how like niabot said I have in the German Wikipedia more than 1.000 Edits. It's true that I have lesser than 50 Edits here in Commons and it's my fault that I didn't know the rule. I only said to niabot before the nomination that I like his picture and I would like to nominate it and ask him how I can do it. So I found the nomination page. Regards --Dr. Koto (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your explanations, Dr. Koto. Since you confirm that your Commons acount was indeed used by yourself to nominate the picture, all I have to do is trust your word and respectifully apologize for my suspictions. Please feel free to come to FPC again and participate in the forum. As for your vote, it is true that it can't be counted according to the present rules, however the nomination is ok. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In this thread, user Alvesgaspar makes several assertions that in the interest of transparency, he should address:

1. Gobal vs Commons accounts: Nowhere the rules differentiate between the two. To passage of the rule did not contemplate such distinction, and to attempt to re interpret the rule in this particular case is at best unfair.

2. The last attempt to address modifications of the rule was labeled by Alvesgaspar as “Bullshit,” so his assertion that he may agree to a change it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

3. He implies that Dr Koto´s vote is suspicious and he states the possibility of improper wiki behavior. Well, if he so accuses, so he must prove. To launch an investigation into someone´s behavior just because the vote of such user is not in agreement with his is in itself improper, especially considering that Dr Koto is not a new user. This is Inquisition type behavior. Guilty until proven innocent.

4. His suspicion, as he says it, is just that, his suspicion. If he suspects, then he should investigate and point out legitimate evidence.

5. And finally, Alvesgaspar should substantiate his allegations of national/group/thematic canvassing, otherwise to introduce such activiti is nothing but smoke coming out of someone´s rear end. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

What is the proper way to renominate a file? What should be the name of the nomination page? The guidelines for nominators state that a file named "File:Name.jpg" should be nominated under a page named "Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Name.jpg". What should be the name of the page for the renomination? Tomer T (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just open a nomination for "Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Name-2.jpg" or so. The only thing you will need to do, is to fix the link to image in the subpage. Don't reuse the old nomination page. The FPCBot will close it immediately, because he goes after the page creation date. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 苦情処理係 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this should be mentioned also in the rules of FPC nominations.. Ggia (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomer T (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nominating set of images?!!

Did we ever had nomination like this in Commons?! I don't think with the current system it would be possible to nominate a set.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  20:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Set nominations are welcomed at Commons:Valued image candidates/Set candidate list. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• We do have a precedent in FP which is the 10 pictures' set "Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark: An Agony in Eight Fits, by Henry Holiday" (here). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a precedent: [[19]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See the last part of Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines. Is a gallery like Commons:Featured pictures/Sets a good idea? (If not, it can be deleted as a test page.) /Ö 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a user spamming with a lot of images as you have already seen (because this discussion is about my nomination). The rule of 2 active nominations is to avoid large amount of nominations by a user. Instead of making a collage I think it is better to nominate a set using a template like Double Image, isn't it? Ggia (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• @ Ggia, just call your image set a collage! Plenty of those in FP! In anycase, that´s what it is anyway! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pic of the day 16-5-2011

Is there a way to un-nominate a picture? I think this particular one is semi-pornographic at best and has nothing to do with educational purposes that Wikipedia supposedly has. Ari Linn (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• On Commons, there's less emphasis on educational value. But if you believe a picture is worth being delisted, you can follow the procedure described here - Benh (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote:On Commons, there's less emphasis on educational value is only the opinion of his author. Some other contributors here don't think so.--Jebulon (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I personally have nothing against it being featured at Commons, but was severely grossed out to see it on the Main Page in Russian (also in Ukrainian and Belorussian) wiki that uses the same list of featured pics as Commons. Probably I should try to change ru-wiki policies first. Anyway thanks for the link. Ari Linn (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wording: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others"

"Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" is not correct English. I guess what we are trying to say is: "Value - our main goal is to feature the most valuable pictures of all." Any objection to changing this? Alternative suggestions? --JN466 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That statement of Value in the summary, doesn't appear to be reflected anywhere else, in the full guidelines or main FP project page. It appears to have been added to add emphasis to the "Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that: " clause. This clause is to strongly emphasise that yet another sunset (or whatever is the flavour of the day), however good, will need something extra to get people interested.

Remember these are guidelines to tell nominators what voters will be looking for, this is not a set of rules defining what an FP is. It also serves as hints to voters about what they ought to consider.

If you are looking for something that defines the FP project's goal, I think the Commons:Featured Pictures page sums it up (and is less subject to churn than the guidelines which are regulary tweeked): "Featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons".

The term value also confuses this project with the Commons:Valued images project, which split off precisely because the emphasis here was not in any particular sense on "value" but on good looking images. If I was going to change it, I would remove that line and simply leave the rest of the statement as is:

"Value – Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:" 

--Tony Wills (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Images not used in articles

Resolved– Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm still pretty new to the FAC thing, but one thing I've noticed is that people will upload an image and then nominate it almost immediately without letting the image get in some "flight time" in an article or two. I assume because this is Commons, so it's not really necessary; this is why the nomination template doesn't require an "articles used in" parameter. But I just wanted clarification, because I feel if an image hasn't been used, or that no effort is being put into its being used, then I'm wondering why I'm bothering voting support (or even voting on it at all). So I'm simply interested in knowing if this shouldn't be a factor. (And off topic... the archive box at the top of this page doesn't have a search feature and I'm really not about to check a dozen archives for this discussion. If there's a way to add a search function to archives, that'd be rather swell.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 07:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a file library, one purpose of FP, QI, VI etc are to highlight what we have so other projects may find it, so the concept of "in use" elsewhere isn't seen as relevant. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ACK Tony Wills. I guess we can close this boring topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tony, as boring a topic as it may be (cry me a river, Wladislaw), I needed to know. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical question: Re-candidating FP

Hi,

I have uploaded a new version of File:Dornach_-_Goetheanum4.jpg and what re-candidate it here at FPC. How is the procedure for that? If I would reopen this candidature Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg I guess that the bot would close it soon as it is already marked as a not featured candidate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Have not done this in a while, but: Edit the file name when creating the nomination subpage to, e.g., Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4_edit.jpg and fill in the template as usual and save such that the template substitutions are done. Then edit the file names, etc. in the saved subpage such that it fits with the real file name. There may be smarter ways, but as I recall something along those lines will work. --Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

But with this advice I have to chance the file name, is this right? But I don't want to chance the file name. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No no, you choose a subpage name, which is different from the first nom and different from your file name, and then after you have saved the subpage (which will substitute a wrong filename based on the subpage name), you edit the subpage such that it refers to the original file name. --Slaunger (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Great, it works :) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4 edit.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Good, although that was an odd recipe. --Slaunger (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2011

I wonder if FPC/QIC/VIC people is aware of this photo contest -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed: Commons:Featured video candidates or Commons:Featured media candidates

As Commons is starting to receive more video - with the 1000 contributions from the Netherlands and some new course videos (I just nominated one of the recent clips from MIT OpenCourseWare) - and our video player is now well supported in most browsers, perhaps a separate page for featured video candidates (with its own guidelines for excellence) is called for.

Some of the qualities appropriate for videos: clear, understandable audio; subtitles available and posted in appropriate format; good keyframe to serve as the still before one plays the video. Possibly also clear iterative licensing - a video is usually a composite or derivative work, at a whole different scale than images are. Attribution or copyright presentation for a video requires a bit more effort to get right. A normal vid might have individual images and audio tracks used in it, in addition to attribution of the author. Should a great video include a few frames to show those credits? These are the sorts of questions that a FVC page should address in detail. (Until then, I hope the video I nominated can sneak in under the easier FPC standards, since I think it's one of the better videos we have today ;-) --SJ+ 06:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment – With the recent nomination of a video, I had the same exact thought pop into my head. But I was more interested in seeing other FP videos (since I'm relatively new here), and a Google search brought up plenty of examples, including discussions relating to this, which convinced me. This is the featured picture area, motion or still. I think your suggestions for licensing, presentation, keyframes, etc can still be addressed here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 07:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are two discussions I found—not sure if they're helpful or not:

1. From Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Battle_of_San_Pietro: "It's Featured Picture Candidates, not "featured photo candidates", and a video is a motion picture, i.e., it's a valid nom"
2. This is an entire discussion on the subject

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 07:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Info Your search is focused on Wikipedia, these are the discussions held on Commons, seen through Google. --Myrabella (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Well yes, videos are currently valid noms for FPs, and that's great. The question is whether we should evolve a more multimedia-specific process for video and perhaps other formats.--Pharos (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed to comment; I can't say I actually oppose the idea, I'm always for improving anything. But I did agree with the word "picture" having multiple meanings. Obviously, a discussion on audio featured within a video wouldn't be appropriate at a picture-related forum. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁galaxies 21:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment A page of guidelines for what to look for when evaluating videos would be good for QI and FP candidates. I think it would be good to see more videos evaluated, it would help in the selection of "media of the day" for the front page. But I don't think the volume of FP video candidates would warrant setting up a parallel system just yet. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Perhaps this should be expanded into "Featured Media" (ie including audio), as a direct evolution on Commons:Media of the day.--Pharos (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I am one of the featured sounds directors on the english wikipedia. In the past few weeks we have had a steady stream of videos nominated that fit nowhere. This would be a start at really showcasing the great video and sound content that commons hosts that does not fit into the featured categories on commons or on any other project. --Guerillero 03:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I've had some success nominating videos as featured pictures, where the primary message is visual. There are some videos (e.g. of speeches) where the visual component is of secondary importance, and these fit naturally into the featured sounds process. I'm glad we now have a venue for them at the English Wikipedia at least. I can also think of a few videos that probably wouldn't fit very well at either venue. I suspect we wouldn't have enough to justify setting up a separate system though. --Avenue (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It is precisely the relative scarcity of videos, which may be an excellent reason we should go for a combined "Featured Media" process on Commons as the logical successor to Commons:Media of the day.--Pharos (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Good idea ; but I am somehow worried if we have the manpower to handle this. Are there enough interested users to have a healthy process? Jean-Fred (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I would be very happy to see videos separated from Featured Pictures. Whether or not the new project has enough momentum to engender respectability will be seen, but either way, in my opinion it's better not to rate videos in the same system as pictures. So where would animated GIF files go? --99of9 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per Guerillero, there needs to be an agreed venue for high-quality videos and the current policy of FS and FP sharing videos is not beneficial for the project, either the video's visual and audio content is good, but sacrificing one for the other... that is not showcasing "our best work" it's showcasing cheap rubbish. Ancient Apparition ^(talk) 09:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• I am not sure if I am supporting a unified featured video, featured sound or a unified featured media, but I  Support all three. I think WP also needs a FV process too because this will not truly solve the WP problems other than farm them out.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• The skills and background required to review music files are entirely different from those required to review images, whether still or moving. en.WP's problematic featured sound candidates page still hasn't sorted out significant issues to do with the double-nominating of speech and performance video and audio files. It has no specific criteria for judging the video component in such nominations. The demarcation between FP and FS processes is fuzzy, although that's not an overriding reason to merge them, for the skill-based reasons I mentioned. But then again, FSC is a backwater—it's hard to get enough regular reviewers there. Tony1 (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• It looks very much like we have consensus here :) Anyone care to take the lead now on jumpstarting Commons:Featured media and Commons:Featured media candidates?--Pharos (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Notifying uploader?

