This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I think most of you were aware that the FPCBot is down for long time and Bawolff is trying to fix the issues. So we are closing the nominations manually for the time-being; even though it is time consuming job.
I already mentioned it several times on the nomination page and requested the users to follow the rules, especially the "two active nominations at a time rule". Most of them follow it; but unfortunately some experienced users seems neglecting it. Anyway I decided to refrain from further closing, expecting some of our experianced users like A.Savin or King of Hearts will take care of it.
I have reverted the nomination back to the "denied" state. Thank you Jkadavoor for your hard work in this area, which is tedious. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The Feature Picture Candidate forum should be "Safe for Work"
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kelvin and Aren.jpg is "Not safe for work". Only on Commons would you find anyone mystified as to why. Commons hosting policy is not the same thing as Commons Feature Picture Candidate nomination guidelines. This forum needs to be "Safe for Work" in order that editors can view the candidate list without embarrassment and without risk of disciplinary action at work. We should use a "NSFW" courtesy-link rather than the usual large preview image. It should be a conscious decision to view NSFW images for FP. This is not "censorship" of nominations (any that are within scope are allowed). I propose that the Flickr guidelines of "bare breasts and bottoms, and full frontal nudity" be used as a rough guide. One can get away with more nudity in a historical fine-art painting than in a photograph -- there's a considerable a social-attitude difference even if there isn't a rational one. The issue of what is and isn't "safe for work" isn't something individual editors can decided on and insult each other by calling them "prudes". This isn't about "my morality" but the actual situation I and others face in the workplace and with our families and friends. I don't plan on getting dismissed from work for standing up to Commons right to host nudity or nominate for FP. There are times when I can view such images without issue, but I would like to choose them rather than having them imposed on me.
While the current NSFW image is on full 5"x5" display in the FPC list, I cannot and will not participate here. Colin (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I see NSFW as a courtesy that should be adopted. Not just at work but even at home I would rather not have "NSFW" type images blaze across my 27 inch monitor; my daughter does not need to see this or other graphic scenes, so I would like to have some control over when they are displayed. Yes, there are all kinds of smart-ass answers people can offer like not editing until 9pm or the like but those answers are just being spiteful. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment I created a related RFC at Commons:Featured picture candidates/RFC: Censoring NSFW photographs before I spotted this thread. However as the RFC will have a wider audience, it seems reasonable to let it run. I would encourage participants here to add informative examples and viewpoints to the RFC, though adding images of nudity would probably be seen as pointy and inflammatory rather than helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Our policy COM:CENSORSHIP is a file-hosting policy. A fact that it makes it quite clear lest anyone be in doubt. There is no censorship being asked for here. To use that word is unnecessarily inflammatory and leads to !votes rather than discussion and work towards consensus. With a link at FPC rather than an embedded image, the actual image is fully available, uncut, uncovered by clicking on the link. There is no policy requirement to make FPC (or talk-FPC) NSFW just to show off how un-censored we are. We can show respect and courtesy to fellow users, while allowing the full range of Commons content to be suitable for review and featuring. This includes Ralf's own nudes, Russavia's pop videos and Fæ's art nude. All are welcome at FPC. So much fuss and so little common-sense. Colin (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Ralf, Fæ and Russavia would like to frame this discussion as though I was trying to censor images on this project. What a shame there is no evidence for this. Like me nominating for deletion a nude image just because it was nude? Or perhaps I suggested somewhere that somebody should knit Kelvin and Aren some boxer shorts to cover up their naughty bits? These things might actually give weight to the allegation and count as censorship in the actual meaning of the word. There is another explanation for this fuss here. Wounded pride "from someone who happens to be the most active contributor to Wikimedia Commons this month". Let's examine that:
Ouch, that's gotta hurt. Take your conspiracy-theory and go have fun with it on Jimbo's talk page where it belongs. The benefits of considerate nominations and a courteous respectful attitude towards fellow reviewers vastly outweigh the points scored by flaunting our lack of restraint. -- Colin (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Support per Colin, simply because there are benefits to it and no censorship is happening. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)
Support per Colin and Saffron. This is not censorship at all. It don't understand why anyone would abuse such a serious term to describe this simple courtesy. As a compromise I would suggest a tagging of nominations with an invisible marker and have images hidden by an opt-in javascript gadget. --Dschwen (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The thing is written and could be offered to people that want it any time. Would anyone be opposed to an invisible tagging of nsfw images that would change absolutely nothing for any user by default, but would give users the option to opt-in and make a choice to what they want shoved in their faces and what not. It seems to me that should be absolutely no problem. Right? After all, allowing people to make a choice as to what they want to see and what not, is much more free than taking that choice away from them. --Dschwen (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
And that is great for you. But this totally ignores the fact that we do have some users that do see problems with such images. --Dschwen (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Info -- Memory is short. About two years ago I started a thread to discuss:
Should images of pornographic or explicit sexual content be allowed in the FPC forum?
What type of protection (if any) should be associated with pornographic and sexually explicit pictures in FPC?
Ha, thanks for the link. Interesting to read my own comments. However an opt-in solution was never on the table back then. It is now. --Dschwen (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why my FPX could be noticed as censorship at all. This is just a bad quality image, blurry and unsharp (good composition and light, though, IMO). What else ? If somebody disagree, then somebody support, and the FPX disappear. No more, no less. A picture is not good "only" because it is a picture representing a couple of gay persons, taken by a gay photograph. Activism is not a certificate for "featurability".--Jebulon (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Alvesgaspar's comment "And if we can decide that only Commoneer’s images are accepted in QIC or that pictures less than 2Mp should not be promoted, why not decide the type of images allowed in FPC as well". Same as WLM can decide on only certain monuments and nobody cries "censorship". I don't agree that the scope of FP images should be more restricted than commons policy but respect those feel it should. Seems like Gnangarra and Alvesgaspar had similar concerns to me wrt presentation of such images at FPC and were similarly dismissed by the "not censored" card. -- Colin (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Fae asked on the RFC page for some precedent. I have looked through 4500 nominations from the last two years. We recently had Russavia's Ukranian pop video which was very NSFW but had a perfectly unproblematic nomination image. I found some bear porn, stone porn, cow fisting, textile sex, a huge marine penis, and Ralf's art nude. Of these, none would qualify as "restricted" in Flickr's guidelines, with only Ralf's image qualifying for "moderate". Even this is subtle enough to be without much concern. So in recent times, only Fae's nomination would clearly qualify for NSFW. So I maintain this fuss about censorship is uncalled for. Some basic courtesy required, that's all. Civilisation and enlightenment remain unharmed. -- Colin (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
This makes the issue of Colin's unsupported action in censoring an LGBT artwork on the basis of his personal interpretation of "NSFW" without any community consensus, and implying this was an existing convention on FPC (a claim that led me to create a RFC) disturbingly misleading. We now know that this one incident of censorship in the years that FP has been running on Commons has only ever occurred on this image, and it "just happens" to be an obviously gay image by a gay artist.
I find this evidence disturbing, and I hope the majority of the Commons community is equally disturbed by this action of suppression of a gay artwork on the basis of arbitrary personal tastes along with the fact that this action is still being defended as somehow appropriate, with repeated attempts to blame me in various ways for having the temerity to object to censorship, rather than this action being properly withdrawn. --Fæ (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Uh.. what? Are you trying to pull the "homophobe card" here? Per Occams razor I'd say it is pretty clear that this image would qualify as NSFW because the guy has his freaking dick out for god's sake! I fail to see how the LGBT aspect is even remotely relevant in this matter. --Dschwen (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Please do not marginalise my serious concern by accusing me of playing a "homophobe card", I have called nobody a homophobe and those are the rhetorical tactics used to dismiss legitimate complaints that should be long dead and buried. There is a problem of attempted censorship here based on arbitrary personal tastes that were never agreed with the community and were never part of the established "norms" for FPC. I am pointing out a clear fact, based on Colin's own research, that the only image that has ever been censored in this way on FPC is a gay artwork. A fair comparison, to use your phrasing, is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:12-03-17-aktstudien-nuernberg-by-RalfR-32.jpg where a naked woman "has her freaking tits out" yet nobody was concerned about arbitrary definitions of NSFW. --Fæ (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Fae, it is my suspicion that you are mistaking correlation for causation here. I can fully appreciate that people are sensitive on the topic of censorship of LGBT materials. But that is not what is happening here as far as I see. As far as the tits vs. dick argument goes it is simply about prominence in the thumbnail. Ralf's nude session is barely recognizable as such in a thumbnail. --Dschwen (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC) And P.S.: 1 is a pretty small sample size anyhow to statistically infer an anti-gay crusade... --Dschwen (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Dschwen, you are determined to introduce inflammatory language to make me appear to be some sort of fringe lunatic, it is highly offensive and defamatory. This sort of treatment is what puts off our editors from being openly gay on our projects or raising concerns when they have legitimate questions about bias on our projects. I have neither mentioned homophobia nor claimed an "anti-gay crusade", these are your inventions intended to make a parody of my concerns. Lay off.
As for your defence of the "tits" image, the woman's naked breasts are a magnitude larger in the photograph compared to the guy's "dick" in Kargaltsev's life study, and yet it the photograph of gay men that has been censored. Your rationale about prominence seems bizarre in this context. --Fæ (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been called a prude, a censor of LGBT imagery and of deliberately picking on a nomination by an openly gay person. These allegations are uncalled for and have zero evidence for them. I'm rather hurt by this because I had considered Fæ a wikifriend and had worked with him in the past. On my user page, along with my own boastfulness, is a link at the bottom to User:Colin/Norden where I celebrate the many images Fæ uploaded from the Norden website. These images are so good, I spent days them to various Wikipedias in all languages. Can we please discuss images and the reviewing of images here rather than lashing out at each other.
I looked at 4500 nominations from the last two years, this took several hours and nearly wore out my mouse-wheel :-) But FPC has been going far longer than that and there are problematic images from further back no doubt. But the further back one goes, with a different community, it becomes less and less relevant what people thought or did. The point is that this is an extremely rare issue: 1:4500 and there no strong precedent. Comparing a sample size of one or two and trying to make any judgement from it is statistical stupidity. Let's move on. Colin (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ask anyone that has been on the internet for a definition of NSFW and I suspect most would provide one within a few words of each other and to a similar degree of exposure. Come to think of it this is about the only community organization that hasn't adopted a code of practice for using the NSFW content. Nobody screams censorship or homophobia on those forums. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no definition of NSFW on Commons. We only have Colin's undefined moral viewpoint, which at the moment has only attempted to censor one gay artwork.
As for "screaming homophobia" you should stop introducing this as your political spin. Anyone reading this discussion can see that it is you and Dschwen that are "screaming homophobia" as part of your defence of Colin's action of censorship and to deliberately deride my legitimate concerns of systemic bias in this process. I have called nobody a homophobe or screamed homophobia. Your parody is profoundly offensive and frankly disgusting behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Once again, this picture is very bad, technicaly speaking. That's my concern here. And I suspect that the nominator knows this very well, because it is obvious (see current votes). And I suspect this nomination has only a goal: to create this artificial controversy. Congrats, it is a success !--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Jkadavoor, those links re-enforce my point. There is no community accepted definition of NSFW on Commons even if there are essays about it on other projects. The action to censor this image was not based on any community agreed guideline or even a local consensus, even though that was the impression given at the time.
