Commons:Village pump/Featured picture template poll
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This page is presently inactive and retained primarily for historical interest.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you may try using the talk page (though your voice may not be heard) or start a discussion at the Village pump. |
Featured picture template poll[edit]
- Moved from Commons talk:Featured picture candidates -- Cat ちぃ？ 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is time to settle the FP template affair. What I'm suggesting is a poll to decide which version should be adopted by the community. Below you will find the following four alternatives (minor variations, like improved texts, could of course be considered):
- Minimalist template: the former FP template;
- Featured picture template: the multilingual FP template, how it appeared some time ago
- All award template: like the previous but including QI and VI;
- Everything on it template: the present "Assessment template", with all available information on the picture
Please participate with your comments and votes, so we can procede to more important activities.
A note from the person creating and improving {{Assessments}}. Please consider these points before casting your decision.
- First of all this is not a finished product, it should be taken as a work in progress. I consider this vote to be premature.
- Several issues mentioned below can be easily fixed. For example the repeted sentences can easily be simplified to
- "This image has been featued on German, English, Turkish Wikipedias."
- Parameter names have been set as temporary placeholders. They can be renamed with the addition of a few characters
- Sub-parameters from old featured picture no longer has any use.
- Several issues mentioned below can be easily fixed. For example the repeted sentences can easily be simplified to
- The template is intend to cover all assessments including POTD on commons, and other wikis.
- Prior to this template non-wiki assessments such as en.wikipedia or de.wikipedia featuredness was not mentioned on commons image description pages
- Please take a step back and think before voting.
- Particularly consider the intentions behind the created.
- The idea is to reduce redundency by simplifying multiple template usage.
Minimalist template[edit]
- Current/Proposed/After
 Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. | 
|
|
This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
|
 |
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
|
|
This is a featured picture at the English Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the German Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Spanish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Featured picture}}
{{QualityImage}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
{{Featured picture on|English Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|German Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Spanish Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Turkish Wikipedia}}
Vote[edit]
Neutral - This template has done a good job for a long time. Might support it later if necessary -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, I like the simple tagging that can be done by adding one template for each "assessment". The templates can be made a little bit smaller, but I realise that they will take up a lot of space on images that are FPs on many projects, so I do not oppose merging the FP templates. /Ö 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- This template has been a solid work horse for Commons FPs for a long time. Its implementation is simple and it will automatically link to its nomination page under the normal conditions where the subpage name of the nomination is identical to the image name. In cases where, e.g., an edit with another image name is promoted on a subpage named after an original nomination, it is possible to override the default link by specifying subpage="original image name" as a parameter. For an example where this worked, see this previous revision of an FP of mine. In the transfer to the new Assessments template this non-default subpage parameter to the nomination page has unfortunately been broken. -- Slaunger 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support. giggy (:O) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support FP Status should be something special and not just one statement of many picture related statements. So i like it old style. Maybe i will support Featured Template as well but i dont like the repetitions in every sentence --Simonizer 23:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with all the other supporters here. Also, the I find the other templates distractive and much too busy. Anrie 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment Guys, think about how many Wikimedia projects there are. More and more are doing the FP thing, and more and more are wanting them tagged on Commons (which is good). But, something like a POTY is likely to be featured everywhere, why have 10 or so templates that all say the same thing (in the future it could be a lot more)? Rocket000 02:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it a "good" thing for other projects to want to tag the images they consider FP here? Surely they can tag it on the local project? Does someone using the Wikimedia Commons really want to know how many sister projects consider the file FP? Why not just the project the user is visiting? Anrie 08:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Think of it the other way, why should we ban such a thing? Commons is a free image repository. Demonstrating interwiki consensus on featured picture status on various wikis is only natural for a wiki like us. This is something that was already done before I thought of creating the Assertion template. I merely created a more organized method that occupies less space.