On 3 or 4 occasions uploads of mine (not authored by me) have been nominated for FPC and I wasn't notified, but would have liked to participate in the discussion. Can we make this notification a recommendation? Thank you. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it seems good. Yann (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The english wikipedia FP system

Is there any particular reason images that pass the english wikipedia FPC would run into issues on commons?Geni (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, criterias are different: English WP FPC includes more the concept of encyclopedic value, but Commons FPC requests more quality (in short). Yann (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

However in terms of what actualy passes at English WP is there any of it that would run into problems at commons? en:Wikipedia:Featured_pictures shows the stuff that passed most recently.Geni (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters all the super-resampled images under 2Mpix would not be allowable at FPC here. That's the main category of no-goes. Further some older stuff that although having high EV, being of such a quality that they would not stand scrutiny at Commons. Composition, hires, focus, noise and other technical issues are taken more serious here. Both FP venues have their merits but overlap is far from 100%. W.S. 13:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That still leaves around 900 English FPs that could probably be commons FP. Is the only option to mass nominate them?Geni (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you don't nominate 900 until you find out how your first two (concurrent nomination limit) go :-). --99of9 (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much value to the community in the largely duplicative review of images on Commons FPC that have been promoted by sister projects and tagged with the {{Assessments}} template. Those reviews are already available to our users. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Such pictures are not however entered into Picture of the Year. Which if we want to continue to advertise cross project is a problem.Geni (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How are Featured Pictures found?

I'm corresponding with an associate of our POTY 2010 winner. She asked me how people find featured pictures. Do you find them on the web? Or do you find them looking at articles on Wikipedia? Or do you find them while looking through Commons' collection? Other ways?--Chaser (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Some people (me, for example) nominate their own pictures, because we simply know the results of our own work; this also includes retouchings or restorations of old photos. Many pictures are nominated, because someone found them in an article and decided to nominate them. There are also FPs on many individual Wikipedias, and chances are that if something becomes an FP there, it will also appear here. Łukasz [Wolf] Golowanow (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

On the main Commons page, right side, under the heading Highlights... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There can be only one?

There is a cross-candidate discussion starting on multiple featured images of the same subject. Since this discussion is of general interest I think it is best to centralize it here. Currently, the guidelines just state that two different versions of the same picture cannot be featured but doesn't say anything about different images of the same subject.

Currently, there are many examples of featured pictures of the same subject. Usually, there is a good reason to have this variety, since different images of the same subject can show different details. But I agree, if two images of the same subject have a similar viewpoint and show similar details, they shouldn't be both featured. Which one to choose, though? --Quartl (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Related comments page?

Looking at the FP candidates, I'm quite confident that my best pictures aren't good enough, but I can't pinpoint any specific reasons. Is there anywhere I can go to ask multiple people to review an image? I don't feel like getting input by nominating an image that surely won't succeed. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is Commons:Photography critiques. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Downsampled or not downsampled ?

Hi everybody.

I was tonight to nominate a picture in FPC (not from me, but from another user), and at the end of the process came a new an unknown automatic template : "stop, this image has been downsampled, and is therefore not eligible as featured picture" or something like that.

It is the first time I see that, I'm shocking.

I think Big Brother strikes again, and I'm strongly against this silent dictatorship. It is an attack against freedom, against nominators, and against reviewers, IMO.

As far as I'm concerned, it is not forbidden by the rules to upload or nominate in FPC a downsampled picture (I don't know if it is true or not especially for this picture). To nominate non-downsampled/non-downscaled images is not a mandatory, but only a recommendation ("should"...). The mandatory is for the minimum size (2MP), moreover with exceptions if mitigating circumstances.

Any information about the consensual discussion, about this template, I missed ? Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• Looks like a nightmare to me! I have only two questions: (1) how the hell does the system know that the image is downsampled? (2) Who the hell is the author of this Big Brother thing? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Perhaps he? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed. Jean-Fred (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Was it really necessary to use the beloved lexical field of 'censorship', 'attack against freedom', etc.? <sigh>

  Reverted the change, left a note to user inviting him to this discussion.

  @Alvesgaspar : the 'system' does not know anything ; its design is to force nominators to purposely change the nomination to |downsampled = no.

  Jean-Fred (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

  @Alves, I think EXIF gives you original size of an image, but this wouldn't work in all cases (like stitched images) - Benh (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• OK, I got it now. It is a kind of declaration we have to do to be able to nominate a picture. I don't think we should start a discussion on this unless someone wants to propose the change. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• If you upload a really large image it is common to receive opposing comments like.. noisy (some people zoom 100% and check for details). If you downsample the large image.. ie. @ 10 megapixels, no more bad comments about noise etc. I consider this a big problem.. because due to these comments people upload downsampled images.. some people downsample the images to the limit of 2megapixels for FPC nomination.. Ggia (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Some people offer to Commons only small size versions of their best pictures and keep the originals for business. That happened with Fir0002 and also with some active users. What we can do is to raise the size bar in the rules (2 Mpixels is a bit small) but consider some exceptions (old pictures and macro shots, for example) or, alternatively, apply the new requirement only to certain kinds, e.g. landscapes and architecture. Anyway we shouldn't forget the main reason for having large pictures in our galleries, which is the possibility of printing them. I wonder why resolution is not considered too, as a minimum of 300 dpi is usually required for good quality printing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Info There is not, and never has been, a minimum size for images either (despite many, many, people misreading the guidelines and declaring that 2MP is a fixed limit). People can downsize, upsize, sharpen, blurr, crop, saturate, desaturate, and edit to their hearts content, so long as any major manipulations are declared. We have guidelines informing candidates and reviewers of what aspects are likely to be considered, but people can vote as they see fit. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks to you all for comments, I'm happy to see I'm not alone !

I think there is no need to change anything, I agree with Tony Willis, we have enough rules, no need for a discussion nor a vote. Here it is a wiki. People have to assess each image one after the other.

@ Jean-Fred: oui, c'était à mon avis nécessaire, les Anglo-Saxons et les Nordiques flegmatiques adorent ça, ça nous laisse nous, les Latins, conformes au cliché, et ça nous sort de la perpétuelle guimauve pseudo-consensuelle de la soit-disant communauté qui ne résout aucun problème qu'à coup de renvois dos-à-dos. A force de ne jamais s'indigner vraiment, on se fait marcher sur le ventre, et vive la liberté, d'expression aussi. Du moment bien sûr qu'on n'insulte personne, ça c'est un autre débat. Plus sérieusement, je crois que ce genre d'incident est plus grave qu'il n'en a l'air. --Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Jean-Fred: your note to the author was very kind and soft in my opinion... I think this user's behavior is nothing else than vandalism, trollism (or family of) & should have been punished, or hardly warned, not "asked for a discussion"... With all due respect, I think that your opinion (personally no opinion etc...) is a little bit irrelevant as you are not only a simple user, but an administrator... Maybe could you keep strongly neutral (i.e. silent) about opportunity, if severe about rules enforcement, when you act as an administrator ? Only my poor User's opinion...--Jebulon (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you feel that I must be punished for vandalism, please take that up on COM:ANV; This isn't an venue for discussions of that sort. _→AzaToth 13:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry ? After what you did (alone and anonymously), You give me a lesson about how and where to open a discussion about this kind of behavior ? Funny, really funny !! --Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I added the parameter as a honeypot for people who reduce resolution to make an image appear to look better and pass FPC easier. True the warning template might be a bit harsh, but it was meant as a warning for people who vote that the image has been downsampled. IMO if we don't have high standards on commons featured pictures, then I think we should abandon the whole featured picture concept here. _→AzaToth 13:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
  • reduce resolution to make an image appear to look better. Where's the problem in that? Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
    • If you are reducing the resolution you are in fact removing information, thus the quality of the image isn't getting better, but it is actually getting worse; the only thing that happens is that you hide the details of the image from inspection of reviewers. Also remember that an image should be usable outside the realm of computers, i.e. it should be possible to print the image, reducing the resolution reduces the practical possibility for printing. _→AzaToth 13:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Even if used in the guidelines, the 'printing' argument is a farce, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You have the right to have an opinion, but You had absolutely no right to do what you did. Please feel free to abandon the featured concept here if you want.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with AzaToth's actions completely, but there is probably room to negotiate, given the opposing views above. I think it would be handy if every photograph in Commons was labelled as downsampled (or not) and as a stitched pano (or not). By extension, every Featured picture should have this info and a question in {{FPCnomNewerPreload}} would be good, but perhaps the default should be unknown rather than yes. Also there is should just be a minor warning if |downsampled = yes, for example This image has been downsampled, downsampling is discouraged for Featured Pictures. It is important to know if an image is stitched so you can look for stitching errors. Similarly, if an image is downsampled then there is less reason to look for defects (they will be hidden along with other image details). Also, downsampling means a higher quality version is possible, so the downsampled version is less valuable.--Commander Keane (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• • A higher quality (what does it mean ?) version of a photograph is always possible...--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I am against forcing any information out of the author he is not willing to give. We want to encourage people to upload (and nominate) their images and not discourage them by excessive bureaucracy. We have to assume good faith anyway since there is little possibility to actually validate any statements given by the author. Also, nearly all image processing methods lose information somehow: cropping, rotating, enhancing contrast or brightness, change of color space, exposure correction, denoising, etc. and it is not necessary to declare each and every one of them since they are standard actions of digital postprocessing. Actually, in many cases it is good to lose information, it does not make sense to hang on to every pixel (I daresay we do already have quite a lot of them ;-) ). What is judged in FPC is the quality of the actual outcome, not the way it was obtained. Reviewers here are quite aware of the limitations and possibilities of digital photography. My two cents, --Quartl (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Full ACK to Quartls statement --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Fully agree though we should continue to discourage downsampling as a way to make pictures look cleaner. But that should be done on a case by case basis, during the evaluation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Full ACK to Quartls statement. I think it is much more important to add infos, how: EXIF data, GEO-tag, made proces: pano, hdr, stitching, focus stacking, etc., etc., etc. for an FP image! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Full ACK too. + beware of the individual attempts of modifications of rules. Please remember that it is the initial subject of this topic, not a discussion about the good or bad of downsampling ! Freedom, consensus and democracy, as often as possible.--Jebulon (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely right. Downsample = lose information... Do any kind of fixing, corrections in order to get the picture look better or (try to) eliminate the incorrections caused by the equipment = again, lose information! The loss of information always happens and it cannot be avoided. If we were in a situation where such thing as downsampling was set against the rules it is for sure that any kind of other adjustments and processing could be against as well... Take this guideline to the extreme and in the dystopic future we wouldn't be able to nominate anything but the RAW files straight from the camera. Say good bye to the multiple exposure and focus stacked pictures in the same... Hope this will not actualize. --Ximonic (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Delisted FP and MoP ?