Given the level of abusive and misleading "parody" and general hostility towards me by FPC regulars after I made clear my complaint about the direct censorship of a gay artwork, I doubt that FP candidates will show a balance of diversity with regard to LGBT subjects and culture any time soon. The discussion here certainly will not encourage other openly gay contributors to our projects to take part in this process. I hope at least some of those in the small "club" that take part in FPC are concerned about the way this has been handled. I certainly leave this feeling dirtier for being such an active supporter and contributor to this project and convinced that there is a deeply unpleasant underlying cultural problem here that has been quickly swept under the carpet by using me as the handy scape-goat, rather than being taken seriously and resolving it. --Fæ (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Fæ, if underrepresentation of LGBT-themed imagery is really your point you managed to bring it up in rather bad way by being POINTy about it. You are reaping what you sowed here and your acting all hurt does not seem very convincing to me. Diversity on Wikimedia projects, in all its forms, is a serious issue that we need to work on. It does not need to be pumped up with drama. --Dschwen (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree, creating drama with defamatory comments like "Are you trying to pull the "homophobe card" here" are inflammatory and directly risk harming the reputation of our project for welcoming diverse contributions and contributors. --Fæ (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
What really get me riled up here is that this all seems to be just a game to you. You argue like a person that has fun arguing. You are pulling dirty rhetoric tricks, rather than try to argue on the subject. You make blatantly obvious insinuations about Colin's motives being anti-gay. And when you are called out about it you cry foul. This is plain dishonest! --Dschwen (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
No, what is really going on here is that I thought this gay themed photograph by a well-known New York gay artist was both amusing and iconic. I hoped it would generate interesting discussion on FPC and help address the apparent imbalance of a lack of LGBT cultural photographs. What I get instead from the FPC regulars is massive piles of bad faith (your last sentence demonstrates that), hounding false allegations and assumptions about my intentions, direct censorship, and false accusations of calling fellow contributors homophobes when I have done no such thing. Your behaviour here in using defamatory language is precisely why the Wikimedia Commons community should be concerned about how LGBT contributors can be encouraged to volunteer here without fear of abuse or defamation. --Fæ (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Commons is not 4Chan, I don't understand how you think comments like this resolve the issue, apart from ensuring that you and your mates have hounded me away from your personal club. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Fae, but I think that Colin's concerns are genuine. We need to make compromise to find a solution suitable for everybody. I hope that the one proposed below will find a consensus. Yann (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
If anyone recalls any LGBT culture related photographs that reached FP status, please do add to the list there. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
LGBT culture ? What is this ? Are LGBT persons sooo different that they need their own "culture", different of heterosexual "culture" ? Anyway, the picture candidate shows two young men nude. Is it soooo LGBT ? But remember: this picture is technicaly bad. Not because Gay-related, not because taken by a Gay photographer, but because...it is simply bad, and far below from FP standards. More than 24h after a non contested FPX, I ask for a deletion of the nomination, please.--Jebulon (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)Done, and not by me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes LGBT people have our own culture. I find it interesting that an FPC regular doubts that LGBT culture exists and appears to find the idea suitable to ridicule. It exists in the same way as Jewish culture or Black culture exists with books, plays, films, websites and even University degrees in the subject. If the same comments were made about other minority cultures, I have no doubt that most people would read this as defamatory. --Fæ (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I only remember this two images, which aren't photographs. But the votes looks so stereotypical:
Colins concern has nothing to do with censorship - it is the application of editorial judgement. If I actively seek NSFW material, I can search for it and find it, which is fine. --Slaunger (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Selectively including or excluding content can rightfully be called "editorial judgment", if it goes along with the project goals. But if editorial judgment is not in line with the project goals then it is misused, and gets closer and closer to "censorship". If a media aimed at children excludes adult material then it is fine and editorial judgment. But if it starts to exclude adult material and for example Islamic topics, then it is not pure editorial judgment anymore. On contrast Wikipedia projects aim to represent factual content to a not restricted audience. In this case any editorial judgment quickly becomes equal to censorship, if it restricts or excludes content desired by a part (even if a minority) of the audience. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has suggested selectively including or excluding content. No image, even NSFW ones, are censored from FPC or FP. The proposal is merely a pragmatic one about choosing where and when to view certain images that have real practical problems with them. This isn't just a workplace problem -- some images here could warrant a police caution if viewed in a public space like a laptop on a train or in a public library. Let's go with Dschwen's tool as an experiment and we'll what happens -- I rather think this will encourage more, not less. Colin (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It might encourage more nominations, but it will discourage viewers to vote on (or look at) that images, by putting them in a separate room. We introduce a two class system of media. Media from which we believe that is acceptable to everyone and media from which we (we as in "not everyone/all") believe that it is not suited for everyone. If we would aim at an special kind of audience than it would be fine, but we don't do that for good reasons. In my opinion this simply violates the project goals (COM:PS), by not treating any topic or content as equal without prejudicial judgment. If prejudicial judgment would be part of the project goals, i would not complain, but i would most likely not participate as well. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言11:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
We already categorize images with sexual content such that nude person eating ice cream doesn't end up in the more general category of people eating ice cream. Is that censorship? No, beacuse censorship is preventing people from having access not about giving them the choice to have access. This proposal gives people choices while those that oppose want to prevent them from having them. 131.137.245.20913:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not putting them in a different room. The pictures are in the same room, and unless you opt-in and activate a gadget, this room looks the same as it did before. --Dschwen (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Except this isn't a library and when I go into a library the first thing on diplay isn't a magazine open to the centerfold of a nude women with her legs spread. However, if I search this site for penis then I expect to be offered direct acces to any article related to a penis in accordance with the principles you linked us to. I made the choice and I don't want someone judging whether I will want to see it or not. The context in which the image is displayed is important. When sensitive material is displayed in places where it would not be expected and avoidance of it would mean losing access to the totallity of the service then application of something like the script proposed is warranted. 131.137.245.20813:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Fundamentalism is not helpful here. As the saying goes, "Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows". My desire to choose when to view certain kinds of images is balanced against another's wishes to nominate whatever images are valid to be hosted here. The solution suggested below finds a reasonable balance imo. The library example above is not compelling. Do town libraries in the US stock sex videos and porn magazines? Is categorising books as "Children's literature" illegal? Can children in the US borrow "50 Shades of Grey" from their public library? Do they place magazines alphabetically on the shelf so that "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" is next to "Tits & Ass". -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Your examples show me that you missed the point(s) presented in the linked article.
No one has anything against directional aids, which make your exaggerated example ("Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" is next to "Tits & Ass") useless, except for the case that a library would choose to list everything alphabetically. Do we have an alphabetic index of our images? If we do, then we have the same constellations. But do we browse images by alphabet or topics? Why would a library sort it's content like that?
Do libraries host media which contains pornography? Surely they do. But do they put this media in an adult section? Most likely not.
If literature states that it aims at children then surely it can be categorized as "children's literature" (as a genre). But labeling literature as "only for alcoholics" (no neutral categorization) clearly goes against the categorization approach.
"50 Shades of Grey"? Most likely yes, if they can legally sign for the book lending progress: [1]
FPC is a chronological list of image nominations which has the exactly the same issues as my "exaggerated example". We're discussing the FPC nomination page here, not file-hosting policy. Of the last 4500 nominations over 2 years, none had full-frontal nudity, so the principle of least astonishment was spectacularly broken. I didn't ask if libraries contained pornography. I'm sure they do in serious books covering art and film. I very much doubt US public libraries stock "sex videos and porn magazines", but if you can provide a reliable source saying they do then I'm prepared to be boggled. Libraries do censor what they stock. Your "only for alcoholics" example is ridiculous, however the Self Help or Medical section may have a section on "Alcoholism". Libraries in the UK restrict book borrowing by age (e.g, http://www.powys.gov.uk/index.php?id=594&L=0) adult books are not available to lend to children under 14 and children between 11 and 14 may borrow teen fiction. You may see from that link that teen fiction books in that library have a red label on the spine -- in other words they are not for younger children. Libraries typically entirely different sections for children than for adults. They may stock 50 Shades but no child would be lent it. Libraries also classify books by themes such as LGBT. Books typically have tame covers even if the content may be more shocking. In conclusion, libraries are an awful example for illustrating your point. -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: on reading more, it appears US libraries are a bit different to my UK experience. Regardless, the comment the IP above said, and the issue of presentation of content remains valid. We are going over ground here that many others have done already, producing more heat than light. I see no merit in continuing it here. Colin (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The "principle of least astonishment" does not exist on Commons and is not a community accepted norm, in fact it has been dismissed several times when raised in other discussions. I believe this was something Jimmy Wales made up one day on his English Wikipedia talk page as part of the endless "anti-porn" campaign that seems to have its headquarters there, and has never been put through a community RFC. Please do not quote it as if it is a "principle" for this project, it is no such thing. --Fæ (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a principle that arose and failed on Jimbo's wikipedia talk page. It's actually an extremely old design guideline, and the breaking of it naturally generates a response like Saffron's cry of "WTF?". But more pertinently, it was highlighted in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution: Controversal content, a resolution passed unanimously 10:0 by the board and remains an official position of the foundation. Background to that resolution was the 2010 Harris report. There is much of interest to us here in those pages and the talk pages contain the expected mixture of nuggets of wisdom and knowledge interspersed with ignorance and claptrap from all sides of the debate. We don't need to repeat all that. The community, as far as FPC is concerned, is the set of users who participate at FPC. It is most certainly not the windbags who frequent Jimbo's talk page and instigate and retaliate on the perpetual "Commons is broken" discussions that periodically appear there. The overwhelming consensus below is for a mechanism to help users who wish to to choose when and where to display content at FPC that would cause them difficulties in a public venue. Our purpose here shouldn't be to try to change anyone's views on such images, but to find a way to get along, to show respect and consideration for others who's personal situations and worldviews are different and perhaps unfathomable. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The Commons community has no concensus that supports a "principle of least astonishment", despite significant lobbying for it. No matter how much you turn the case around and argue this from different directions, it is misleading to refer to this as a principle on Commons or even a "design guideline", something that you appear to have made up for this discussion thread.
The WMF board, in the resolution you cite, requested that the "Executive Director, in consultation with the community, to develop and implement a personal image hiding feature that will enable readers to easily hide images hosted on the projects". This was two and a half years ago. If the Executive Director had wished to do this, it would have happened by now. A future Executive Director may decide to follow this up, but I doubt this would be a priority unless there is a new resolution.
The FPC community, nor any other community that you make up artificial restrictions to define, does not support censorship of images on Commons for all viewers, based on what Colin finds distasteful, or immoral, or whatever other terminology or post-action rationale you choose, when you decided to take matters into your own hands and censor an image under discussion. This is quite different from the opt-in tool being discussed below. --Fæ (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Before you cause me of making something up (i.e. lying), you might want to do your research. I remind you Fæ that if you continue these personal attacks then I will most certainly take you to AN/U. I also remind you that nowhere have I or anyone else here stated that these imagse are "distasteful, or immoral" and that this is not "censorship" under any definition of the word. You have no argument. Colin (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not say you were lying, please do not twist my words around to bend them into attacks, plainly they are no such thing. I have done my research thanks. No "principle of least astonishment" or a "design guideline" exists on Commons, or a community consensus for them. If your knowledge is better than mine, please either link to them, or avoid presenting them as if they are accepted norms on Commons when they are not. I would be nice if you would stop repeating your threats to "take me" to AN/U in response to my comments, it does not exist in order to suppress viewpoints from being expressed or to suppress facts from being made clear. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The only person putting words into people's mouths here is you. And none of your so-called "facts" (like "distasteful, or immoral") are supported by an evidence. Look at what I said. I gave a clear example of how your nomination at FPC failed the principle of least astonishment. I didn't wikilink that or cite it as policy. That's because because it is actually a fundamental principle of system design and widely mentioned in computing and design literature. Go read some books. You set up a straw man (that I'd tried to claim this was Common's policy or a norm here) and look ridiculous when trying to say it doesn't "exist", like claiming gravity doesn't exist because COM:GRAVITY is a red link. The WMF resolution uses that phrase because it is a fundamental of good design, it wasn't something "Jimmy Wales made up one day on his English Wikipedia talk page". Breaking that design principle produces a WTF reaction in users. No commons consensus required to understand that. It just does. Like gravity. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Your viewpoint has become incomprehensible. Personal choices for censorship of images of the human body is nothing whatsoever like the demonstrable existence of gravity. I refute your claim of a "principle of least astonishment" in computing or design literature, as a IT systems designer with a couple of decades of experience, I have never seen this in an authoritative text book or style guide.