- Consider what Rocket000 said, say we chose an image as POTY, if other wikis verify us, that is good for us. Demonstrating this right here on commons has no harm and lots of potential benefit.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it a "good" thing for other projects to want to tag the images they consider FP here? Surely they can tag it on the local project? Does someone using the Wikimedia Commons really want to know how many sister projects consider the file FP? Why not just the project the user is visiting? Anrie 08:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose When this ancient template was created there were only two types of assessments. One was English wikipedias featured status and the other was commons one (created after English wikipedia one I believe). The use of one template per assessment is beginning to clutter image description pages. Over the course of time it will only get worse. Commons alone has 6 different type of assessments namely being Featured Picture, Quality Image, Valued Image, POTY, POTD, and "wallpaper". That is six different templates with repeated text which can be simplified down to mere six lines. -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Featured Picture only template[edit]
- Current
Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
|
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
|
This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
|
|
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
|
|
This is a featured picture at the English Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the German Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Spanish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Featured picture}}
{{QualityImage}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
{{Featured picture on|English Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|German Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Spanish Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Turkish Wikipedia}}
- Proposed
|
- After
Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
|
|
This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
|
|
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Assessments|featured=1|enwiki=1|dewiki=1|eswiki=1|trwiki=1}}
{{QualityImage}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
Vote[edit]
- Support - The one I prefer. It would be nice to show the year and month of promotion. Also, I prefer the Wikimedia logo as in the previous model -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- conditional Support If the links to the nominations work for all languages. Lycaon 21:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That will come in later. Local wiki cooperation is necessary. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then we better keep the old template until everything is working 100% Lycaon 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The old template doest link to other wikis at all. You are expecting me to fix issues on thousands of pages on multiple wikis all by my self. You are more than welcome to assist. But what you ask isn't possible. I will have to wait the local communities to make up their minds. That takes time. You know some German, you may help explain the matter on de.wikipedia for example. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm working on that. But the change will a) take time, b) retroactive splitting of the lump archives into per-image sub-pages is a ton of work, and I don't quite see who'd be doing it. --Dschwen 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Why? The old template doest link to other wikis at all. You are expecting me to fix issues on thousands of pages on multiple wikis all by my self. You are more than welcome to assist. But what you ask isn't possible. I will have to wait the local communities to make up their minds. That takes time. You know some German, you may help explain the matter on de.wikipedia for example. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Then we better keep the old template until everything is working 100% Lycaon 21:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- That will come in later. Local wiki cooperation is necessary. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral, maybe this is better when images are featured on many projects, but I like the simplicity of individual templates. /Ö 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support for now. I think this is a good balance. It combines all the FP templates (where I see the problem is/was) while keeping the other assessments separate. I think those can be combined too, but not in the way it's done below (they lose too much of their defining characteristics). I have no problem with combining the POTY temps into this one the way it has been done, though. Rocket000 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- What characteristics of QI is lost? I copy pasted the notice word to word. -- Cat ちぃ？ 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I have this idea for having the QI and VI templates (possibly called by the assessments template) as separate boxes underneath the main template, keeping the specific color schemes.. I'll make a mock-up when I have more time (later today/tomorrow). Rocket000 10:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- What characteristics of QI is lost? I copy pasted the notice word to word. -- Cat ちぃ？ 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 06:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment While I like the combined information, I dislike text being repeated over and over again. Could it be worded more concisely if the image is featured in more than one wiki? -- Klaus with K 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is a good idea to have such a combined template for all FPs.
- To my mind it should be improved by having the possibility to add language specific subpage parameters in the cases where the image name does not match the sub page name of the original nomination, e.g., comsub=..., ensub=.... This is relevant when an edit is promoted instead of the original nomination. This is a functionality, which was available and used for Commons FPs in in the old {{Featured picture}} template, but which has been overwritten in the transfer to {{Assessments}}.
- It was the main developers idea to enforce an image name = subpage name rule by moving all FP subpages to a subpage identical to the promoted image, such that automated linking could be done. Although I agree that it would be nice subpage=image name there are some drawbacks as discussed here. Thus, I would recommend to implement support for non-default subpage names for at least Commons FPs and EN FPs (I know too little of the circuitry on the other FP projects to have an opinion there). This can be done quite easily. What is not so easy, I think, is to the restore the non-default links specified prior to the transition to {{Assessments}}.
- Another thing which I dislike about the current implementation is the parameter notation. Just look at the dif. This is hard to read and understand. The problem with changing the parameter notation is not the template implementation. No, the real problem is that it requires coordinated edits on every single FP image page. this is because this template, which is really a prototype, is rolled out as a production template on more than 1000 FP image pages. I am still inclined to think a total rollback to {{Featured picture}} would be the best in the current confusing state, but this is becoming increasingly complicated by other users individual roll backs or other edits done since {{Featured picture mul}} was rolled out, the predecessor to {{Assessments}}. Although tedious it would have some very clear advantages as then development can continue on Assessments, better parameter names and arguments can be implemented as well as support for non-default subpage names.