A question: Suppose I'm a member of the "Meet our Photographers" club because I'm the author of 10 Featured Pictures here in 'Commons'. If one of my Featured Pictures is delisted, I'm now author of 9 Featured Pictures and that is not enough. Am I still member of the club or Am I delisted too ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jebulon, it is simple: take a new FP photo :-) Beaucoup de salutations, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Once a member, always a member (for what it's worth anyway, as 10 FPs is not difficult these days). We've had that discussion before. พ.s. 08:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

10 FPs should be difficult, as it should show perfections and high level of artistry. Only the best of the beast should be featured. _→AzaToth 10:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of subject.--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I didn't know you had to be a beast. Glad I only have 8... --Slaunger (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, Kim, that was a looong vacation from Commons. Welcome back, my friend! As for Jebulon's question, once famous, famous for the whole life! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, I've far more than 10, but, Gott sei dank, I'm not a member... So, it was only a question. Sorry if some had this discussion before, I'm not so old (in Commons...)--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it is about time to make it a bit harder! What do you think of a minimum of 50? With retroactive effects, of course ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to support bringing the limit up to 20, or even 30. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• See Commons talk:Meet our photographers for previous discussions on this subject. If the size of the MOP page is really considered a problem, I'd rather go for an activity criterion than a requirement raise. But this discussion should be continued there, not here. --Quartl (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A new template ?

Hi everybody.

Do somebody know what is this ?

*{{Support}}--Jhalvico (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Vote is not valid as accounts must have at least 10 days and 50 edits to be allowed to vote.

It needs a discussion IMO, maybe it is a good idea, maybe not, but I'm really tired with these kinds of self-decided-pseudo-improvements.

it is not the way to do.

Moreover, in my opinion, this "FPXvote" template is not valid, because anonymous.

Other point: did you notice that the pseudo "downsampled template" is still tagging some pictures, even if not visible ? Is it normal and was it decided by a consensual discussion ? --Jebulon (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

• I don't like the new template and think it shouldn't be used. However I wouldn't oppose a much more discrete one, just a signed line of text. As for the "downsampled template" I suppose the only way is to eliminate it by hand. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The template is not really new (created 2008-12-21), I just reworded it to make it clearer, and used it on some invalid votes. _→AzaToth 13:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I repeat: it is not the way to do.--Jebulon (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's way too agressive, not in words, but in its appearance. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand too the necessity to build a template for a little sentence that has to be written sometimes. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Jebulon + Łukasz Wolf Golowanow + Wladyslaw. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is {{FPXvote}} itself IMO. A much less intrusive approach would be better - in agreement with above. For example:

•  Support I like it.--ItsGood 04:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

* Support I like it.--Copycat 04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Invalid vote, user has under 50 edits.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Its ugly.--SuperCritic 09:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the standard approach to striking sockpuppet votes on things like RFA. It is much less intrusive than {{FPXvote}}, and is attributed to the striking user. As it is not a template, they can give more detailed reasons for striking: Such as the acceptable "blocked sockpuppet of nominator".

If a template with a similar appearance to FPXvote is needed, it is more logical to use it as on the user's talk page: Simply strike the vote on the FPC, and leave them a message saying "sorry but your vote on this FPC (link) was invalid because you don't have enough edits / your account is too new". The advantage of a template message there is it allows translation.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental requirement

I propose adding

The image must meet the content-related Commons policies and guidelines.

to the end of the first sentence ("Please read the complete guidelines before nominating."). All the featured review processes on Wikipedia explicitly check the basic policies and guidelines are fully met in addition to the opinions on quality of prose or images, etc. The Commons's featured process should be no different. This would avoid us featuring an image that should really be deleted, or that requires improved licensing information. Colin (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Careless reviews (again)

• Once again the level of exigency in the FPC reviews (the so-called FPP bar) is becoming dangerously low. Although the average quality of the images has steadily increased since 2005 (when FPC started), due to technology, such improvement is not being reflected in the way nominations are assessed, and the number of pictures promoted every month is exaggerated. May I remind once more, especially the new users, that we are supposed to choose the very best Commons has to offer and that FPC is not a popularity contest (where we put a like it when passing by)? Also we are supposed to oppose a nomination, and not only to abstain, when we consider that it doesn’t deserve the FP status. However, there are users who never oppose a nomination and others (the "bad ones") who are apparently tired of rowing against the flood and participate less and less in the forum (like me). The result is mediocre pictures being promoted, usually with a stack of uncommented support votes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is how the community works. Lets not recycle the same discussions. Because you have some bold opinions about how a FPC should be you can express it in your comments and your votes. Looking forward to see some high EV and quality nominations by you.. don't just compain about the others. Ggia (talk) 12:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• As far as I understand I'm part of the comunity too and have all the right to address questions related to this forum any time I want. In my opinion this community is not working like it should, that is why I'm raising the question. I have no idea what resentment or complaint you have against my contributions but much appreciate if you don't personalize the issue! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• If you have some specific issues please address them here.

1. For example recently we had an issue that some users opposed against an image because it may-be violate copyright rules [20]. Oppose votes because of copyright issues should not be valid in FPCs IMO. Also in DR should not considered a reason not to delete if the image has FP status.
2. Opposing because of noise. We have some users that nominate downsampled images to 2mpixels and these images are accepted as FP ex. If somebody upload a high resolution image and some noise is present.. is it a valid reason to oppose (probably the same image downsample @ 2mpixels will not have so much noise)? If you look closely to this nomination ex denoising has been done around the bird and the bird is noisy - but these problems are not obvious in this resolution. Somebody can say, why to upload a free high resolution of my images? I can upload low resolution, ask the community to give to my images FP status.. and later on.. maybe.. if there is a client I can sell the image in higher resolution [21].. Ggia (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• ?? - I can't see the relation of this last comment with the theme of the thread. Maybe a title of a new topic is missing? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean if you have specific issues concerning careless reviews.. my issues are listed above. Ggia (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Alvesgaspar, I also don't really understand your issues. I see that you opposed two old images because of quality. I think this is wrong. You can't judge the quality of images from the 1960s with the criteria of modern digital DSLR. By your criteria, we could not get old FPs. Then we will only get nice panoramas, birds and insects, which are already a big majority, but images worth to be featured should covered more than that. I think that FPs should be for images of all times. Saying that the "level of exigency is becoming dangerously low" is just a big joke. It has never been higher. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please look closer at the FPC page. My main concern is not with historical images but with recent ones taken with DSLR cameras, including panoramas and birds. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• For example, will you accept as FPC a black & white film photo shot in 2011 by HP5 Film? The images that reserve the FP status should be only by high end digital cameras? Ggia (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• I share the concern highlighted at the top of this thread by Alves, which is of general nature, and don't see why distract the debate with specific cases as above. The problem as I see it is caused by the fact that many reviewers shy away from opposing images as they fear bullying and revenge while many other reviewers rush to support an image without careful consideration by simply dropping a {{s}} below the image. We had these discussions in the past and if we haven't had them, FPC would be much worse now. The problem is that we haven't really found a sustainable solution, and each time after a pro-quality drive the level falls again. Maybe is just something related to aspects of human nature... I don't know, but I would love to hear some proposals for improvement. There were proposals in the past which might be worth considering as well, such as requesting a supporter of an image to articulate why. Another suggestion was to prepare nominators for critique: "If you can't take criticism, don't nominate". We have to develop a culture in which the critique of the reviewers is respected and appreciated, otherwise FP will become completely meaningless. --ELEKHH^T 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
• +1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that there is a problem, and I've thought of three possible ideas to solve it:
  1. Separate the decision in two/tree separate parts, Technical quality, Subjective quality/Educational value. Where voting on technical quality issues gives more weight from people trusted to assess such values.
  2. Require all votes to be followed by a reason for the vote.
  3. Introduce a Featured Picture Directorate that has the final saying on all promotions.