If you want a Principle of least astonishment to be accepted by the Commons community with guidelines for implementation, then please start a request for comments and actually have a consensus rather than expecting everyone on commons to fall in line with whatever you personally believe is "not safe for work", which at the moment appears to only have ever been applied to a non-sexual gay lifestudy of two men by a well established international gay artist.
I expect this thread has long since bored the pants off everyone. In future please get a consensus for your actions before deciding to censor images on behalf of everyone else. If you want to censor your own image view then adjust your browser, there are plenty of ways of doing this, or restrict yourself to the {{Nsfw}} template if the image is actively on display in COM:FPC. There is currently an image of two men dressed as women on display, I am sure that in some countries this would be considered offensive and NSFW, which probably makes it a valid first candidate for the template. [Image now withdrawn] --Fæ (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Opt-in deferred display of tagged images
I've written a tiny snippet that could be deployed as an opt-in gadget to hide images that are tagged with an invisible marker template.
Images are tagged with a marker in the thumbnail captions
Images are loaded but hidden and replaced with a clickable icon
One click on the icon then shows the thumbnail
After that the thumbnail behaves like a regular wiki thumbnail
This works for single images as well as galleries
Can we find some common ground for such an opt-in approach?
Right now this tagging is called nsfw. I am fully aware that this is something that is hard to define properly. However we could leave this discussion to the people who are actually interested in using this system (I know, crazy idea, right?).
Such a tagging would have almost no visible impact to users who do not choose to opt-in. The only thing would be a marker template in the thumbnail or gallery caption (on the page where the image is included), which would only be visible in edit mode. --Dschwen (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Example:click here!. Note that for the first load of the page the script is not in the cache and since the page is small and quickly loaded the images may flash up briefly. This won't be an issue on large pages like FPC though. --Dschwen (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Somewhat uncertain: Since we require a minimum quorum of votes, this could screw things up, particularly if used injudiciously, e.g. so that, say, The Venus di Milo gets censored, or in a way that promotes common prejudices (e.g. LGBT works get opt-in'd for far less than non-LGBT.) With careful use, it'd be fine, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I care about equal prominence for candidates as much as you do, so perhaps a solution is to display an NSFW placeholder image rather than just text. --King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly how it is implemented, there is an image placeholder. The size of the thumbnail frame stays the same.--Dschwen (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Support And agree a NSFW placeholder would be better than a bare textual link which might be overlooked. Actually, I think such a placeholder is likely to be a click magnet rather than a disadvantage. Some of my FP nominations look weak at thumbnail size and I'd love someone to look at the full image before scrolling down. So anything that makes someone curious enough to click is a good thing imo. I don't think we need be over concerned about a precise definition of NSFW. What may be useful for nominators is to provide a short textual description of the image in case the filename is unhelpful so that people would know what they are going to get when they click. I think the majority of people using such a tool would be happy to review the image when they had suitable privacy, and it sounds like there are plenty who wouldn't use it at all. So I don't think there is any reason to be concerned this will lead to images being neglected. This is a wiki, so we can run with it and see. If images tagged NSFW end up with no or insufficient votes, then we can review things. I very much doubt that will be the case. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
This would be possible but a little bit harder. Do you think it is necessary though? I imagine the real issue is over the shoulder "surveillance" rather than network traffic analysis. Plus the actual content would need to be inspected, as the domain of origin is inconspicuous.--Dschwen (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I just tried your example page in Firefox, and as it was loading, both hidden images flashed up for a split second. This mightn't be such a problem on the long (mostly offscreen) FPC page. But keep it in mind - if your tool becomes well utilized, it might be worth the effort you'd have to put in to not load it in the first place. --99of9 (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed this above. An additional factor is probably the mode of loading through teh withJS parameter. A cached gadget will hopefully perform better. I'll investigate this. --Dschwen (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Support This would be a useful experiment to try. It will not satisfy everyone, as there may still be arguments about what should be tagged and what shouldn't, but it should at the very least help. Indeed (but perhaps I am being optimistic here) it may even encourage submissions of images that some might find more challenging to view, as the proposer is less likely to get a negative response from editors who for whatever reason don't want something unexpected to appear on screen without warning. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Michael. I agree with your second point. As to the discussion what should be tagged and what not, I think this will form organically. As the system is opt-in, people using the gadget have to discuss that amongst themselves. I believe it is much less controversial than some people want to make it out to be. It is a simple fact that certain (probably most) employers do not permit certain types of materials to be viewed on work computers. This is an externality and we can either accommodate for this, or we will lose contributor time. The judgement of what is NSFW or not is not to be made by us, it is the simple acknowledgement of a societal norm. If a person opts-in to the deferred display of tagged images they will have to acknowledge that quite possibly a few more images are hidden than their particular NSFW standard requires. They will have to weigh the inconvenience of one additional mouse click against the inconvenience of getting fired from their job. And lastly I want to stress that this tagging should be used sparingly and with a dash of common sense. Colin mentioned it above, amongst thousands of candidates this may be applied a handful of times at most. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose Opt-in is the first step for a censorship. Who decides for an Opt-in button, God, Allah, ..., a commons admin??? No, no, no!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I really don't understand this comment. Who decides who ops in? The idea was that every user makes that decission her/himself. But it seems like the answer to your rhetorical question is Alchemist-hp makes the decision for everyone. You are blocking an effort to give users another option. --Dschwen (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Opt-in is the first step for a censorship the same way as a new rule is one step more towards tyranny. Sorry Alchemist, but this is the kind of non-argument we wouldn't expect from an experienced editor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for german but i think, if i write english, its miss-understanding. Ich empfinde das als schleichenden Übergang zum "Bildfilter", kann sein, daß ich es falsch verstehe, es ist sogar wahrscheinlich. Was, wenn das umstrittene Foto POTY wird? Wird es dann auch ausgblendet? Es ist zwar unwahrscheinlich aber möglich. Wir alle leben in höchst unterschiedlichen Kulturen. Was für den einen selbstverständlich ist, stellt für Andere ein no-go dar. Das ist nicht böse, das ist völlig normal. Und dabei denke ich nicht nur an Fotos unbekleideter Menschen. --Ralf Roleček21:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ralf, ich antworte mal auf Deutsch. Es geht nicht darum irgendwelche Bilder fuer andere Leute zu verstecken. Niemand will den Bildfilter hier. Ich schlage hier nur ein tool vor, das Leute, die FPC auf der Arbeit ansurfen, aktivieren koennen, damit auf bestimmten Sieten Bilder, die mit einer unsichtbaren Markierung versehen sind (und die markierung muss auf der Einbettungsseite in der Vorschau-Beschreibung angebracht werden) erstmal durch einen Platzhalter ersetzt, und einen weiteren klick erfordert, um das Thumbnail erscheinen zu lassen (schau Dir das Beispiel oben an!). Es geht nur darum, das einige Leute an FPC auch von ihrem Arbeitplatz teilnehmen wollen, ond es nocht so prickelnd faenden, wenn der Boss oder Mitarbeiter ueber die Schulter schaut und Nachtfotos sieht. Es geht nichtmal unbedingt um persoenlicher Pruederie, sondern um Vorschriften der Arbeitgeber! Fuer Leute, die das Gadget nicht aktivieren aendert sich gar nix. Alles sieht aus wie zuvor. Wir wuerden nur Leuten eine zusaetzliche Option geben. --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Questionafter acceptance test: i) same remark as 99of9 above ; ii) Once opted-in by clicking on the icon, I didn't manage to opt-out, even after logging out, closing the browser (tested with Firefox and IE). Even unlogged, the tagged images are no more hidden in the page. That can be an issue, if the same computer is used by different persons (in a family for example). --Myrabella (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: Refresh didn't work for me, but I have understood why: when one refreshes the page by using the "Purge" tab (Page Purge gadget activated in preferences), that erases the "?withJS=MediaWiki:Gadget-DeferredDisplay.js" string in the URL of the test page. --Myrabella (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
If we do this, then the heavens will rumble, the darkest demons of hell will rise up from the deep, an all-seeing Big Brother will arise and demand our fealty in an all-powerful global tyranny, a Brave New World of censorship and thought control. Oh, wait, no, the other thing: pictures of dicks and boobies and other stuff that gets you in trouble at work will have an NSFW warning. Just like dozens of other websites, blogs, forums and so on. Phew. Support. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think it is not unfair to interpret this as a fairly solid consensus. The javascript thingie is now available as a gadget in your preferences (at the bottom of the improved navigation section). Of course the main thing is to responsibly tag images on FPC or whereever necessary. --Dschwen (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hang on, you implemented this for the whole of Commons based on a limited !vote here at Featured picture candidates. Could you flag this up on the Village pump and openly invite a community wide consensus for this please?
I note a template with the same name was previously discussed and deleted, so this is hardly a non-controversial change and ought to have a wide consensus rather than a decision made by the small subset of the community that hang out at Featured picture candidates. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This template has community and foundation support. It is intended for FPC usage. Usage on other forums or areas of Commons may require support from other or wider areas of Commons and such usage may benefit from wider discussions. But Commons is not a hive community mind nor is Commons uniform in regard to concerns over how contents are presented. The arguments for delaying presentation of difficult images in a category search result are quite different from those in a chronological list of images for review where the viewer has had zero control over the choice of image they may review at that point in time. There is clear support for use of this template at FPC. Do not derail this by filibustering. -- Colin (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Before Colin takes this as another opportunity to threaten me with AN/U, could someone else please explain why a quick vote on the FPC talk page is not a community wide consensus to implement this template across the whole of Commons? I thought my question above was clearly written. At this moment the Community has no definition of NSFW for the time when editors start edit-warring over this template or start using it as a form of criticism because they find an image distasteful, yet it has been implemented as a community wide gadget. --Fæ (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
It is absolutely not the case that this template is "implemented" "across the whole of Commons". We have determined support to use the system on FPC and that is it. Nothing more. The main thing is where the tags are applied. I assume you are getting nervous because I have enabled this as a gadget? This is just the simplest way of providing the functionality to whoever wants to use it. We are forcing nothing on anybody. --Dschwen (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
P.S.: Why should I care if there had been a template of the same name that has been deleted? That template was something completely different. We don't care if an image of the same name has been deleted before if the old image was a copyvio and the new one is not. --Dschwen (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
This is now a standard gadget. How are users stopped from applying the nsfw template anywhere on Commons until a community wide consensus for it exists, along with necessary guidelines to avoid editwarring or use as a tool of moral criticism?