- One could also copy Assessments to another sandbox namespace, make the necessary corrections there, reach consensus and the do a bot-assisted roll-out of the final template. -- Slaunger 21:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The first time I saw this template I realised it was a bad idea and I'm rather surprised to see the overwhelming support for it. There are over 200 Wikipedias - I sense a day in the near future where that template is going to get very, very long. At the Afrikaans Wikipedia we have decided to also feature pictures from the Commons on our main page, but only pictures that have already achieved featured status here. On our FP-site, users are pointed here for nominating and voting for a picture. My idea was that mostly those with sufficient expertise/experience/passion for images/call it what you will, will bother coming over to the Commons vote - I've always held a Commons FP status in higher regard than WP FP status, simply because there are more people here who actually know what they're talking about (I'm not one of them). Also, this is the Wikimedia Commons, not the English, German or Turkish Wikipedia, it should be what this community thinks that matters. Anrie 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- So you recommend we put 200 different templates? What you are suggesting and voting for are in conflict. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's because what I voted for has been changed since I voted. See here, where it is suggested that only the Commons FP Status will be announced. Anrie 08:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry for the confusion. The idea is that this template ({{Assessments}}) is designed to deal with mess like above which are rather possible. For simple cases like an image receiving one and only one award it works like below.
- Old one
|
|
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
- New one
|
Award template[edit]
- Current
Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
|
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
|
This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
|
|
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
|
|
This is a featured picture at the English Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the German Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Spanish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Featured picture}}
{{QualityImage}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
{{Featured picture on|English Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|German Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Spanish Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Turkish Wikipedia}}
- Proposed
|
- After
Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
|
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Assessments|featured=1|quality=1|enwiki=1|dewiki=1|eswiki=1|trwiki=1}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
Vote[edit]
- Oppose - Too much information -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - unrelated issues. Lycaon 21:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - The different assessments are unrelated. And this will not help much too reduce the size of the templates on image pages. /Ö 22:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose for the reasons stated above. --MichaelMaggs 06:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Second choice. -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Everything on it template[edit]
- Current
Picture of the Year 2006
This is the Picture of the Year 2006, selected by the Wiki community as the best Commons featured picture promoted in 2006. |
|
|
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
|
This image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image.
|
|
This featured picture is fairly large and has an aspect ratio of approximately 4:3 or 5:4, making it suitable as a computer wallpaper.
See the gallery of such images, or the gallery of widescreen images.
|
|
|
This is a featured picture at the English Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the German Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Spanish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
|
|
This is a featured picture at the Turkish Wikipedia project. The nomination can be found [[{{{2}}}|here]]. If you think it should be featured on the Commons as well or have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. |
{{POTY 2006}}
{{Featured picture}}
{{QualityImage}}
{{CommonsWallpaper}}
{{Featured picture on|English Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|German Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Spanish Wikipedia}}
{{Featured picture on|Turkish Wikipedia}}
- Proposed/After
|
{{Assessments|POTY=4|POTYyear=2007|featured=1|quality=1|wallpaper=1|enwiki=1|dewiki=1|eswiki=1|trwiki=1}}
Vote[edit]
- Oppose - No way! -- Alvesgaspar 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - unrelated issues. Lycaon 21:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unrelated how? Each process has a different way of saying "this is an exceptional image". Each process of course has a different criteria, a different rationale and a different concept. But at the end of the day, they all do the same thing. They exist to determine which works on commons are the "best". An image receiving multiple awards is more impressive (making it more exceptional). How are they unrelated? -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Doesn't seem unrelated to me. Wraps all quality assessments up in one neat template. There usually is much more (and more important) stuff on the image pages, like {{Information}} and {{Location}}, so I welcome any move that reduces the overall clutter, and visually groups similar entries. --Dschwen
- Oppose - it bundles up too much unrelated information and implies some sort of equivalence to the very different types of assessment. Slaunger has very clearly set out here why this template is highly undersirable for use with VIs, and I'm finding it hard to understand why this proposal is still being pursued. Also Oppose the way in which this is being carried out, and the snappy replies that are made to virtually everyone who expresses any opposition. --MichaelMaggs 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support First choice. -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Question How can you justify voting on a poll you oppose being held in the first place? Lycaon 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Opposition to this poll[edit]
The template was far from complete. It is very hurtful to me that my work is being put up to the test before I consider it complete. In addition the nomination does not fully demonstrate the intention/reason behind the creation of the template. -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but if it is not complete, then why is it already rolled out in great force. That's contradictory, wouldn't you agree? Lycaon 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had not rolled it out "in great force". With such an hostile attitude towards me do not expect much from me.