I aslo think the rules for delisting should be modified as well, as at the moment, it's pretty difficult to get an image delisted, even if a super majority of all commoners want it delisted. _→AzaToth 00:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Concerning the notes of AzaToth. Concerning technical quality.. if an image has a minor technical problem.. ie. some dust spots in the sky that can be removed/corrected easily I find offensive to oppose for that reason. Also as I mentioned above.. opposing votes because "may-be the image violates copyright laws" should be removed (this discussion should be done in the deletion request page). About the noise problem, it should be a discussion.. Is noise the same in an downsampled image of 2megapixels and the same in an image with full resolution? The idea is to promote users to upload images in high resolution - and limiting the opposing votes due to a little noise of a panorama of 20 megapixels. Another discussion should be done with pictures that has been shot by film (most images 5-10 years ago) as Yann mentioned. FP accept film quality (ie. film noise), accept b&w images (ie. images shot by traditional noisy films like Kodak TriX or Ilford HP5)? Ggia (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I still don't see where is the problem. Saying that the "level of exigency is becoming dangerously low" is just not true. You need to prove that first. There is another assumption here that the increase of promoted FP is a problem. I really don't understand why it should be. Obviously the increase of contributors and the increase of quality equipment, in range and in quantity, will lead to more FPs. And that's good. Please explain first where is the problem before looking for solutions. Yann (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment -- No hidden message is contained in my first comment. The problem, clearly stated in the title and text, is the lack of care of many reviews. Maybe people here have different visions on what the FP gallery is and should be. For me, it is a showcase of extraordinary images, the very best Commons has to offer, not just a collection of cool pictures that were stamped with the FP seal in a popularity contest. That is why I insist that the overall quality improvement of the nominations should be reflected upon the reviewing process, by making it more exigent, and that all votes (supports and opposes alike) should be justified and based on a careful assessment of the images, taking into account our guidelines. That is not what is happening though, as a quick browsing through the nomination page clearly reveals. As I noted earlier, there are more than a couple of users who never oppose a picture, some who apparently don’t care to open the images in full size, and look into the details, and many more who never justify their votes. It is a sad thing that only after I started to oppose some nominations the stack of support votes was interrupted and the reviewers decided to look more carefully. Frankly, I’m not proud of such influence. Solutions? I don’t think that making the rules stricter or more complicated will solve the problem. I fully agree with Elekhh above, when he states that we have to develop a culture in which the critique of the reviewers is respected and appreciated. Resentment, revenge votes and being nice to most nominations don’t help. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For me, while quality is important, it is by far not the only criteria by which an image should be FP. For example, images of historical importance should be featured, despite a quality below the best quality we are able to get with a modern equipment. It is the case of the pictures of Martin Luther King, Baez and Dylan, and Grace Kelly among the current nominations. It is a pity that these images are not appreciated for their value as much as for their quality. Such images were featured previously, why can't we do that again? Yann (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Yann about the historical images.. A good example of old-historical image that recently got the FP status is Firing Squad in Iran. The image as you see is below the 2 megapixels limit that FP candidates should have. Ggia (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Historical images are an important component of our FP galleries and I have nothing against their nomination and promotion. But being old doesn't qualify an image automatically. Of course, image quality has to be assessed, in those pictures, taking into account their context and date. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I mean that the variety of promoted FPs is pretty low... Yann (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yann, Ggia, you are aware of COM:VI and en:WP:FP which are focussed on EV. Surely Commons FP has to be slightly different. Or should we decorate each image with three distinctions all meaning the same? And please don't constantly try to hijack this discussion directing it to historical images. We are talking about all images here, of any kind, of any age, all, as it already has been repeated half a dozen times. Without dialogue we won't progress. --ELEKHH^T 18:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Not only I know COM:VI, but I am quite active there. ;o) You mention of hijacking is inappropriate. Don't try to reject me from the discussion. To me, it seems that FPC is just becoming a super quality contest, with little importance given to image value. Yann (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Absolutely no intention (or means :) to "reject" anybody from the discussion, quite the opposite. I always stood for value (which is a criteria here and at QI as well), but let's not forget what this thread is about, again: careless reviews. You want to talk about EV and historical images, start a separate thread, and will be happy to join, but is a distinct topic. --ELEKHH^T 19:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
• Maybe a bit extreme, but we could define a target number of FPs per month, and adjust the support/oppose ratio depending on the actual number of pictures featured last month. Of course, this could lead to the situation where a single oppose vote weights as much as 20 support votes, but if that is how people vote, why not? -Kabelleger (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, you are proposing a solution where there is no problem. See my post above. Yann (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Problem is, I kind of agree with Alves'. I'm just not sure if we can/should do something about it... --Kabelleger (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Alvesgaspar and Elekhh. Between people who don't accept criticism, people who give out of place arguments and obviously don't know what they're talking about, people who don't assume their opinion, and don't dare opposing or share it, this page no longer looks like forum, but close to political meeting where we all not really know what we talk about and try not to hurt anybody. Maybe the best advice we can add to the guidelines (in large size and bold type) is for people to actually say what they mean (without being rude!). If something is bad, say it, but give a reason why. - Benh (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't understand what is the goal of this discussion. Is it a problem in the criticism of images? Is it a problem that the FPC should have more strict rules? Is any rule of the existing rules that is violated by users? Is it a problem that a lot of images get featured? Ggia (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of behaviour rather than rules. No set of rules/laws is perfect, and there's always a way to by pass. There's never too many FP, but I see too many that are a bit too common in my opinion. And it seems that a "I'm bored, no wow" oppose is not always welcome, while it's a perfectly valid vote to me. Two examples bother me the most: people who have never opposed, and how we ended up with having hundreds of shells featured (the picture themselves have nothing special). We don't serve people who work hard to have their pictures promoted FP if we give away that label too easily. - Benh (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Benh. The problem with a behaviour it is a problem. I find also rude to oppose to an image because of some dust spots that can easily removed or because the image it is a little bit tilt etc. Opposing because "let the poor thing to breath" is also not welcome. The comments should be more clear and police, in order to help the nominator to correct the image's technical flaws and nominate a better image next time. The issue about noise it should also be more clear. What is the acceptable amount of noise that the image can have in order not to get opposing votes? About the nominations of same subjects like shells, or fossils, or birds or tunnels it can be also discussed. Ggia (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• My opinion: are some reviews careless? yes. Are some "not outstanding" pictures being featured?? Yes. Is that suiciding matter to me? Absolutely not. We try to work as a community and we all have a general goal which is to deliver good stuff for free. Stuff that is accessible to anybody in the world. In this particular case, pictures. I love the idea that a girl in Vietnam can learn about the majesty of a "tepuy" in Venezuela whithout ever traveling. I love that I've seen the magnificency of Lhassa whithout having to travel for 2 days and spending thousands of dollars.

Alright, we should deliver the best shots and separate them, so we have a gallery of the best shots, and users can see the best content. The way to do it, is putting the shots out for judging.

Now, and this is important, there will always be different judges (for everything in life), there will the "good ones", the "exigent ones", the incoherent ones and so on. For example, at the university there's always the professor who gives A's to everyone, and the SOAB that fails every guy in class. If I was a professor and wanted to give A's or F's I wouldn't want nobody to tell me how to do it. Every person has its own criteria. Telling everyone to raise exigency is just a nonsense, in my opinion, and don't be offended Alves, I do admire your work and have no problem with you opposing to every single picture I have uploaded. I just know I have to work harder for some "professors" so they appreciate my work, but I couldn't care less if you or anybody thinks a picture of mine is not featurable.

That said, you can ask people to raise the level bar, but it will only last for a few days (I noticed everyone is adding more negative votes now lol). I think a better and more efficient method would be raising the minimum votes to something like ten or whatever. It should be put under discussion. It's the only fair way (that way would also help to avoid what happened with the ecuatorian guys who were supporting each other). That way you'd have "higher level" pictures in the gallery. But you can absolutely not tell anybody how to vote (and I am a person who gives +'s and -'s, not just +'s). It is basic: free will. Otherwise this thing would never work because wikimedia does not read minds. We have to assume good faith and let everyone have their own opinion. If someone wants to support with no explanation, good for them. That's perfectly valid. Maybe that picture reminded the user of his lovely grandma and he felt like supporting: he shouldn't do that, but I repeat, good for him. And then, if there're guys who don't have good faith, you should not let that make you unhappy and go opposing every picture out there (I'm not referring to anyone in particular). Just breathe.

I also think that there are some people that just don't want pictures to be featured. They give away -'s for "tilt" for example, then you correct the tilt, but then you don't get the vote change by that user. That is even worse than an unexplained +, in my opinion. Makes you waste your time. That is just looking for excuses so you can oppose here and there. Talk about careless review. But as I said: you are perfectly free to do it. That shouldn't make anyone unhappy either. I've seen some of you guys take this voting process really seriously and have some endless fights over imo silly arguments. FP's don't award you with a million dollars, so just be happy my friends. We do this for free, like voluntary work, so it should be fun. Live and let live guys. Remember this is my opinion, we cannot all think alike. Have an awesome 11/11/11!!! --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• • 11/11/11 ! Is it really today the end of the world? Or just for the people adopting the Gregorian calendar and using the decimal system? ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Dunno! We should get out and seize the day, just in case of!!! (Lots of people go buy lottery tickets today) roflmao!!!! Everyone should go out and take some nice pictures! --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Why not. Too bad the pictures of today are hardly FP-worthy. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comments, Paolo! Though I do not agree with everything you say, I much appreciate your friendly tone and constructive approach. Yes, this is a volunteer activity and we should not take our work (and ourselves) too seriously. But I still belive that we can achieve excellence in this forum, as well as in our FP galleries, while we have fun in the process! I promise that I will look closer into your next nominations! The truth is I often forget who is the author or the nominator of the image when I'm reviewing ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Paolo, I much agree with most of your long comment. That's why it's going to be difficult to change things. Just if we all could oppose when we feel like so and I believe this would be most fine. I feel frustrated to see some of the finest photographers don't oppose anything. There must something they don't like. Why don't they say? What's wrong? Are they afraid to be that mean guy ? I find this is more disrespectful than a well commented oppose (when the argument are not "it's a bilt tilted, it's a bit noisy. etc."). After all, don't we learn more from or errors? I agree with last of your paragraph. Usually, I would say those neatpickings are how we try to justify an oppose without offending those guys who won't take the "no wow" argument well. Now I don't bother doing that, I just say I don't like it. Unfortunately, this must be accepted as there's a lot of subjectivity involved in judging a picture. - Benh (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well guys, the way I see it, every mind is a different world. There's people who just feel uncomfortable giving negative votes. I don't find that offensive. That is personal. Maybe they do fear to be the "bad guy", and that's cool. It's them being themselves. They are not being paid for anything. That doesn't mean I support mediocrity. I only accept there's people who does accept it or has different ways to see things.