If this is only of use on FPC, then linking to the source .js in the FPC guidelines would be sufficient for such an incredibly narrow tool, rather than adding to the complexity of standard User Preference for Commons. --Fæ (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is ever stopped from doing things against a consensus. The fact that we have the gadget now is a totally tangential point. What I don't get is that its only people who will never use the gadget and for whom nothing will change that get all riled up about it. Why don't you just let the users that want to activate the gadget worry about it? But I guess all the drama is waaaay too much fun to just let it go. --Dschwen (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I can't understand this discussion, because all people has exact this gadget on his browser (IE, FF, Op, Saf,): don't show me the images ... If any people don't like to see some images then activate simple this option on his own browser. It is more simple. IE 10: has additional the option: "family safety" ... We needn't this gadget for our Commons project! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It is obvious that you don't understand the discussion. The browser options that switch off the display of all images are not a replacement for this compromise solution. Switching off all images hampers the usability (even support oppose icons are invisible then). This would be shooting with cannons at sparrows. This solution allows a much more fine grained approach. Only a tiny fraction of images are potentially problematic for viewing a work. Currently no such image is on FPC. Switching off images while browsing would be total overkill. You'd have to remember to switch images off before visiting FPC and switch them back on when continuing to browse. How can you even remotely think this would be an better solution?! --Dschwen (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
And, if I move my slider to "some" or "limited" at "Content Advisor of IE" the browser starts relying on the data of ICRA, banning access to all WMF sites. Thanks; we have wonderful rating there. :) JKadavoorJee03:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest this get a one or two month trial, after which we review the results of the photos thus NSFW'd, for both bias and problems caused with the nominations? I have concerns as to whether this would be used appropriately, and it would be good to make sure that the concerns are invalid before itt becomes a permanent part of commons FPC Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm since Juni 2008 on commons and I very very selden saw a "problematic" image (what is a "problematic" image?) on FPC. A test period for 1-2 month isn't one! I think minimum 6-12 month will be practicable. But about which we discussing here? When some people don't like "problematic" images, the give simple an Oppose. And the problem is solved too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ich antworte hier auch mal auf Deutsch. Einige Leute wollen ja gar nicht mit oppose auf die Kandidaturen antworten! Es gibt ja durchaus viele Bilder die die FPC Kriterien erfuellen wuerden, aber die mancher Arbeitgeber nicht gerne auf am Arbeitsplatz seiner Mitarbeiter sehen wuerde. Wir wuerden Leuten mit dem Tool die Moeglichkeit geben hier mitzuarbeiten ohne staendig ueber die Schulter schauen zu muessen. (siehe auch meine Antwort an Ralf oben)--Dschwen (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Das ist kein Argument, denn was antwortet der Mitarbeiter wenn er sich auf Commons herumtreibt und der Arbeitgeber es sieht? Der Arbeitnehmenr kommt bereits da in Erklärungsnot. Sollen dann nur "pornografische Inhalte" versteckt werden? Wo fängt Pornografie an, wo hört sie auf? Und wie viele solcher Bilder hatten wir auf FPC? Alle halbe Jahre mal vielleicht eines ... Was ist dann mit der Hauptseite: POTD? Oder danach der POTY? Wir können gerne auf der FPC Seite herumexperimentieren, aber dadurch wird das eigentliche Problem überhaupt nicht gelöst, nur maskiert. Grüße, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Exakt meine Gedanken dazu. Es gibt da keine genaue Abgrenzung und einzig einen weiteren Grabenkampf darum ob nun ein Bild versteckt werden soll. Im Endeffekt bewerten wir dann nicht nur das Bild an sich, sondern titulieren es zugleich als Anstößig; nein nahezu als bösartig, so bösartig das man es vor den Augen Unschuldiger verstecken müsse, auf dass sie nicht damit in Verbindung gebracht werden können. Dieses vorgeschobene "auf der Arbeit" Argument hängt mir dabei aber auch zum Halse raus. Also entweder der Arbeitgeber weiß was man während seiner Zeit so treibt und ist damit einverstanden oder es ergeben sich ganz andere schwerwiegendere Probleme. Alles was hier immer wieder versucht wird (Stichwort Bildfilter) läuft doch nur darauf hinaus mit schönen Bulevardbildern zu zeigen wie toll doch alles sei. Mit wissenschaftlicher, dokumentarischer oder gar bibliothekarischer Arbeit hat das nichts mehr zu tun, geschweige denn von etwas wie einem neutralen Standpunkt. Solche "Hilfsmittel" dienen doch nur dazu eine gewisse Weltanschauung von Gut und Böse durchzudrücken. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Adam. This is a wiki. No images are being censored despite that word being used here. Alchemist I used the word "problematic" merely because it gives viewing problems at work, not that I have moral problems with the image itself. If Fae's image had actually been in focus, I'd have supported it. The people who don't want to vote on such images always had the ability to pass them by. The people who do want to vote on them would now have the opportunity to decide when they wish to view the image. I agree the lack of many even remotely NSFW images being nominated at FP, means a month or so may not be enough. Though perhaps this new facility would encourage more such nominations (no more than 2 nominations at a time please folks -- they are currently being manually closed). Or should we be concerned that Adam will hide some fusty old World War II general behind a NSFW box just to see if he gets more reviews than usual :-) Colin (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I noticed the image at work when scrolling down the page. I said out loud FFS then closed the page and went to do something else during my self imposed break. Then when I got home I waited til the little one was in bed then returned to it with the intent to support... that was until I went to full screen and was appalled at the quality of the image. For me this never was about censorship. I can't even articulate how disappointed I was in Fae's reaction to this simple request for courtesy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This is generally done on En-wiki. It's never caused much of a problem. Indeed, I've volunteered to have it done to my nominations, if deemed appropriate (it wasn't in that case). But Commons has somewhat different norms, and I somewhat worry about them changing too much, as the inclusionism is something I see as a good thing: we can't necessarily predict what encyclopedias and educational projects will need. For example: If we say we have "enough" naked photos of random people after a small handful, not including a wide range of bodytypes and poses, we make ourselves useless as a resource for artists wanting to practice nude drawing (not that that couldn't be taken too far, but you get my point). We don't want to set off another Jimbo-like purge of anything with even the hint of nudity. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Please let's not derail this into a discussion over scope or yet another meaningless analysis of the proportions or quantities of certain images in Commons. This is an effort to include nude pictures at FP without causing difficulties to people looking at the FPC forum in a public space. Colin (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
We don't need such a "not safe for work" rule. At work one should work for his/her employer and not discuss featured picture candidates. If you're discussion fpcs during work hours it is your problem if you get busted. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
What people choose to do during their break at work is nobody's business but theirs. NSFW may be the common Internet acronym but it extends beyond just workplace to usage in any public venue. For example the train or a public library or web cafe. This proposal is a common-sense solution to enabling all images at Commons to be reviewed and an chance of being featured but to provide reviewers control over when they view the image. Because the FPC list is chronological, reviewers have no control over what turns up next on their screen. Colin (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Support The sex maniacs and activists try it again and again. If somebody has problems with certain images, he should not use Wikipedia at all (actualy, "Commons"), and upload them on special sites, where those pics are very welcome. --Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
This important guideline on Commons has suffered from neglect, despite an WMF resolution many moons ago that we should improve and strengthen it. I know this is a little off topic, but you folks are among the brightest around, so I would very much appreciate your comments on a proposed redraft. I think it makes the guideline considerable more readable, understandable and covers some issues the current guideline lacks. The more views and eyes on this, the better. Thanks. --
I propose we add a short guideline to the project as to when the NSFW template should be added by the nominator (or will be added by others) such as when the photographic image displays nudity (genitals, buttocks and female breasts) or sexual activity (photographic or otherwise). When this is added to the main page, a temporary warning notice that the page may contain images that are not safe for work should also be considered given we are more likely to see such nominations by the very presence of the template. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I think we are about to cross a line here. I had no major objection to a voluntary opt-in gadge (if users perceived it as a problem, and that it could be solved without others affected, it is good). But when we start to add a warning notice and reguest the nominator to add the NSFW template, is it suddenly an integral part of the page for all users and not just a voluntary opt-in. One of the arguments above, was that nothing would change for those users who did not use the voluntary opt-in. ArildV (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think a warning notice should be routine, just initially to let people know of the new gadget. This will only work if nominators play along too, by tagging their nominations or allowing someone else to tag it. They won't see any visual change to their FPC experience as a result unless they opt in. It won't work if only some images are tagged and others not. Colin (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Recently someone added subsections there, having caused even more chaos than before. Only 2 houses & 3 bridges (there are certainly far more on FP), inappropriate images sorted to the towers, on the other hand still a lot unsorted.
I could return it to the previous structure, however we should also consider the large amounts and growth of this section, as architecture is one of the most popular motives on FPC.
So, I'd propose to subdivide this gallery in a similar way like it's already done for Plants, or Animals.
He just says something like his unique objection is that it was not done before, and congrats you. Btw, no objection for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Categories I listed above are just possible examples. There may be further ideas for subsections (for instance, I'm not sure about "Houses", as this item is not precisely definable (really just residential buildings?), and subsections may overlap (e.g. church towers)). So, anyone's free to suggest improvements, but otherwise I'm going to implement it that way. And The Photographer, unfortunately I'm es-0 and not Sabin. --A.Savin19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Happy to support one additional level of subdivision, but I am strongly opposed to the type of divide ad nauseam that seems to go on with categories on Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Maybe someone here is technically adept and can explain if this splitting may be critical for the bot function without making some adjustments in its code or so. Unfortunately, I've no idea how do bots function. It seems anyway that even a tiny adjustment on one of the FP gallery pages may break the bot. As long as it's not clear yet, I'll refrain from doing the subdivision. --A.Savin19:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I nominated 2 DJVU files, which were opposed only because there are DJVU files, and I dont' think this is a vald argument.
DJVU are composed of pictures, and since we allow sets and animated GIFs, it should be accepted. It is obviously not practical to nominate a set of hundreds of pictures, and the DJVU format is specially designed to display a large set of pictures.
Jebulon said that "the thumbnail is of bad quality". You are not supposed to judge a FPC only on the thumbnail, and the whole document is easily accessible. Yann (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course I am wrong in this sentence: "the thumbnail is of bad quality", sorry. I meant: "the picture shown". I'll provide more arguments here soon. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Ha, Ralf, it is really time for you to rethink this position. SVG is absolutely the standard for vector graphics on the web. DJVU on the other hand has still to gain acceptance. However in my opinion the specific format should not matter in a nomination (as long as it is supported by commons), as long as the representation (vectorial, bitmap, etc.) fits the content. --Dschwen (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I am very surprised that the nominations were opposed on the ground of this file format without any argument here, and IMO, any valid argument elsewhere. Yann (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
WLM 2013
Noticed today that the winners of WLM 2013 have been announced: here (full report here and Commons page is Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 winners). Congratulations to the winners. I'm pleased that all are big enough to be printed large and displayed in a gallery (rather than barely fitting on a postcard like a few of the national winners) and they all appear to be potential featured pictures. -- Colin (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Attempt to delete and censor image that is Featured Picture quality on multiple language Wikipedias
This is an attempt to delete and censor an image established as Featured Picture quality on multiple different language Wikipedias, including (1) English, (2) Spanish, and (3) Persian Wikipedia.
I really don't think this is the best way to go about addressing these inherent issues.
Please let's not censor and delete images that are in-use and in-scope as Featured Picture quality images across multiple different language editions of Wikipedia.