- The template is not used on any page that is not featured. The only reason it was applied to featured images because that was the only type of "Assessment"/"Award" I was aware of. I knew POTY too (I had forgotten about it at the time tho) but that was what I thought was it.
- I applied the "featured picture mul" (mind the name - the intended coverage) first.
- I then added non-commons featuredness (like from en.wiki, tr.wiki, pl.wiki and etc)
- Then I added POTY (what the heck there are so few images)
- I accidentally noticed POTY while I was reviewing a few dual tagging by the bot.
- Then I noticed quality images and etc. I started a discussion for such a change.
- I altered the template to accommodate the possible change
- I have not replaced the Quality Image template. This was purely at my pleasure. I can do so with the touch of a button. It is a single line of code for me. I am waiting to give discussion a chance.
- I did replace a few of the 'Quality Image' template on a few (POTY images + 1 non POTY) to demonstrate the power of the template
- Then I noticed valued images much later.
- Adding POTD to the template was something I did last
- I think this covers all assessments but I am not sure.
- This is the true story unlike the various fictional ones people accuse me of. Sorry I was not genetically engineered with knowledge on all commons "assessments". Sorry I am not perfect with edits I make.
- Here I am working hard and all I get in return is bad faith accusations. I know "no good deed goes unpunished" but this is ridiculous. Keep it up and you (all of you reading this) may succeed in alienating me from the project.
- -- Cat ちぃ？ 21:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all about peacemaking and I have a decent collection of images that you could test this out on, if it helps. That way no one is bothered by the changes and you can test out anything you want. Just a thought. I rather like these new templates, so I don't mind trialing them on my collection of images (around 200 images of QIs and FPs). In any case, frustration is common as people get very passionate about doing it this way or that, but this should all cool down eventually and we can get back to normal after the details are worked out. We just need to keep in mind the "Ignore all rules" policy, which is the spirit behind this community. -- Ram-Man 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, that is interesting. Which community is that the spirit and policy of? -- carol 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was told several automated scripts are at work so I decided to wait. A few images (POTY ones for example) should be enough as a test. The test is to show how the template looks at work, not to test functionality - that can be tested on any page. -- Cat ちぃ？ 03:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all about peacemaking and I have a decent collection of images that you could test this out on, if it helps. That way no one is bothered by the changes and you can test out anything you want. Just a thought. I rather like these new templates, so I don't mind trialing them on my collection of images (around 200 images of QIs and FPs). In any case, frustration is common as people get very passionate about doing it this way or that, but this should all cool down eventually and we can get back to normal after the details are worked out. We just need to keep in mind the "Ignore all rules" policy, which is the spirit behind this community. -- Ram-Man 03:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Refreshing the poll[edit]
- More than one week has elapsed after this poll was launched and still we don't have a clear enough consensus. Also, the changes made to the actual FP were not reversed as required. What shall we do? -- Alvesgaspar 14:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Um, not sure. I could always vote again. Perhaps a link on the VP would pull in more voters. --MichaelMaggs 17:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's done -- Alvesgaspar 20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you are enjoying this. I sure am not. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link wasn't enough? Welcome back Cat. Rocket000 02:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- When the intended scope is to go beyond "featured" village pump is a better place to discuss this. Consider it as a neutral ground for everyone. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in doing so you managed to separate the history and the content of this discussion, which is not good concidering the presentation of the alternatives has been edited several times, last time by yourself after lot's of users had voted. But since people have since voted/commented here I suppose moving back would only generate a more confusing situation.Finn Rindahl 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think separating history/content is a good idea either. I'm very confused about the poll itself, it seems rather esoteric to be directly on the VP, a link seems better to me. ++Lar: t/c 12:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, in doing so you managed to separate the history and the content of this discussion, which is not good concidering the presentation of the alternatives has been edited several times, last time by yourself after lot's of users had voted. But since people have since voted/commented here I suppose moving back would only generate a more confusing situation.Finn Rindahl 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- When the intended scope is to go beyond "featured" village pump is a better place to discuss this. Consider it as a neutral ground for everyone. :) -- Cat ちぃ？ 10:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The link wasn't enough? Welcome back Cat. Rocket000 02:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you are enjoying this. I sure am not. -- Cat ちぃ？ 23:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