I live in a place with 7.000.000.000 other people who are free to think different: I don't let that bother me, and my advice for you is you should not let that frustrate you. Take action and work for an improvement, without forcing things. I mean: things change and who adapts may live a happier life. There may be a point where there are too many users. Suppose there's double the actual users and everyone learns that "not opposing is better so no one will try to get revenge". You take a tilted unfocused 100Kb picture of a WC and get 10 positive votes and no opposes and it gets promoted. Then I would try to change the rules and ask for a minimum of, I don't know, 20 positive votes, eliminating opposes. You have to get at least 20 +s. Oppose would not be an option anymore because it became obsolete and useless. Why not? What do you think? Would it be too complicated to vote for a change in rules? If you guys think FP's are getting mediocre you should gather and ask for a change I think. Youtube made a research and found that the voting system was not useful (a scale from 1 to 5), and discovered that people voted 99% the times with 5 or 1, so they changed it to support and oppose. At first users were very angry, they did not like the change. Now no one even remembers about that.

Thing is: never force no one to oppose or anything: human race is very very weird: we like to do exactly the opposite what we are told to. That's why I don't think complaining about careless reviews is gonna work much. But is it possible to get recognition for only the very best pictures, based on a community's democratic opinion? yes. Is the best method being used right now? Is it effective? does it need to be changed? That's the kind of things you guys should argue about. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Well, complaining about careless reviews has worked in the past, as most people recognized the need to adjust the rules to better fit present conditions. Taking an afternoon to browse our discussion archive will be instructive on that matter… But if you don’t have the time, please check: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 5#Raising the bar, Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9#Careless reviews and Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11#Careless reviews, Part II. This time, I’m not convinced that changing the rules will improve things, but who knows? Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Once again a boring demonstration of displeasure of some users who consider themselves to be a elite. I am sorry, but this is boring for me. FPC is a or suppose to be a quality label for more or less encyclopedic pictures. It is not an international and highly distinguished price or something like that. Calmness is advisable in this case. And yes: the argument "I'm bored, no wow" is a rather meaningless flowery phrase. The killing-argument "now wow" is not useful for the photographer who shared his picture. Such arguments should be followed by a explanatory statement or a hint how to improve or make next time a better picture. Otherwise this a disrespectful statement means wasting your breath. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Once again a boring demonstration of displeasure of some users who consider themselves to be a elite" - this kind of offensive commentary is exactly what discourages unfavourable reviews, and you know it. --ELEKHH^T 13:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Halas, Wladyslaw is completely right. I would say exactly the same thing. Yann (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your gentle comments Yann! --ELEKHH^T 13:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The statement of Wladyslaw about people that consider themselves to be elite remind me the essay Don't feed the divas. I would suggest to all the persons in this discussion that complain about low quality in FP.. to nominate images that they consider to be "high quality and featurable".. and as also Paolo Costa said: Everyone should go out and take some nice pictures!. Ggia (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• @wladyslaw, says the one who sometimes opposes without an accompanying comment... - Benh (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For sure you can confirm this with an example. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

For sure I can:

• Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Muskellunge_USFWS.jpg
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Dedizione religiosa.jpg
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pl. XXXIII. Diastylis rathkei-2.jpg
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mona Lisa, by Leonardo da Vinci, from C2RMF retouched.jpg

Oh sorry that was more than an example. And there's more, but there's no point in showing them right ? Now would you stop shifting the talk away from primary subject ? When one has no argument, he would always say the other guys look down on him. That's common pattern. - Benh (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Those contras has no comment (in fact most of my contas have one) so what is the problem? No one is obligated to commend his decision but when you do do it with respect and not with dismissive and useless rhetoric. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You're an allegory for bad faith, really. But don't teach others what respect is when you don't dare justifying your decisions. "No wow" is certainly more instructive than nothing. Oh I'm not like you, when I complain about something, I usually don't do it. You would find that most of my opposes, if not all, have minimalist justification. - Benh (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And you're an synonym for something called Stinkstiebel. --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And these are "Careless reviews", as you called it: [22], [23]. I am surprised that you don't complain about them... Yann (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to make some sort of POINT here? If so, I'm sadly in the dark trying to find out which one it is. _→AzaToth 12:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The far more bigger problem of the votings in FPC are accommodation or revenge-votings such as Benh's obvious contra after our dispute. Followed by Hans Hillewaerts "bad-guy-voting-puppet" Wetenschatje who is notorious against every picture apart from candidates that fall in his sphere of interest. Not very astonishing that Wetenschatje voted as always against both candidates from me running temporarily at FPC. Such a behaviour does not rise the quality but the displeasure and I know a lot of users that are not in the mood for such confrontations. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is repeatedly diverted towards personal disputes and specific issues by a number of users, making a constructive debate on the overall topic almost impossible. It would be great if contributors would remember what the topic of this discussion is, and also that criticism of an image is not criticism of the nominator. Also IMO the discontent regarding negative feedback is incoherent when concomitantly ignoring the seriousness of systematic "positive" careless reviews. I still think that serial {{s}} droppings as this recent example out of many is a problem: ra-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta (12 supports in 15 minutes, not a single justification or comment regarding previous critiques and overlooking even that an FPC has been already withdrawn by the nominator.