When I hear the gratuitous use of the word "censor" my first reaction is nowadays "STFU!". But looking at the deletion request I must say I see no danger of this being closed as deleted. To me it look swhat needs to be said is said and canvassing for "meat puppets" (sorry, no disrespect) is only make tis into more drame and will provoke counter reactions which will ultimately make this DR more difficult to close. This nomination should not have gotten this much attention to begin with. --Dschwen (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
But unfortunately, some people have a difficulty to understand it; and trying to manipulate it in many ways. So I request your continued support and request you to actively participate in the related discussions.
It is our responsibility to make a beautiful world for us; please don't limit it into contributing wonderful photographs! :) Jee06:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
You know, I'm not entirely sure whether Jimbo Streissand effecting himself over the Pricasso thing - had he kept quiet, very, very few would have seen it in all likelihood - is really a very good reason to begin suppressing notable satire and other encyclopedic content. Every day this Pricasso stuff continues, the more likely the event itself is going to become notable enough to get a place on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Adam, that is a good argument and I'm well aware of that side effect. Personally I'm not bothered about Jimmy or Pricasso; my main concern is bringing the name of the photographer and copyright holder into such abuses. If people are interested to defame any, they can depend on their own creative skills. This is just a fair warning to photographers who spend their life and energy to grow free culture; whereas some admins and fellow members are only interested to play cheap politics and make benefit from it. Jee15:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually Jimbo knew he was being trolled, refused to feed it, and killed the discussion with a quick comment and has said no more as far as I am aware. There is no way this portrait commissioned by a bureaucrat (at the time) would fail to cause huge disruption to the project for negligible educational benefit. The portrait isn't satire nor notable, just a personal attack. That Commons didn't also swiftly delete it and move on is just evidence of how dysfunctional it is. -- Colin (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd argue that, IFF Pricasso is notable, hiring him to create an artwork and release it was a good way to get his work here. The choice of artwork subject might even have made sense when getting something for Wikipedia. However, given the nature of Pricasso's artwork, and the very poor relationship between Russavia and Jimbo, it becomes a lot more problematic that Jimbo wasn't asked first.
Satires of Jimbo has been made before. Durova, for example, pasted Jimbo's face onto a painting of a satyr chasing nymphs. On English Wikipedia, the Triple Crown project has Jimbo worked into Goya's image of Saturn eating his young (as a Jimbo sandwich). But all of these have been good-natured and by people with good relationships with Jimbo.
Frankly, this is an extreme situation - a painting literally made with a penis of an unwilling subject - and extreme situations make bad policy. It's regrettable that the WMF waded in on policy in response to it, as it is, I think we'd be wise to apply a lot of common sense and pay attention to whether usage is encyclopedic, and not jump to extremes.
Just to be entirely clear: I think the Pricasso painting of Jimbo shouldn't have been done as it was. As things stand, I really don't know what to do about the situation, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Your license may be applicable to your original work
In response to a recent discussion on COM:VPC, CC hard clarified that "in some jurisdictions releasing a photograph under a CC license will give the public permission to reuse the photograph in a different resolution."
A good news for the "free culture"; but may be a "not so good" news for many photographers. So beware. :) Jee04:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
They do seem intent on denying content creators the abilility to contribute to "free culture" while retaining some capacity to leverage their creations for personal economic benefit. 131.137.245.20813:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I think this change seriously damages Commons ability to attract professionals to donate downsized versions of their work. While we'd all love 40MP medium-format camera JPGs, the fact remains that Wikipedia is more than happy to get tiny copies of images of celebrities and other professional shots. This seems to kill that dead. -- Colin (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I don'y have strong feelings about this but wonder how many pros are regular contributors of Commons. I remember an ugly incident of some months ago, when the professional photographer was only interested in using Commons to promote himself. The intention was so blatant that I was shocked with the whole thing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree there aren't many pros who contribute directly to Commons. But I think some pros are persuaded to donate their work by others who then upload the work for them along with an OTRS ticket saying they got permission. I'd be interested in knowing the stats but I reckon many thousands of images are of this kind. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Why should we care if the professional donates images for exposure? CC offers that as an advantage of using CC licenses. I saw it echoed on Jimmy Wale's talk page. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I've commented on Saffron's talk page. I'd rather, if this was an approach worth pursuing, that the community drafted a common licence for files/copies-of-works. And got approval from on-high that such licences met the Definition. Having 101 user-licence variants (all incompatibly share-alike) would be a nightmare. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to get all pointy and nominate the golf course picture for deletion, but what Saffron created there is not a license that is acceptable on commons as far as I see. You cannot go and make up stuff like that template. It is a brief outline of what Saffron thinks a license should do, but it is neither derived from a known license legal text nor accepted as a free license on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, IANL, YANOE (you are not one either). The CC "deeds" explicitly state "This is a human-readable summary of (and not a substitute for) the license." The actual license is several pages long and probably took a handful of legal experts to craft and is at iteration 4 now. Do you think your 4 sentence thingie is really the same thing? --Dschwen (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Further, we allow people to use {{Attribution}} which has no (or a little) legal text at all. So Saffron's license looks to me like a simple "Attribution + ShareAlike" license. Jee02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hm, Jee, that is a good point. However we should not, under any circumstances, start to have user specific licenses. This would be confusing and pretty much impossible to extract licensing data in an automatic way. --Dschwen (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Further, I doubt whether Saffron's clause "Restriction — Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work." has a benefit if judiciary failed to distinguish "higher resolution versions of the work" from the other. I think it is too difficult in case of non-digital media use (like prints).
I have looked at restrictions with other licenses and irrespective of whether it is the same work or not the restriction would legally (and morally) enjoin the licensee from using the higher resolution work. Moreover until we have some case law in this area my opinion is just as valid as any other. Just look at the rage fest of opinions we have had on this matter already. They are all over the map as to even defining a work. CC's answer in the FAQ was legal sniveling and hand waving. So unless Commons has a policy that prevents such valid public licenses I will be using them until something "official" comes along. However, I am more than happy to accept critiques and opinions on how to make this a better license without turning it into 10 pages of double crap babble. Now, if CC actually steps up to the plate and says this notion of using dual licenses on different resolutions/quality as an economic model was baseless and bankrupt and amends their site accordingly then perhaps I will have to reconsider. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
According to the community consunses, this copyright tag is depreciated due to its use of unclear language and undefined terms. Furthermore, it includes restrictions on uses or re-uses of higher resolution versions of a work, but
does not define the term resolution or higher resolution for the purposes of this restriction and is unclear; and
Files uploaded on or after 17 March 2021 should not use this tag. Copyright holders of files uploaded before 17 March 2021 are encouraged to licence their work under an acceptable free licence (e.g. {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, etc.).
Subject to the terms and conditions of this public license, the licensor hereby grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the licensed rights in the licensed material to:
A. reproduce and share the licensed material, in whole or in part; and
B. produce, reproduce, and share adapted material.
Expectations:
Attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to this license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
ShareAlike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the work, you must distribute your contributions under this exact license.
Restriction – Licensee may not use higher resolution versions of this work.
No additional restrictions – You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything else the license permits.
Outside of Wikimedia Foundation projects, attribution is to be made to:
The lack of a machine-readable English description is a recurring issue with a certain percentage of featured pictures. Accordingly, the guidelines for FP candidacy should include a valid English description, i.e. with {{en}}. This will give nominators an incentive to ensure that featured pictures are accessible and indeed of the highest project standards. — C M B J06:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks CMBJ; but English description is not a must here per our language policy. Further it is very difficult for a non native English speaker to provide an accurate English description. What we expect here as a collaborative project is other users will add appropriate descriptions in their own languages when see these pictures especially when showcase as POTD.
I'm not neglecting the fact the some users are too lazy in populating the data that they can easily able to add. Jee07:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I understand that English descriptions are not a must in general, but if we're going to feature a picture, then it can of course be held to a higher minimum standard. However, the main issue here is not just one of English descriptions, but one of language specificity and accessibility. File:Workshop of Hans Holbein the Younger - Portrait of Henry VIII - Google Art Project.jpg, for example, succeeded in being promoted to featured status but its description was completely inaccessible from the API.
On the subject of translation, I might also suggest that promoted candidates be automatically added to a priority queue for translation to at least one other language. — C M B J07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I also have another idea. Besides the idea that I suggested, I also thought that when a user create a nomination, the title of nomination will become red until someone vote. When voting, the user who voted will remove red color. So, I imagine that the problem of none vote in nomination will be minimized. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Some months or years ago, we spoke about that, but I did not remeber what was decided.
The question is: "What is an alternative ?"
My opinion is that an edit of the same file can be an "alternative". But any other file, even of the same subject, from the same author, with the same material, from the same point, with the same regulations, with the same light (2 minutes of difference between the both), with the same edition, is not an alternative, but another nomination.
It is not very important, but I think it should be clarified, and established by rules.
I didn't get what the problem here. It is an established practice at EN for years that we call an "edit" if it is an edit of "original" and "alternative" if it is a similar looking picture sometimes even from another author if in the exact same scope. See, our intention should be to choose the best instead of satisfying bureaucracy.
"I'm afraid we should have to endure abuses..." Do you think people abuse this option? I didn't get it as we never promote more than one picture from a single nomination.
It is an established practice at EN for years that we call an "edit" if it is an edit of "original" and "alternative" if it is a similar looking picture sometimes even from another author if in the exact same scope. Sorry, Jee, I've never seen that it was "a practice for years", and I disagree with this.
(...) chances are both get promoted, which is not good per our policy. Could be convincing, but they can be both promoted too if not nominated together (the second a few weeks after the first, for example).--Jebulon (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Jee, but your interpretation goes against the spirit of the decision we took some time ago. An 'alternative' was then considered as another version of the same picture (a different crop, contrast, brightness, etc.). The reason for this decision was the possibility of gaming the system and having much more than 2 active nominations in FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"...your interpretation goes against the spirit of the decision we took some time ago." Do we have such a decision? Can we find it in the archives? I remember several discussions; but no concrete decisions in my knowledge. Jee05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
There are two separate issues. One is the pragmatic restriction on nominations (and a concern someone might use a loophole to "game the system"). I'm not keen to over-legislate on this, and prefer that if anyone is overloading the system then someone has a quiet word with him rather than quoting policy. The other is where nominations of very similar photographs might result in two FPs. There are some Puffin FP photographs from last year that were nominated together and both ended up as FP. Clearly most people don't want two versions (e.g. crops) of the same photograph ending up as FP. But photographs of the same subject at the same time from slightly different angles and viewpoints? Hmm. It is a judgement-call. Views of the same building from a completely different angle are clearly useful. But two views of the same Puffin just with a slightly different zoom and aspect? Not so sure. I think we should allow the nominator (at least) to say "I offer these two pictures for consideration, but feel only one of them should be FP" -- and have the freedom to do this whether those are two version of the same photograph or two similar photographs. Let's leave the "you have too many simultaneous nominations" as a separate consideration. -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Not a question of over-legislate, Colin, the meaning of the decision taken in 2010 (see here: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 9) was that 'alternatives' were different versions of the same "picture" (not "theme" or "subject"). I'm not following the history of the 'rules' page but maybe some changes were made in the meantime which might have subverted the original meaning. Although we no longer have the problem of over-nominating, I still agree with the initial idea. The problem of having various FP with the same subject (we do have!) is a a different one about which a clear consensus was never reached, or even tried. The bottom line is that we should put back on the rules a section about the possibility of different versions -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Alves. I have a quick glance through Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_9#Guidelines_changes and all I see is "11. A different version of the same picture is not considered a new nomination and should be added as a new subsection, inserted after the original version." Hmm; it looks like new CC dram where how to interpret "the same picture". CC said "the same picture" same in the sense of copyright rules (just joking).