← Agreed. This is ridiculous. I have a trout at the ready for whoever put it here. Can we please move it elsewhere? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I know just because I made an edit it is enough for people to complain but a level of delicacy would make me less grumpy. Maybe this doesn't belong to the village pump, I do not know. What I do know it doesn't belong to it's former location. I also think polling is not a good way to handle this. Issues can be discussed like partners not voted like enemies. -- Cat ちぃ？ 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know it was you, but consider this a wet trout being waved in your general direction. No discussion this massive belongs on VP. I don't know where it does belong (I don't care about the actual discussion, just it's location) but it doesn't belong here. Please move it elsewhere - I'm sure you can work with other participants to figure it out. If you need a neutral place try Commons:Village pump/Subpage, and link to it from here. I agree that voting is probably not the best method, but as I say, I'm complaining only that it is bloating the already-very-large COM:VP. Please move it elsewhere (that goes for anyone participating in the vote, not just White Cat) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Moved. --MichaelMaggs 20:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't know it was you, but consider this a wet trout being waved in your general direction. No discussion this massive belongs on VP. I don't know where it does belong (I don't care about the actual discussion, just it's location) but it doesn't belong here. Please move it elsewhere - I'm sure you can work with other participants to figure it out. If you need a neutral place try Commons:Village pump/Subpage, and link to it from here. I agree that voting is probably not the best method, but as I say, I'm complaining only that it is bloating the already-very-large COM:VP. Please move it elsewhere (that goes for anyone participating in the vote, not just White Cat) – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, maybe it is my turn to retire from this issue. The harassing to the poll was successfull. Not only the section is now cluttered with distracting and irrelevant information but also has been moved from where it belongs. In the meantime, all changes made to existing FP's against a clear consensus have not been reverted. Trolling was rewarded. -- Alvesgaspar 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Attempt at closing this poll[edit]
I don't believe continuing this poll could get us anywhere further now. Linking the poll from the Village Pump did not bring a lot of new input from the community, and moving to and then from VP today probably did not contribute to anything else than a) making a lot of people puzzled and/or annoyed, and b) ensure that most of the users that has expressed an opinion here don't have the relevant page on their watchlists anymore.
Attempting to summarize the opinions expressed on the four alternatives, I come to
- Minimalist template: 4 support, 2 neutral and 1 oppose
- FP only template: 5 support, 1 neutral and 1 oppose
- Award template: 1 support, 4 oppose
- Everything on it template: 2 support, 3 oppose
Users have both supported and opposed several templates, and it may be that some other comments& questionsd could/should have been counted as support/oppose. I may even have counted "votes" given wrong. It really doesn't matter. There is no consensus for any alternative, which I would interpret as that there is not support for changing the template system now. I would therefore conclude:
- The Featured Picture only template in the form it had before the process of developing {{Assessments}} started should be used to tag Featured Pictures at Commons until an agreement about a new template is reached.
- Any changes made to excisting FP in order to accomodate/develop a new template should be reverted.
- Any discussion regarding these conclusions or the immidiate future of templates for tagging FP should take place below the line (see below, it's a line there)
- Anyone who feel's the need to evaluate this process as such, justify their own former actions, critizise other persons actions, insult someone or respond to insults given previously may do so at the talk page of the person(s) they feel needs to understand the TRUTH - but stay mellow, remain civil etc etc and don't continue any arguments here. Please.
- Anyone who wants to tell me politely that I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about and that this attempt at conclusion is useless/pointless/misunderstood/trolling/vandalism or simply not very well formulated and including lot's of spelling eroorrs may do it here.
- Happy editing. Finn Rindahl 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
A very fair summary; thanks for that. Now all we have to do is to work out how to roll things back. That's going to need a bot; any volunteers? --MichaelMaggs 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually leaving everything as is may be the best course of action. I only applied "Everything on it template" to POTY images which was to demonstrate and test. This would make things easier for me. Why do you want to rollback a handful of images? Lets avoid a revert war. -- Cat ちぃ？ 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)