Given that so many participants seem not to be able to discern that an image review has nothing to do with the identity of the author/nominator, and that having anonymous nominations doesn't seem possible in the context of free images, I would suggest banning self-nominations altogether. Instead we could have a pool page where authors could place their suggested images, and others could select and nominate. Images not selected after a certain period (i.e. one month) would be removed. That would eliminate images which only the nominator finds interesting and thus the need for FPX, and would mediate between author and reviewer, possibly somewhat depersonalising reviews. --ELEKHH^T 14:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. However that would not change the people who want to teach others how they should vote, nor people voting against with a silly reason. Yann (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Yann: This is an open forum, everybody can participate, and as Paolo pointed out above is and is always going to be inherently mixed. There is absolutely no risk of becoming "elitist" or "authoritarian" and I don't think anybody would dwell on such an illusion. As I said initially, it is in the end up to our civility and culture what we can achieve here together. Rules and processes are only a framework, and should support the educational scope of the project. Thus I also think that there should be more dialogue during the reviews, and for that to happen we would need reviewers in support to also justify why (in any language). Than we could start comparing which one is more or less silly (or persuasive). What I would like to see would be reviewers from time to time letting themselves persuaded by the arguments of others and change their initial vote. That would be an indication of a successful forum.--ELEKHH^T 15:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• I  Support this idea. I was about to propose banning self nom myself, but it would have been too draconian. This looks to be a good compromise, and with the hope that this won't only shift the issue toward that pool page, or only delay it until it actually moves to FPC. 1 month seems to me like for ever from FPC scale perspective. How about two weeks ? Any limit to how many pics one could add ? - Benh (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How about the follow idea: only  Support allowed and minimum 15-40 votings per image? Period time one month? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no need to ratchet the regulation for FPC. Particularly because there is no evidence that the suggestions bring a benefit. Every regulation is able to be avoid and rigorous regulation would make the process complex but in the end the effect would be the same. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• There is another recent example of eight support "droppings" in a few minutes (a fortunate expression, Elekhh), this time by a regular nominator who never opposed a picture (as far as I know). I wonder what the purpose of these childish actions is: to make a point (what point?) or just to defy the users who have expressed their concern about the incompetent reviews? It would be nice to listen to the opinions of Albertus teolog and ComputerHotline on this matter. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What is the problem with me ??? --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • We would like to know your opinion on the subject being discussed. It is all right if you write in French (vous pouvez écrire en français si vous voulez). Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Oppose need an argue. As a result, rather than lead to sterile polemics, I prefer never oppose a photo. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • L'opposition à une image nécessite un argument. De ce fait, au lieu de lancer des polémiques stériles, je préfère ne jamais m'opposer à une photo. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the statistics it doesn't look to me like there's been much change in no. of noms vs. no. of promotions in years and it's always going up and down. And I agree with Wladyslaw. Just because a picture you didn't like got accepted isn't much reason to gripe about it. I see it all the time: Amazing pictures come in here that get like 30 votes, some come here that get mixed votes and don't get it, some come here and don't get any votes or just one or two votes. In that last case why do you need ANY opposes or criticisms at all? Even if it's technically a good nomination clearly the C:FPC community still doesn't like it, oh and that's one less FP crowding the others so is C:FPC 'careless' for ignoring those even though it means less promotions? And I think throwing around opposes just to have opposed something is bad for C:FPC's image and morale and makes people disinterested in coming here. Why bother? They can take or find a great picture and someone's just gonna oppose it for a vague reason like "great, but nothing justifying FP". <-- How is something that vague not considered a "careless review"? ...Not that someone who feels that way isn't entitled to their opinion. The end in any case is the same: no promotion. Even so there is always the option of nominating for delisting if the nominator has a good case. This is a project of an international community, there's more ways people express disfavor. I generally would rather just face facts and say 'well, this time around I just don't get to have it my way. I don't like the picture or think the artist did a good enough job, but a lot of people disagree with me. Featured Pictures is a popularity contest and this time around my way of looking at things is unpopular' instead of just accusing everyone who disagrees with me of being "careless". It's not like they did something unfair by expressing liking of a picture. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree with IdLoveOne is all important points. First: it is not true that the percentage of promotions has remained more or less constant over the years (this is not a question of opinion). We can identify at least three phases: 2004-06, which is a "transient" initial period; 2006-08, when the average percentage of promotions stabilized at about 25%; and 2009-11, when it rose to more than 30%. From June/July 2011 a new rising tendency is apparent, with a record value of 50% in September (come on, guys!). It is worth mentioning that the last changes did take place despite the introduction of more strict rules, which a couple of users opposed violently because they considered excessive (remember?). Second, FPC is not (and should not be) a popularity contest, according to the general principles established by the agreed guidelines and the practice of seven years. Pictures are chosen according to their value for the Commons’ project, taking into account technical criteria. Once again, this is hardly a question of opinion. Third, statements like just because a picture you didn't like got accepted isn't much reason to gripe about it or throwing around opposes just to have opposed something is bad for C:FPC's image and morale and makes people disinterested in coming here are unfair and don’t correspond to reality. Everybody here knows that I always try to justify as clearly as possible my votes, supports and opposes alike. Fourth: I wonder how we should classify the evaluation of a user who never opposed a picture and “drops” 12 support votes in a couple of minutes, by copying and pasting. Does anyone believe that these votes were based on a careful assessment of each picture? Finally, and as noted before, it is not a good sign to realize how the vote tendency has changed in some nominations immediately after I opposed them. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • You say that, but you're wrong. People don't vote on images just because they are up to technical standards, they must like them and see a practical something in it. If people don't like the picture they're not going to support it, hence popularity contest, as any election is.For instance I've nominated images that are technically good but just didn't get enough votes: [24][25][26]. Next on nominations that are still up you posted a vague 'just not good enough IMO' or 'check this one out, it's way better than yours' type comment in many instances [27][28][29][30]. Next we have a rule that says don't treat images here like it was Wikipedia, yet I still see people voting against images because they don't see them as being useful to Wikipedia. Next technical merit does get mixed up with taste, in the case of this image [31], another user and myself disliked the image and I suggested a different crop. You disagreed and saw it differently; you might want to look totally objective, but this was nothing more than a pure disagreement of aesthetics and taste and the popular vote was on your side that day (and to you, everyone who agreed with you was right, but Jovian Eye and I are "careless opposers!"). This WILL happen and when it does it will bias the process and move it from technical evaluation to personal tastes, which can be personal or influenced by culture. But this is what we have to expect. Commons is little more than an image repository and we're just picking which ones we think are nicest, basically, regardless of how serious you want to make it. Oh, and by the new strict rules do you mean the 10 day-50 edit rule that more people voted against than for? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
      • It is good to know that we agree on a very important point: that a substancial part of the evaluation process is subjective, mainly the one addressing the aesthetical and "value" components of the image. However, such subjectivity shouldn't be an excuse for being less careful. On the contrary, we should go deeper in our analysis in order to try to understand why we like or don't like a picture. Quite often the effort pays as we are able to identify the elements that triggered our first reaction. However it should be emphasized that the default state of a nomination in FPC is "not promoted" and that such state is only to be changed to "promoted" if there is a sufficient number of users considering it worthy. This justifies many of the oppose votes where I say "noting extraordinary", "no bells ringing" or something similar, despite the good image quality. This means that I don't find the picture worthy but can't explain exactly why. By the "strict rules" I mean the ones addressing the number of votes and number of nominations per user, which were implemented (with difficulty) after a considerable consensus was reached. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• • • • I tried to follow the links to try and understand what you are trying to say. Regarding reviews 8-10, I do not see any problem with those opppose votes. Yes the argument is mre or less repeated, but I see the comments as justified. 11 is not particularly helpful, although I agree it is a good idea to try something new. Regarding link 12, I reckon you refer to Alves as "you", since Alves was the you in the other links, yet Alves never voted in link 12 (or am I blind)?!? --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Nope, you're right, my mistake, was referring to Citron. My point though still stands. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Ah, OK, thanks for clarifying that. Glad I wasn't blind.--Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Info Since two users have been explicitly mentioned here as vote-drop users, I have notified them on their respective user talk pages, such that they can have a chance to comment on their own voting patterns. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I have not been around for a while, but I have been popping by from time to time, just to see what was going on, and I have also noticed what appeared to careless reviews for me by some users. That does not imply that every user, who votes support (without any comments) is a careless reviewer. Not at all. I think one of the reasons why these discussions always turn out so heated is due to the generalizations underlying the tone of the criticisms regarding carelessness. From the examples gived by Alves and Elekh it is quite evident for me that a few users are indeed very careless in their reviews. I think that instead of generalizing we should just try to engage in a discussion with these particular users on their respective talk pages, and let them voice their opinion. Maybe they will acknowledge, that OK, maybe they could do better, or maybe they will confirm that they see it a popularity contest quite similar to "I like it" on Facebook. I do not personally agree that is how one should review here, but there are no ways to restrict those votes, except to appeal for giving the reviews just a little more scrutiny than the five seconds it takes to write support and quickly glimspe at a photo in preview size - also as a courtesy to the creator/uploader/nominator. --Slaunger (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully endorse Slaungers statement. And I personally think that there is no need to any user has to explain themselfs and their behaviour. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• On the contrary, Slaunger's comments are quite clear in suggesting that the voice of those users should be listened. I very much agree because that would be an important step towards reaching a consensus on this. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
• I did not understand the same either. In short, and in the hope I'm right, Slaunger wants to question about how people see FPC procedures: 1. Supports and Oppose with accompanying comments (a true review), 2. Number of vote, ala facebook I like or google+ +1. And depending on the result, we would decide where FPC rules should step towards. - Benh (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oh wow, if we seriously already considering your option (2), than let me throw in two more options. Given that with the current 50% promotion rate combined with the perception that is all rather aleatory at FP (rien ne va plus, les jeux sont fait, les jeux sont fait......., noir!), we should than maybe consider (3) let a roulette decide, and instead of stars give cookies, would be more peaceful and joyous. Or (4) introduce self-awarded stars in every colour which anybody can stick on their own picture - I wouldn't be surprised to see them in great demand. -ELEKHH^T 22:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Alvesgaspar: Puisque j’ai été cité comme un exemple négatif, je voudrais prendre la parole . Cependant je ne me défends pas parce que ce sont les reproches gratuits. FPC, ce n’est pas pour mois un concours ‘I like’. Avant de donner mon appréciation je regarde minuteusement la photo agrandie. Si l’historique des versions de ‘Wikipédia’ est un critère pour m’évaluer-c’est une erreur.D’abord je regarde les détails des photos -candidats, puis je donne mon évaluation. J’essaie de suivre Commons régulièrement-une fois par semaine. De quels critères je me sers ? Avant tout ce qui compte pour moi ce sont: l’utilité et la qualité . Parfois je je cède à l’effet WOW. L’utilité-parce que Commons est pour moi un dépôt des photos pour l’encyclopedie. La qualité- même si d’après toi j’abaisse le niveau d’évaluation-je t’assure que je fais beaucuop d’effort pour le faire le mieux possible mais je ne suis pas un professionnel et peut-être je ne fais pas attention aux détails, ce qui est inexcusable pour toi. C’est justement la raison: si je ne suis pas professionnel, alors je ne me sens pas compétent pour évaluer de façon négative. Une bonne photo se défend elle-même, les voix négatives ne vont pas être aussi nombreuses que celles positives. Ainsi je comprends ce jeu au FPC.Je suis désolé seulement que, puisque tu m’avais jugé si négativement, tu n’aies pas eu assez de courage pour demander mon opinion sur mon site de discussion. Albertus teolog (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• @Albertus teolog: d'abord, je m'éxcuse de ne pas te répondre en français. Je le comprends bien mais c'est trop difficile pour moi d'écrire. Please read carefully the discussion above, you will realize that I was not the one who first noticed your quick series of support votes. But I agree that it is difficult to understand how one can assess in detail twelve pictures in a row, taking only a few minutes in the process. Yes, I referred to your username later because I considered that your opinion, and the one of ComputerHotline, should be listened to in this discussion. That is exactly what we are doing now and I thank you very much for your explanations. Please understand that this is not a witch hunt and that none of us (starting with me) has any authority, whatsoever, to judge or control the other users' contributions. But many of us are interested in: (i) making the evaluation process the more just and accurate as possible; and (ii) banning what I consider to be revenge votes, votes to make a point or votes aimed at some user, not always the nominator. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading Albertus's remarks through Babelfish, so I may have it wrong. I am not a professional photographer, and I guess most here aren't either and that's not a requirement. I think some reviewers have set their personal threshold too low -- at a level of QI perhaps but not FP. I don't think it is too much to ask them to raise their threshold. There is also clearly a problem when support votes appear after the nominator has already withdrawn the nomination. I am disgusted by the personal attacks and talk of revenge votes. Alvesgaspar is right that this should be a "showcase of extraordinary images, the very best Commons has to offer". My judgement is far from perfect but it seems to me than many here are supporting good photographs and not limiting their support to great photographs. There also appears to be a perception that an oppose means the reviewer thinks it is a poor photograph, which is not the case. I also think the 2/3 majority threshold is too low -- especially in the presence of "like" supports and reviewers who admit they never oppose. Overall, there aren't enough reviews (which is true of all Wiki review forums and a difficult one to fix) -- having more reviewers would raise the game and provide more consisent results. Colin (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