See; we have to look on the merits and check any chances of misuse. I failed to see any chances of misuse here. I see more chances of misuse in set nominations. There was a discussion at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2013#Galleries on how to handle sets. I strongly oppose the idea of considering them individually; some sets contains more than ten pictures. Now they are presented as a single entry for voting. Jee10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not worried about misuse, I just think that Alternatives that are too different make voting and discussions in nominations very difficult. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)13:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Indeed; probably you are talking about this. I wonder why ArionEstar is making nominations of active users here without proper consultation with them, which is not very helpful at all. S/he may try to make nominations of people like JJH who are not active here.
We get a lot of immature nominations from inexperienced people, like the one Colin mentioned below. That is a separate problem though. Jee15:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar, what do you think of my suggestion though? We currently have several pairs of images at FP, some as alternatives and some as separate nominations. Is it really good to have both File:ESC - United Kingdom 07.JPG and File:ESC - United Kingdom 05.JPG as featured picture candidates capable of independent promotion when surely only one of them is the "finest"? -- Colin (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi everybody. Just to clarify: I don't want to create any drama. I'm a jurist, but from a "Roman Right" country, and not from a "Common Law" country... And as child of the Louis XIV and napoleonic country, I love lines, categories, written rules. And I'm not very confident in the human nature (# J. J. Rousseau !), that's why I'm happy when we have a clear and established "ground", and a clear and solid "ceiling". But I'm sure a consensus is possible.--Jebulon (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes; I know.
We Asians usually willing for a compromise; but you people not. You need strict rules and signals to turn left or right. That is why you can't drive vehicles in India. :) Jee16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Concerning Colin's suggestion, I think that by apparently solving one issue we are subverting the rules and creating a different problem, which is the possibility of spamming FPC with several alternatives. I say "apparently" because this will not fix the difficult question of promoting or rejecting a nomination based on a alleged similarity to an existing FP. It has always been the responsability of the nominator to choose the best pictures to nominate. And it is the responsability of the reviewers to judge wisely about what pictures to promote, based in whatever criteria they consider relevant. I remeber a recent nomination of mine that was rejected because a similar FP existed. The system worked well that time, even if it was against my opinion. That said, I believe that this alternative is against the rules and should be converted to a different nomination or withdrawn. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The image you link to is just the same subject but four months later so certainly not from the same photo shoot. I agree it should be a different nom. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess my motivation is that I don't want good-faith people being restricted just because we fear some people may abuse. And even if someone does abuse then we can have a word with them -- there isn't really a need for written rules imo unless the problem becomes persistent and widespread. I'm sure in the past, when someone has uploaded photos from a set and nominated one of them, that I've suggested an alternative photo from the set. I don't really see much difference between that and suggesting a different crop of the same photo. I'd much rather this alternative was discussed alongside the nomination rather than have to create a new one miles away from the old one and with the possibility that both might become FP when that wasn't the intention. I'm happy if we make a general request not to spam or overload FP and that users should generally restrict themselves to 2 images at any time, and not nominate multiple alternatives as a routine. The most common problem with multiple nominations are with newbies and they never read the instructions anyway :-) so all that would happen is us regulars get restricted and the newbies still spam away. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
So long as there is no possibility of more than one image being presented as an alternate being promoted I won't get too fussed. It should create a disincentive for what is becoming a routine practice for some. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should simply ask ourselves the question: Is it OK for both pictures to be FP? If yes, then separate noms. If no, then alt. Being the same original image is a subset of this, but if there are two images which are very, very similar, then only one should be featured. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Before to read this discuss, I considered to come even here to open one, I thus announces you what I had planned to write:
To be or not to be ... an alternative
I want to discuss about the possibility of the alternative versions, because I read nothing about that in the guideline and I need some clarifications.
I hope that everybody will have understood that my purpose is not to cheat or to annoy the others. After having read comments in this Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpg. I think it is necessary to write a precise and explicit rule in the guideline as regards the alternative versions.
In the case which worries me, if I crop this picture I can obtain a very very similar image of this picture but with a resolution much less good and nobody will see inconvenience. At the opposite the proposition of the both as alternatives activate the indignation at certain users.
Personally, I understood that the purpose of the "Featured picture candidates" is to determine "some of the finest on Commons". Then I do not understand why a crop (which is a version edited of a photo) would be accepted with no problem at all while one different version (here almost similar) can bring us the same thing but with the quality moreover, but this version on the other hand activate a general outcry as if I did not respect a rule which I was not even able to find.
I thus suggest to write in the guideline that quite edited version of first images can be accepted as alternative. But also any other images enough similar (taken from the same point, by the same author, at the same date and time (light). Like that there will not be a place anymore in the ambiguity. And I shall be the first one to submit me to this rule. And Commons will lose nothing there because the purpose is to find the finest image (more images = more chances to find the finest). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nothing personal here, Christian, of course. And nothing against your work here. Just a point of rule to be fixed, IMO. My question about your suggestion is : what is "enough similar". As it can be interpreted, I think the problem remains...--Jebulon (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I see no big issue here: while the objection by some people was, that the "two nominations rule" might be bypassed by dividing a current nomination into two (or more) alternatives, it is also the fact that only one of these alternatives can be promoted, and so it is still not possible to have more than two self-nominated pictures at once become FP. So, even in the extreme case that both alternatives are completely different shots, the nominator is aware of the fact that, if any, only one of that shots will be promoted (namely the one with the most support), with the result that a skilled user will prefer to open two different nominations instead, even if they have to wait some days. If the nominator is an FPC newbie and for some reason they nominate two images that could both be FP in one candidacy (like ArionEstar with the recent FPC of a Stockholm church by Arild), we should help them and advise them to close the alternative. Here I agree with King of Hearts: we should ask ourselves if it would be OK for both pictures to be FP. --A.Savin00:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with Alexander, the only problem which I have and it is what urged me to intervene here, it is when I read the comment of Saffron Blaze : "For future reference, if I get the sense images are being uploaded just to wear down resistance I will oppose both." Of course that the purpose is to collect a sufficient number of voice!! You will understand all that my purpose by nominating this alternative was not to activate a such felt but rather to propose a relatively coherent alternative. I like my fisrt choice but it was maybe not the best. And I think that it is good to have a small freedom for made adjustment. We still have no necessary backward as regards our own images.
If I had make another nomination with this second image, it would have been placed somewhere else on the page, and both would have been able to be promoted, I find that it are too similar to be promoted both. And I do not find very pleasant to hear that it is an attempt of cheating from me, and that somebody goes systematically to oppose in this case.
A rule which shall authorize explicitly the authorization of this kind of nomination would prevent this kind of reaction. And the not precise and ambiguous character of this rule (enough similar) is exactly what would allow a little of freedom. Then it is up to you to bring into oppose both but not on principle. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; I had supported you in the beginning, but now I'm confused while seeing your last upload over it. Here we have no strict rules as in EN; but now I (as a closer) have a difficulty on how to ensure that the early supporters still support your new version. Some small updates during an evaluation process are acceptable; but this last minute update (there are already 7 supports there) should be avoided for transparency. At EN, we usually ask the early supporters to confirm their votes again; which is time consuming and not so practical here as we have much busy schedules. Jee07:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this last upload is not merely a dust-spot removal but yet another framing of the subject so we really have three nominations and most of the support is for the version prior to your last crop. I think in this case, for the avoidance of doubt, a brand new FP should be created (subject to limitations on concurrent nominations) and this one closed without prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I see there are cultural and personal differences here wrt strict rules vs allowing freedom. I think A.Savin's rational is good and editors who make frequent nominations here should take care to select their best work before nomination. If in doubt, it may be worth asking a friend. I have a concern, for instance, that Christian is at times constantly nominating QI-worthy images with little wow in the hope that enough people go "nice pic" and not enough oppose. -- Colin (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Done For the last change, I agree with you two and I had withdraw this nomination.
Concerning the alternatives versions a precise rule could be:
"Any images of the same author, of the same main subject and taken the same day can be considered as alternative."
Sorry no. If you take the building from its other side, your criteria are satisfied, but it is a completely different picture... IMO, it is part of the FP process for the nominator to chose himself before nomination the best one in his one collection. That's why I disagree with A.Savin. I have almost ten versions of my last nominations in FPC in my files, I have chosen and it was difficult.--Jebulon (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am with Jebulon. This is already part of FPC culture, for the good reasons. And replacing a precise and objective requirement with a fuzzy one will lead sooner or later to problems of interpretation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Have to agree with some extend. But such a skill (to find the best choice from a set of images that the community approve as an FP) can be easily developed; without depending on strict rules as A.Savin said above. I had warned some new users to avoid quick withdrawals (even though there is no such rules) and they take it in a positive spirits. I encountered several such quick withdrawals from Christian Ferrer during my job to clean the list (the bot will not close such cases before all 9 days pass); but never warned him, hopping he will learn such skills soon. I hope he will take this case in a positive spirit and try to learn how to make stable nominations than trying all cases here. Christian Ferrer, we have a policy to limit the FPs as a choice of 1/1000 of our collections. Considering the growth of commons there is nothing wrong if we limit the number of FPs as a choice of 1/100 of our QIs. Just my opinion. Jee14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I will reword my statement from above. I believe "alternatives" should only be re-worked versions of the original i.e corrected or altered in some way. When alternates are presented only one image from those offered should be allowed to gain FP status. I am not a fan of giving people a choice of two similar yet inherently different images as there will be a natural tendency to make a choice where if offered alone no choice would be made. This is what I meant by breaking down resistance. I would see this as game playing and oppose it. Frankly if you are not confident enough that an image could be promoted on its own then it shouldn't be nominated in the first place. Adding the alternate is just an attempt to increase one's odds. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Saffron Blaze, I nominate the fist image because it was my preferred, maybe that I shall have of to wait for the end, and it would have been promoted but the fact that there are no precise and written rules misled me. And the result agreed me over the moment because the alternative was successful. But I understand you and a precise rule written in the guide is all that I ask for. Maybe we must choose in :
"Any images of the same author, of the same main subject, from the same point of view and taken the same day can be considered as alternative."
"Only an edited version of the original nomination can be considered as alternative."
I intend to improve well my way of nominating as well that to contribute generally moreover. One of my problem is sometime my ardour and my enthusiasm : I nominate images before having edited and published the rest of my RAW file. Of more the fact of being a little more patient would allow me certainly to choose more sensibly the photos which I nominate. I agree and I am going to improve. But (there is always a but) :
In this case or this other, the alternatives are other images but not only they are acceptable but they are also useful and relevant IMO. But it's just my opinion and I understand the others. But and re-but I will renominate soon this picture (this one and only this one in first, this time), but I reserve the right to nominate this other picture as alternative if someone ask. And if you do not want to write of precise rules in the guideline, I respect that but I am going to defend myself beak and nail when we are going to blame me for an attempt of cheating. Thus if we do not come to an agreement here, I do not see the utility to go to block the page of nomination with "it's not the same image, it's an other one...". Where is this rules?!? In an archive? If it is a consensus and not a rules, I respect that but I have my point of view and I am going to defend it ("Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.").
As regards the percentage of the FPs with regard to the numbers of QIs nothing against your opinion or against the general consensus, Jee, but every thing on its place and one time for every thing. It is complicated for me to make me understand in English so a subject after the other one please.
If somebody wants to speak to me about an image in particular he can make it on the page of nomination.