@Albertus teolog: thanks for coming by and explaining your approach. I was the one to first link to your edits (but not you user name) as it exemplified a general pattern of broad support without any explanation which the authors of the images could take as feedback. This was relevant as several authors complained about the lack of useful feedback. In some cases your support came despite of numerous detailed critiques of a particular image by other reviewers, seemingly dismissing them or ignoring them. It is my belief that for FPC reviews to be valued we need to provide an as clear feedback as possible. In this regard, I think it would be appreciated if in the future you could explain in a few words, and in any language of your convenience, why you support an image. It will help both authors and reviewers alike and contribute to an atmosphere of collaboration. --ELEKHH^T 12:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• The difficulty lies in that not everyone places the same value on reviews, the simplist thing wold be to remove the human element form the review process. Suggest that maybe we defer to someone to write a bot to ensure that every images complies to the exact same standard. Actually I think that its time people were actually considered part of the solution rather making more rules and complex, make less FP is about the communities consensus that the image is worthy of recognition, FP should be returned to the community to express an opinion with only minor rules specifically licensing, image size and level of support to promote. Gnangarra 00:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with community ahead of rules, but than looking to some of the possible meanings, namely "a group of interacting people, [...] and often refers to a group that shares some common values, and is attributed with social cohesion", it appears to me that our problems lie exactly in the three elements: interaction (comprehensive reviews vs unexplained votes), common values (popularity contest between participants vs merit assessment of images), and cohesion (collaboration vs bullying). Hence we need to clarify: should support votes be also articulated in words (interaction)? do we expect the reviews to be as thorough as possible or just a facebook style "like" (common values)? and do we expect critique of an image to be accepted as such without being mistaken as personal attack (cohesion)? --ELEKHH^T 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Simple fundamental assupmtion of good faith, people are going to have reasons for supporting or opposing a nomination currently the process assumes that when someone supports a nomination its done in good faith hence no reason is required. Yet if some opposes an image its asumed that that person is acting in bad faith therefore the requirement to explain why you oppose an image, but thats still not enough we reject some opposes even though they have an explanation ie "no wow", "too similar to..", or "not another one". Then we get these types of discussions because people will only vote to support because we have placed barriers to opposing so people just dont do it, "but wait there's more" when someone does oppose its frequently challenged theres yet another reason not to oppose.
      Lets look at some stats last month the main page was viewed 966,000 times (lowest 20k highest 40K per day, avg 32k per day) 12th Oct main paage had 32K hits, POTD recieved 2k of hits simarily 24th 32k main page, POTD 1.8k less than 10% of main page visitors actually follow thru to the actual FP. Even if someone reviews an image based solely on the thumbnail in the nomination before voting whats the the problem, they are doing what more than 90% of our viewers are doing anyway. I'm not for dumbing down the process but clearly the process isnt as effective as it could be and possibly not even reflective of the reality of what actually happens. What do we want with FP's are good sized images, we want technically good images and we want images that are going to attract attention of passers by.
      IHMO at the moment FP process isnt focused on the community, its definately not attracting a wide base of reviewers and its being projected as a minefield "enter at own risk". If we reduce the bureaucracy, accept beauty is in the eye of the beholder(reduce confrontation and assume good faith in all) we'll encourage an improvement in FP which will draw more people to it. As the field of reviewers grow in turn so can the number of support votes required for promotion, an image supported by 7 editors is one thing an image support by 14 editors is better. Increasing the reviewer field also dimishes the influence of any one individual over the processes as a whole, it dimishes the "careless vote" value it also gives people confidence that they can be different even say no.
      Rules are written then expanded then made more complex just to address every eventualiy not because its good for the process but because the process has lost trust in the people. We can continue to pretend that the rules have been really effective in improving FP and we can continue to pretend that even more rules will make FP even more effective, or we can look at what the rules have done. Every change, every restriction, every demand, every raising of the bar has driven people away from FP even some away from Commons altogether. Its increased conflict, decreased trust and lost faith in the individual this talk page history is filled with complaints about others, complaints about the processes, demands for more rules all decided through conflict. If we continue to do what we are doing then we will continue to get what we are getting, Commons:Image guidelines needs to be religated to a guideline rather than being put o a pederstal. Read the first paragraph it twice refers to "wow" as being important in fact so important that other technical factors can be ignored, but watch out if you decline as "no wow". Those guidelines got it right they define FP as being a WOW based first and foremost, FP doesnt need 10 or 100 or even 1000 rules it needs just four, license, size, community support and WOW if the image does that thats perfect. Gnangarra 15:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
      •  Comment -- According to the leading text here, featured pictures are images that the community has chosen to be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. FPC is, on the other hand, the forum where such choice is made. Our set of rules serves two main purposes: to make the choice effective (only the best pictures are to be chosen) and to make the reviewing process manageable and smooth. To the first group belong those rules specifying the minimal image size, the number of votes necessary to promotion and preventing new or anonymous users to vote. To the second, those limiting the number of nominations per user and helping to keep the page as clean as possible (for example, the FPX template and the rule of the 5th day). In 2004 and 2005, everything was simple and rules were almost inexistent. They got more complicated as a response to a series of problems and incidents. For example, the number of nominations per user was restricted after some editors started to nominate large numbers of pictures of the same type, at the same time (I remember a series of some 20-30 NASA images of the sky). As for the rule preventing new and anonymous users to vote, that was the way chosen by the community to prevent sockpuppetry in the poll. In all cases, changes were implemented per large consensus, after the issues were discussed in detail. As far as I understand from the words of Gnangarra, it is the very purpose of FPC that is contested. Otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense to propose the removal of all rules without explaining how to deal with the problems they are responding to. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I agree wih retention of rules about multiple nominations, a sock puppets, person right to vote. I talking about the rules that prevent people expressing their opinion, the ones that drove many people away the lack civility and asumption of bad in oppose votes those are the rules that need to be addressed. These discussion about careless votes are part of the problem because its assumed that the person voting acted in bad faith, we need to be more accepting of votes in good faith thats the problem. Gnangarra 03:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Very much disagree with Gnangarra's comment that "What do we want with FP's are good sized images, we want technically good images and we want images that are going to attract attention of passers by." Sorry, that's the desire of Commons for all images, and a basic requirement for being judged QI. FP should be a showcase to inspire folk to take and submit excellent photographs and to raise the quality of their submissions. The stats on the main page are irrelevant. Commons doesn't exist to get hits. It is a media resource. Most of the hits that count will be from sites such as Wikipedia that make use of our images. Reviewing based on the thumbnail is treating the process with contempt. Like reviewing a featured article having read only the first paragraph and not examined the sources. I disagree that raising the bar turns people away. The FPC needs more reviewers rather than the small incestuous pool of reviewer/nominators we have. A lowered bar turns away reviewers -- what's the point in spending time carefully studying and thinking about a picture if five drive-by supports makes your review irrelevant? And if we don't have enough reviewers the process doesn't work fairly or consistently, which in turn drives nominators away. All featured processes on Wiki lack enough reviewers. It is a thankless task. I'm hoping that reviewing more photographs will improve my thoughts about photography and help me take better picture that eventually I'll feel strong enough to nominate. A strict FP threshold will encourage me to take better pictures. Any fool can take a good photograph if you take enough. We want Commons FP to showcase great photographs. Colin (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • The issue is when people make a vote someone doesnt like its assumed to have been made in bad faith, especially when they oppose they often get treated with incivility, even this discussion starts with a presumption that someone has acted in bad faith. The truelly excellent photo will get through even if people oppose its time the people controlling FP respected other peoples opinion, it time that FP wasnt the domain of a small group or as you put it the small incestuous pool of reviewer/nominators we have. If stripping out the rules fixes that thats not a bad place to start, but what ever gets changed if the culture isnt addressed making another rule is pointless. Gnangarra 03:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  Bonjour tout le monde. I've read all the comments and opinions above, and I think it is very interesting and a good and useful collective catharsis. May I say that in my opinion, the problem is not in "careless reviews", but more in "careless nominations"?
  For the rest, I think that we must admit that we all have a different opinion of what is a "featurable" picture. Not only our perception of the "bar" is different, but our approaches of the "featurable" subjects are different. That's subjective, and obviously unfair. As you know surely, I'm absolutely bored with panoramas of snowy mountains (sorry Böhringer), or with chemical elements (sorry Alchemist-hp), even if I recognize the very hard work of the authors, but I'm very fascinated with the shells by Llez or the macros of insects by Archaeodontosaurus. Some of you dislike museum objects or statues I nominate sometimes. Systematic oppositions only due to the subjects or matters are really discouraging, and I think it is a wrong way to do.
  Maybe should we abstain to vote when we have no interest in the subject, that's what I try to do. No need to change the rules, IMO.
  I agree with Slaunger (I often agree with Slaunger-the-wise ;) ) when he writes that the best to do with a careless review (or looking so) is to send a message at the talk page of the reviewer.
  I think too that in general, it could be better to avoid contempt, guillotine words, and careless comments about different opinions. And not everybody here read, write, speak, understand fluent english at the same level...
  Please never forget the basic civility and, maybe, humility in reviews... Please feel doubts, especially when you are to "oppose".
  I think that "please", "maybe", "sorry but", "may I ?" are very useful words... When I come back to the FPC page after few days away, I'm sometimes frightened by the tone of some "discussions" (angry, sarcastic, contemptuous...)
  Last comment for the moment: In my opinion, "contra" reviews could be (or look) as careless as "pro" when they are automatic... --Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Statistics 2004-2011

• Here are some FPC numbers relative to the period 2004-2011. No comments for now Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