And if somebody wants to discuss another subject than the alternatives we can open one other discussion and I shall participate in it
If somebody wants to discuss the legitimacy of my nominations he can do it on my talk page, I would be the satisfied first one, but it is an other subject (not an alternative...) and the nomination page when it is begun is reserved for the criticism of the image IMO --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer, I have no problem with the alternatives as far as it is in harmony with the discussion/review on the initial nomination. But the only complaint I said here is your last attempt to overwrite an existing QI with somewhat very different picture and in the last minute, after getting 7 support for it which affect the promotion process. Some wikis (like my home ml wiki) have strict rules to prohibit any edit during the review process. EN is not that much strict; but will not count early votes if there is a doubt of ongoing support. We are much liberal in these points; but if people start to make things difficult, we are compelled to make strict rules. I appreciate your enthusiasm in photography and contributions which is good and should be encouraged. Just slow down and let a nomination to die if facing much criticism. Later you can try with another view as you are planning now for this case. Let allow this discussion also to die; we said a lot and we already understand the difficulties. Please don't take it personnel. It is just because your a bit new here. I too faced much stress here in the beginning, as many reviewers (Alves, Richard, ... to name a few) here are very strict on those days. :) Jee17:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
And this is why I had withdraw. I respect your patience and kindness Jee, I will do one thing: I will re-nominate my first choice and I'll wait for the appointment to see the result. my english is limited and I don't understand the sense of "I too faced much stress here in the beginning, as many reviewers (Alves, Richard, ... to name a few) here are very strict on those days". --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Make QI a requirement? Where is the wow?
I am as guilty of this as anyone. I have a picture I think could be FP and nominate it only to find out I missed a perspective correction or sensor dust. I also note that this issue is occurring more and more often especially with newer contributors. By insisting on a QI qualification for recent images we could ensure people can focus on the actually qualities that make an image FP worthy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
A solution shall be to force all the Featured candidate images to pass the QI bar without giving them the status which is reserved to the Wikimedians. I specify :
the image (not by a wikimedian) would be nominated on the QIC page, would receive a postif opinion, could thus reach the FPC page, but would not be promoted QI, rest to find a solution so that the BOT do not take into account them. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:53, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Now the BOT reacts to the status Promotion, Decline or Discuss. There is only to make it react to a new status reserved for the no-wikimediens images and who can be eligibleFP, and which would have for reaction to tag it : Template:Eligible for FP. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Another solution would consist in creating a page, based on the QIC model, where all the images that they are QIs or not should win their status eligibleFP. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Weakly opposing. A photo can be below QI-level quality standards but outstanding in rarity or subject to become FP in my opinion. Additionally, the QI process is helpful to the uploader to correct errors but, in my opinion, not extremely reliable in its outcome. The standards do change considerably. I think it's good to get QI before attempting to gain FP status, but should not be mandatory since we aren't flooded with low-quality photos currently. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)09:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. We can not (and should not) apply further quality restrictions for FPC other than COM:Image guidelines which contain certain benchmarks both for QIC and for FPC, because an FP is (for a good reason) not necessarily a high-quality image. However, we need more active and careful reviewers for FPC to ensure that FP remains our "very best of". It should be self-evident that a picture that doesn't fit in the QI requirements and isn't otherwise special wrt educational/historical value, wow effect etc., should not be promoted as FP. (We have, btw, a current example here, where a photo of not really good quality and not really special wow is currently very close to become promoted. It probably wouldn't have been the case, if there were more participants.) --A.Savin10:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't find QI to be a good measure of technical quality as the standards imposed vary wildly. Some images seem to pass QI provided the exposure is reasonable and sharpness ok (i.e. the camera did it's job) but have no compositional merit whatsoever nor much effort to take an interesting photograph let alone an amazing photograph. This would add a hurdle for Commons contributors that isn't present for images taken from Flickr say. And we have the reasonable option to support a fabulous photograph that is not technically perfect. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree I think wow has been lost. Part of this I think is the flood of no-wow nominations even if they are not successful. People (newbies) then look at the FPC page and see a lot of QI-level photographs and think that is the standard for submission. IMO we should consider asking nominators to explain why they think this photograph has wow. If they can't do that then don't submit. On en:FP the nominator has to give their rationale and I think this is helpful. Not only would this perhaps cut down on the no-wow submissions but also helps reviewers see why the photograph may be special (which might not be obvious from the preview). -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I am all too familiar with the limitations and vagaries of QI. I will say that participation there did force me to learn some things and I am certainly more technically savvy as well as demanding in my own work as a result. However, I see that using it as a hurdle for FPC would be problematic and might not even achieve the desired result. As to your suggestion... providing rationale for EV is good, but I am not certain it will help the "wow" decline. Perhaps it is as A.Savin points out, I need to point the finger towards myself if I want to see things change. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
A page to filter the nominations?
Every person who wishes to nominate an image should put it on a pre-nomination page where the image should receive the support(authorization) of at least one experimented user (for example a user who have 10 featured pictures ,just an example). No opposition vote is possible and the image can reach the FPC page as soon as it received its authorization. Any image which have no its authorization at the the end of 10 days (example) is removed from the page and cannot be any more a candidate for 3 months (example). Of course it would ask to comply with the game and to visit regularly this page to allow the access. But it is the price to pay if you do not want to make it on QI criteria by means of the BOT, it is necessary to make it manually.
Of course the vote would not be a vote but an authorization, and would not be taken into account in the FPC page. This filter would have the advantage to be a little bit restrictive, egalitarian and relatively supple at the same time. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Just {{FPX}} if you don't like a nomination that has no support other than from the nominator or author. I'm happy to remove it after 24 hrs unless someone challenge the tag in between. (We already have a Commons:Photography critiques page; but no use as neglected from the main space for long.) Jee08:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Metro station and FoP
I have a question, is metro station (in my case Kazakhstan) extempted of No FoP ? I read articles about it, I saw paragraph allowing Inside of public place and Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place. From here [2]. I know there are photos of metro in states where there is No FoP. --Mile (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
As most of you are aware, there is a new forum on Commons: Photo challenge. This takes photo submissions one month and votes on them the next. Voting is done by the community and is a popularity contest. I'm concerned that Challenge voting might be biased by concurrent FP (and perhaps also QI/VI) nominations. One example currently is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Componentes electronicos.jpg. An image that does well (or badly) at FP will have been reviewed or seen by many of the same eyes that then vote on the Photo Challenge. I've tried to make voting on the Photo Challenge such that existing challenge votes are hidden to try to avoid the bias we all suffer from that we like to feel we are not alone in our opinions. We all know cases of an FP that gathers support votes until someone points out the flaw and thereafter only opposes -- that's a classic example of existing comments influencing future ones. Also voting on Photo Challenge is done without knowledge of who the photo creator is, which helps remove bias there. [I know people can easily find this information out, but it isn't explicitly displayed]. With Wiki Loves Monuments there isn't a community vote (though sometimes one of the judging panel is on Commons), so I don't think that contest has a problem with FP/QI. I'd like to propose that we discourage or ban nominations at FPC that are currently (or will be shortly) available for voting at Photo Challenge. Once the Photo Challenge voting is over, the picture is of course welcome here. The delay would just be a month or so and only affect a tiny minority of potential FPs. Since Photo Challenge only accepts new submissions to Commons, there is no risk that current FP pictures might be entered to the challenge, though there is the possibility that someone notices a current recently-uploaded FPC would make a good Challenge entry. What do we think? -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think if there is a problem it should be solved on Photo challenge (for example, by prohibiting the nomination of FP and/or disqualified images that are promoted to FP). There is no need to change the nomination rules here.--ArildV (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why it needs to be documented here; because it concerns only Photo challenge. Photo challenge may disqualify a picture nominated here (it's an internal matter for Photo challenge) but that is no reason to change the rules here imo.--ArildV (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's a helpful approach. People are dreadful at reading rules but quick to complain if those rules aren't spelled out clearly. The best outcome for someone breaking this rule would be for them to quickly suspend their FP nomination and reopen it again in a month's time. No harm done and both forums happy. The worst outcome would be disqualification from Photo Challenge -- ill feeling, wasted opportunity and completely avoidable. I'd like to hear some other voices on this issue. -- Colin (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a very clear, helpful, and simple approach to incorporate an explicit rule in the instructions for Photo challenge (if there is consensus for that). I'm happy that Photo challenge has been a success, but I see basically FP as an more important and established projects and are therefore hesitant to change the rules here. I think the best compromise is to ban (again, if there is consensus) participants in Photo challenge to self nominate images to FP during the contest.--ArildV (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
why not just say if the image is being considered/judged in any other Commons project or Event that it shouldnt be nominated at FP until after that is complete. That would then include QI,VI, WLM as well as PC and any future projects that come along. Gnangarra13:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
That seems a good suggestion. Now many people nominate their works here and QIC simultaneously. Chances that pictures go to "Consensual Review" and get corrected several times during the review process. The success rate will be high, if they show some patient and postpone their nomination here till the review is completed in QIC. Jee13:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't have strong view on QI though personally wouldn't nominate at both concurrently. I agree that it is best to iron out any wrinkles in one forum but some people may be confident in their nomination and dislike being told to wait. We see similar issues with concurrent nominations at Commons and Wikipedia FP where a little patience would help. I don't see any good reason to delay WLM entries at FPC considering it takes about three months to process the voting there and the judgement isn't a community popularity contest -- so I don't think that restriction would be accepted happily. The reason for the Photo Challenge request-to-wait is the concern that voting here will bias voting there, and that the solution is one done here: either the user delays nominating or suspends their nomination -- whereas one can't delay or suspend one's nomination at the Photo Challenge (only withdraw, which would be sad and avoidable). I'm kinda surprised at the parochial attitude to rulesmaking -- we are all one big project. -- Colin (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to call it a parochial attitude. It is rather a balancing act between two different projects (FP and PC). And it is also unnecessary to change the rules here; if we make a rule in Photo challenge all participants (in PC) knows in advance that they have to wait to nominate the image here (FP).--ArildV (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
sigh* I wish people read rules thoroughly but they don't. So we need people to keep an eye on things and point out when they get broken. Where's that going to happen? Here at FPC. And what are they going to do? Suspend/withdraw their FPC. Here at FPC. And which set of rules will they complain about not being clear when someone says "You can't nominate your photo challenge image at FPC yet"? The rules at FPC. I can't really understand why there is any opposition at all to a simple sentence. Nobody is contesting the concept of this rule, just being fussy about where the rule is written. Which is why I think this is very unhelpful. -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with your reasoning, which is based on assumptions. There is no logical reason to complain about the rules here (since this is not PC). If someone breaks the rules of PC, just send a friendly message and ask the person to withdraw the image from PC or FP. It's his choice, we don't know what he wants.--ArildV (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Is there another form of reasoning that isn't based on assumptions? Depending on which nomination occurs first, the thing they have "done wrong" may be to nominate a challenge entry at FPC before waiting for the challenge voting to finish. That's why, logically, they'd expect the FPC rules to warn them against doing that. Why would someone then withdraw from the photo challenge when all they need to do is delay/suspend their FPC a few weeks and they stand a chance in both forums? I can't police this rule all by myself, so the more people who are aware of it the better. Hence, I'd like it mentioned in both places. Can you actually give a concrete reason why the rules here shouldn't mention it? Like something bad would happen? -- Colin (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I was going to write a answer but I think we both have taken up enough space here. Our views are known now and it is up to the community to decide. Regards --ArildV (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Correct, it was only a response to Colin's comment about parochial attitude.