#Nominations versus #Promotions

%Promotions

Conclusions

• This discussion has been iddle for some time and I believe that everyone interested has already expressed his/her opinion on the subject. My only purpose when I started it was to draw the attention of the FPC community to what I considered to be a too casual reviewing attitude by a number of users. That has been done and a majority of editors have acknowledged the problem existed, though no obvious solution seems to be at hand. Before I ask someone less involved than me to draw a more detailed conclusion, please note that a positive outcome was already achieved, as the average quality of the reviews have somehow improved in the last days. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry.. but I didn't see any kind of improve in the comments-reviews the last days.. please give us some examples of "bad reviews" before this discussion and the improved reviews now. Ggia (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• I actually had the same sentiment as Alvesgaspar, that in recent days thoroughness and quality of the reviews seems to have risen (at least as I perceive them). Moreover, snide review comments seems to be fewer now, which is really relieving, as they were poisoning the FPC atmosphere. Whether it is due to this discussion or not, I do not know, but I think it may have had an impact, consciously or unconsciously. I think a majority of the users who have participated in the discussion acknowledged that there was a problem, and I do not see a need for further examples in addition to those we have already discussed. --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• +1 to Alvesgaspar and to Slaunger. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
• I also think it was a useful discussion, leading to improved reviews. I am still worried however about sustaining this trend. It seems to me that everybody was in support of receiving more useful feedback in order to being able to learn from the process and improve own photography. Thus I think the proposal which came up several times, that support votes should equally be expected to be justified and articulated in words, should be implemented. --ELEKHH^T 01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This sounds like a good idea (though I'll need to look in the archives for earlier discussions). It would perhaps stop supports being merely a "like" popularity contest. Though I also think it is important for the community (and perhaps guidelines) to say that never voting "oppose" is not helpful and runs counter to how the voting system works.
  • The idea has been put forward in past discussions but never received a clear consensus from the community. Part of the problem is the way COM:FPC was born, as a multinational project where language shouldn't be an obstacle for participation. In the beginning comments or justifications weren't expected from voters. I suggest Elekhh and Colin present a proposal for a change in the rules. The present text reads: A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above. Unhelpful reasons for opposing include: No reason; "I don't like it" and other empty assessments; "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe that opposing votes should be very clear considering 3 main reason: a) bad technical image (low quality image due to sensor, noise, image processing, size etc). b) non nice aesthetically (composition, "violation" of rule of thirds etc), c) low encyclopedic/illustrative value (the goad of commons should be to provide high quality images that should be used within the projects of wikipedia). If the image can be corrected first a comment should be addressed to the nominator. Ie. in the sky there are dust spots, can you correct them?, the image is not stitched correctly, can you restitch it? there is a noticeable amount of noise in the sky, do you know that you can apply a denoising filter to that region? I believe a better crop can enhance this image, look my note on the image about my proposed crop.. etc etc.. Lets avoid oppose votes because the sky has some dust spots that can easily removed.. lets avoid oppose votes due to the stitching error that may-be can be corrected.. lets give some time to the nominator to correct the image before opposing. We have to act in a way to help the people to understand their fault and next time nominate better and better images.. Ggia (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Each user has his/her own style of reviewing, which should be respected as long as it addresses the merits or demerits of the image, in accordance with the goals of the project. For me it is perfectly all right to reject a photo on the basis of an error that can be easily corrected, as it is the responsability of the nominator, not of the reviewers, to prepare carefully the pictures before submitting them. We should act in a way to promote and demand excellence, not facility. That is the rule in all serious contests or examinations in the "real world", where delivering a draft (and expect the jury or teacher to improve it) is clearly not enough. Why should it be different here? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes but it is more polite to leave a note as a comment.. "look here and here over the image.. are some dust spots, can you correct them?" rather to direct oppose. Here we are a community, we are not some old users - gurus that we will bite any newcomer or somebody that his image has some trivial issues (ie tilt, dust spots, new crop suggestion etc). The community will work even better if the old "guru" users will open the nominator's image and try to correct some technical issues. isn't it? I don't agree with the concept that delivering and image as FPC is similar with delivering a scientific paper for a review in scientific journal. As members of the community we have to work all together in a way to promote high quality images deserving FP status. We are not the image FPC "gurus" acting like a scientific committee in a scientific journal. Some users acting like that.. and it is wrong for community imo. Ggia (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Something that appears on other Featured processes is "Conditional support". I don't know if we have an icon/template for that. But that seems appropriate for a picture that, except for minor correctable issues, you feel would be featured. The closing editor would, however, need to check that the conditional requirement was met, if the supporter hadn't got round to updating his comment to full support. It would need to be treated as an oppose if the issues weren't fixed. As far as fixing other people's pictures goes, I'd rather wait for someone to ask for help than to muck about with their nomination. I agree with Alvesgaspar that nominators should be presenting a picture that is finished but agree that we should be happy to help make/suggest minor improvements. The problem with just making a comment rather than opposing is that there's no incentive on the nominator to respond (either by fixing or disagreeing). I agree with Ggia's other comments: an oppose should give enough information for the nominator to either fix this image or take a better one. Colin (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting Reviews

Off-topic en-wp dispute discussion

Just to be clear my reasons for leaving had more to do with actually using the images I donated. When I have to argue to replace a 5 year old picture of low resolution, dubious quality and questionable EV with a featured picture that is better in all these regards then why bother? When I get yelled at for replacing an image that is utter crap by any conceivable standard and then have to suffer through a ridiculous debate as to what would be a good image it is just beyond my threshold of patience. Some of these same issues pervade QI, Commons FPC and especially at en:FP but they weren't the reason for leaving just added to it I suppose. All this said I do appreciate some of the very good contributors and reviewers on Commons as they made me be a better editor if not photographer. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk • contribs) (presumably Saffron) I assume you are referring to Broadway Tower and Edinburgh Castle. The former sounds, to be honest, like someone asking if the music can be changed in the car from some pop radio station to Radio 3 with the the request "Do we have to listen to this crap?". Yes there are flaws with the old FP but loads of people like it and at a superficial thumbnail-size level, it does look better (sunnier) than yours. I agree the photo at Edinburgh Castle was v poor but I don't think you handled that one well. On WP, we recommend editors with a conflict-of-interest don't get involved in those articles. Perhaps the same advice applies to one's pictures. We can be bold and replace one with one of our own, or we can be timid and just suggest it on talk. But either way, it is probably best if we avoid getting emotional about the results. Win some; lose some. These are small issues compared to producing a great body of photographs that benefit both projects, which you have done. I do suggest a Wikibreak and coming back with a fresh attitude. Colin (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Colin, just two examples of many. Regardless, you sort of made my point for me. That people think I have to start asking permission of editors to change images is good enough reason for me not to bother. I am not sure how I could have handled the Edinburgh drama any better when all I did was change a poor picture for a decent one and was attacked on my talk page for the effort. I was the one that chose the higher road as my discussion on the lead image issue would clearly show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edinburgh_Castle#Lead_image I suspect you missed this bit of context before jumping on my parting shot at the most recent change to another particularly bad photo. That you would have me defend past actions to you here is just another example of what has led me to leave. I find your comments about what wikipedia recommends to be rather patronizing. Regardless, if people are satisfied with cartoon like thumbnails then my services are indeed not required. It's not a function of hurt feelings... just putting effort where it will do some good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.230.202 (talk • contribs) (presumably Saffron) It is not so much asking for permission, but listening and respecting other people's opinions! You seem very convinced of your Edinburgh castle picture, but to be honest I find it cluttered and confusing. I can totally understand the resistance it met. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC) But what you fail to acknowledge is that once I saw there was resistance I was the one that initiated the discussion trying to reach consensus. I do not need to acknowledge that, it is besides to point. What counts here is how you victimize yourself here and still dish out absolutes like change a poor picture for a decent one. You still seem to think that your opinion is some kind of a gold standard, and that those other editors better get out of your way whil you make unquestionable improvements. Sorry, this is not how a collaborative project works. If you do not understand that you better leave. I hope you cool down sooner or later and come back though. But this drama here is just pathetic. And no, we do not need any parting shots. --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Wonderful, another one that damns without having all the facts. I'd point them out to you but you'd say they are irrelevant. It is this kind of condescension that drives contributors away even if on occasion it is justified. But I can assure you this is not one of them. You are right, I didn't spot the earlier discussion. However, if your are going to hang around post-retiral in IP-land criticising editors for attitudes that "drive people away from participating", then your "parting shot" could have been better than insulting an editor for how unbelievably crap his picture was. You don't have to "defend past actions", just as you didn't have to and don't have to comment here. If you aren't participating is a positive way then please don't hang around here sniping from your IP address. I really recommend you take a real wikibreak that involves not watching discussions. I know from my own experience that it takes a while for bad fellings to dissipate. And I really hope you change your mind in a month or two. Your "effort" has done a lot of good to both projects, including your participation in reviews. Colin (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC) There was no doubt in my mind you missed it, but its easier to slag someone when you think you found the evidence to support a point. As to your further advice, what you seem to be missing is that I have done exactly what you have suggested for pretty much the reasons you suggested and I've articulated as much. So again your comments were just more patronising noise. I realised of my own accord I was getting fed up and that parting shot was clear indication to me it was time to go. But thanks for making that the defining moment of my time here and forcing me to defend my position even if just as an IP. I am sure it served a purpose for the greater good. If you think that my statement: "I don't think you handled that one well" is me slagging you then it just emphasises how the red-mist is still before your eyes. Please spare us the wounded "Farewell cruel world" speaches. Colin (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Calling a image crap is no worse than leaving a review that uses terms like "horrible". Regardless, I just don't get why you found it necessary to dig into my history to ferret out what you consider my issues so that you can call them into question. Were you really just trying to reason with me or rather take a poke because you didn't agree with my assessment of those situations? Your need to do that speaks more to your character than mine. I'm sorry to interfere, but did some of you notice that here, it is Commons, and not enWP ? I'm french, I absolutely don't care about english wikipedia, I never go there, i'm a "Commons" user, and you know what ? I deeply think that the existence of FP pages in national WPs is a bad thing, just confusing. What happens in this debate is a good evidence of this. I'm very happy there is no FP page in the french speaking WP. The best way, brothers, is to upload pictures in "Commons", to try to deserve international FP or QI labels, and use good pictures in articles. My opinion. Patronizing? In fact, there is no reason for Saffron Blaze to leave "Commons"... A pity...--Jebulon (talk) Jeb, you make a very good point. My comments were more directed at en:WP as most of my interactions on Commons have been positive (save this recent drama), but for me without the wikipedia it makes little sense to just upload pictures and hope they get used. Merci pour ton support. C'est toujours grandement apprécié. There exist many reasons not to upload all the pictures in Commons. One good example is this article I wrote in de.wikipedia years ago: Notre-Dame-du-Haut de Ronchamp. If I would upload the pictures in Commons they would be deleted. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Yes, good point for you...--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)