I have no strong opinion on the new proposal, but I'm not sure what impact it will have. It's a very good idea to first nominate the image for QI but QI is not open for all images (so we can't require it). The new proposal doesn't prevent anyone from first nominate for FP and later for QI. I find it more difficult to see the problem with parallel nominations to FP and VI or WLM.--ArildV (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it is because of the composition. The Norwegian images is taken from a higher position, and has no distracting elements in the foreground. The trees in the foreground, on the other hand, is disturbing on the Oban images (a winter photo would have been better). That said, the resolution and details give a huge EV to your image (but also the other picture has high resolution and high EV). Maybe (but that's just a speculation) a less appealing composition also contribute to fewer users open the images in full-size (and thus miss the picture great merits). I never saw your nomination, and I dont know if I would have supported the nomination (because of the composition).--ArildV (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The "white water" in the center is too distracting to my eyes. It is insulting my eyes like when I look at a glossy surface on a sunny day. I expect less sky and more of the buildings in the bottom. Jee11:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Concur with Jee. The bright area in the centre of the image (both sky and water) detracted from the overall image. Moreover, the town in the Hammerfest image forms a coherent element that we don't get with Oban just because of the perspective (and the tree centre right). Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Sorry to be "insulting" Jee's eyes. I'll place a NSFW banner over my next nomination so he can get his sunglasses ready. :-) -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am surprised that this image got support, seeing its quality and the available choice in the category. Is it an oversight? Thanks, Yann (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think anyone who has been here more than a year will find what is getting nominated a surprise. More disappointing is what is sometimes getting promoted. However, with the regional and personal bias voting it should not be a surprise. I raised the issue above and I came to the conclusion there is little to be done but vote your conscience. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Should we disqualify all of @S. DÉNIEL: 's oppose votes, if by the end (or 5 days) of each nomination he opposes, no reason is stated for the oppose yet? Or preferably, we just disqualify all his opposes immediately. I find that he is opposing far too many images without any reason, and this is really, really disruptive to the project, especially for the images which most/all of the FPC voting community support and can be promoted within 5 days. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 05:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I thought giving a reason when opposing was more of a question of fairness than an absolute necessity? I don't see how disqualifying votes based on how they are distributed is in any way democratic. He might not give reasons because there is a language barrier. Or because nobody told him that he should. Before anything is banned, there should definitely be communication. (And btw, I sometimes get the feeling that people are afraid to oppose a candidate with a few supports and no oppose. I think that's a bad thing, we should be able to honestly and freely vote based on what we think and not be influenced by other people voting (too much). But often enough, one oppose is followed by many others who now dare to oppose, too.) — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)10:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
They seem not to know English. Maybe someone of our French colleagues could go to their talk page and help. --A.Savin10:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In many cases I would rather not hear the opinion of the user given how arbitrary some of the comments are becoming. Also, given how some people steadfastly refuse to accept any criticism and immediately adopt a battleground attitude when their image is opposed, it is little wonder some people avoid comments. Sort of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. A well reasoned comment is always preferable but for many reasons, as have been discussed before, it is unlikely we will move to a mandatory comment for opposers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I would well have helped you but I prefer somebody who does not make a comment (either because he is shy or because he does not consider himself as enough competent) rather somebody who is not very nice and who invent pretext (a cropped tree in a forest for exemple) or who makes a mathematical demonstration on the not value of the photo; For me an oppose vote with no comment is equal at a "no wow" and must be respected. More there will be of participants on the page better it will be for everybody and we should not assault a newcomer as soon as he make an oppose vote. I think that it's time to put this page a little more democratic, more accessible and to avoid to "jump in the throat" of the users who opposed. --Christian Ferrer15:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, more or less. I've let a kind and polite message in French on the talk page of our friend, in order to suggest him to comment his (negative) votes, even in French. I hope it will be sufficient. Now you may all go back to the main page and support my candidates, thank you. .--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
machine translation
Hello,
The rule of justification negative votes does not appear on the page heading (in French). The non-justification of affirmative votes has misled me. Funny rules! Only those who vote against are likely to be in bad faith? The votes are all for honest and thoughtful? This causes not have to be of a contrary opinion or criticism.
I think my level of photography do not have too bad : http://www.flickr.com/photos/sterne29/ I put a lot of negative reviews because it seemed to me that the level was quite low (on the current page) but I still made several positive reviews (which shows that there is no systematic).
For the language I had forgotten that English was a requirement on commons. What a pity to exclude many people. I do not want forced systematically someone translate my words. Everyone has to do better. Automatic translation does not work well and the work of "critical" little cause misinterpretation causing a conflict.
Considering the reactions and conditions i'd settle for being a proponent. I leave you free to do what you see fit with my votes. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The comments are to inform the photographer how he can improve his photography/shot, and it is also a matter of courtesy. Because if you oppose, you definitely find that there's room for improvement. As for language, you can post in any language, even Martian, as Commons is a multilingual project. Hope that helps. Cheers. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 11:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with AK that an oppose with no comment is discourteous. If an image "ticks all the boxes" then it may be difficult to find on aspect that is particularly worth commenting one (though of course sometimes there is a stand-out feature). But if an image deserves opposition, it is not usually because it "fails all the tests" but because one or two things in particular are wrong. So the two votes are not symmetrical and asking for an explanation for an oppose is justified. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic: I'm wondering whether there's a way that we could encourage users that are uncomfortable in participating in the FPC voting process in English to participate in their own language. I know the general rule on Commons is that everybody can participate in their own language. But in practice, that rarely happens. Maybe more of us should comment in their own native language in order to encourage others to follow their example. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I see a lot of times where a German-speaking voter might leave a German comment for a German nominator, same for French, Spanish, etc. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Français : Je suis d'accord avec Frank, et pour pousser le raisonnement un peu plus loin, le meme commentaire pourrait etre à la fois dans la langue d'origine et en anglais si possible. Bien que cela soit un peu fastidieux, je vais essayer. Je désespère quand les commentaire sont écris en allemand et que je ne peut pas les lire.
English: I agree with Frank Schulenburg, and to push the reasoning a little farther, the same comment could be at the same time in the language of origin and in English if possible. Although it is a little bit boring, I am going to try.
"opposes, no reason is stated for the oppose yet?" Shall we DQ all support votes with no comments then? Since you can't have on the one hand oppose (comment if you like to help the user is what the rules state I think) being a now mandatory comment and support with optional comment.Flickrworker (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If you oppose, in your (humble) opinion the photo has room for improvement. This is an aspect that the nominator, and especially the photographer, would want to know how he can seek improvement. Don't leave them in the dark about it. After all, it is also a matter of courtesy. If you support, you either don't see any room for improvement, or see only very little room for improvement, thus making it not so necessary to give comments. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this would be a good guideline to follow:
If you are going to oppose, then please leave a comment explaining your oppose.
Try to leave it in English (or a language the nominator is known to understand).
If you absolutely cannot write in English, then leaving a comment in another language is better than no comment at all.
@King of Hearts: IMHO the comment, if not written in English, should also be a language that the photographer can understand. And for the comment to be in a non-English language, probably we should also set the minimum language proficiency of that nominator and photographer to level 3. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 04:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was what I meant. I didn't take into account the possibility that nominator != photographer. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Folks, let it go. There are as many good reasons to mandate comments as not. I say we just recommend people make a comment for any oppose so as to aid the photographer. English is preferred but again not mandatory. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
As Saffron Blaze. Useless discusstion, we had very often since many years. Once again, no step forward nor toward and at the end, status quo. Waste of time. Those who begin this kind of discution, especially new contributors, should maybe consider that their outstanding idea was maybe already rejected in the past. "Commons" is adult, now. Do you know ? Answering the first question, no, there is no reason to disqualify S.DÉNIEL's opposes.
français : Même opinion que Saffron Blaze. Discussion inutile, que nous avons eue plusieurs fois depuis nombre d'années. Une nouvelle fois, ni pas en avant, ni retour en arrière et à la fin, statu quo. Perte de temps. Ceux qui lancent ce genre de discussions, spécialement les nouveaux contributeurs, pourraient peut-être envisager que leur idée géniale a déjà été rejetée dans le passé. "Commons" est adulte, maintenant, savez-vous ? Et pour répondre à la question initiale, non, il n'y a pas de raison pour disqualifier les votes négatifs de S.DÉNIEL.--Jebulon (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I feels about problems with comments on my nominations. If someone think that my nomination do not deserve to be promoted, he is naturally free to thinking that and free to oppose of course, and all the votes in my nominations are welkome and needeed (oppose and support), even an oppose without any comments. But I have difficulty understanding the lack of tact of Kikos. It is not the first time (see here), and it is rather hard for me to remain impassive. The first time I already ask him on his talk page and on A.Savin talk page : [3] and [4] to make better comment, but I see no will from himself to make effort. However maybe it's my fault in my way of answering or of feeling this comments. Yours opinions are welcome. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There's actually quite a number of problems with encouraging people to comment in their own language, like the Kikos example. After reading the multiple links you gave on the AN User Problems, I find it really hard to believe that all of them were accidents, and also very hard to assume good faith that even any one of them could be an accident. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Language difficulties by all parties are probably to blame. But I am frustrated by Christian treating FP like QI and nominating lots of photos with no wow and little artistic merit. There comes a point where this is gaming the system -- that reviewers will tire of opposing "no wow" and feel embarrassed to comment on yet another "File: *** Hérault **.jpg". Many reviewers struggle to oppose, dislike doing so and pass. Others vote with the crowd. When the picky reviewers feel awkward rejecting yet another photo from the same person then it becomes much easier to succeed. After all, one can guarantee to get a few votes from people who support everything prior to making nominations of their own. Of Category:Featured images by User:Christian Ferrer I think half have no wow. They are pleasant enough and QI but not our finest. I don't think this is fair and ultimately makes FP worth less. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Christian has good equipment and his works have good quality. The problem here seems to be so many "natural views without no clear subject" as in the current example. As a nature lover, I can't say they are bad (or shame); but may not be FP enough to distinguish it from other similar views. Jee15:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Jee, Yes it is your right to think that and in what it is the problem that I like it enough to nominate it? Is it my enthusiasm which raises problem? In what somebody have the right to attack my enthusiasm? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong in your enthusiasm as far as you follow the rules (2 nom at a time, etc.). Kikos didn't responded so far; so I can't comment on that part. In my experience (when I participated here with own nominations), I feel the comments of non native English speakers are much brief and rude compared to one who have good fluency in English. It is my experience in Flickr too (There is fortunately no rude comments; but non English speaking people have a difficulty to express their feelings properly). Now I learned the art of conveying expression of love, breaking the barrier of languages (by small, small acts like improving file description, adding categories, adding to articles, etc. etc.), that you too can learn by. Try to enjoy the time here instead of concentrating only on "own works". Stay away from troubles by tolerance, patience, and with a gentle smile. Jee03:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Colin, the language difficulties are not an excuse, I don't see any meanings in any language for the word "shame!", and with an exclamation mark in more, which could be a useful remark to improve the quality (artistic or not) of my nominations. It is thus more a desire to see fewer nominations, and an attempt of discouragement. And I very well understood that you agree with him in this sense. Even if you are more moderated you clearly expressed yourself on this matter several times. It is completely your right and his right to think that my featured pictures have no wow, and if it is what you think, it is exactly what I want, a simple no wow and not an improvised mathematical demonstration on the not value of the photo or a gap from language authorized on the pretext of difficulties of language in the only purpose to see me less on the page or to be unpleasant. And moreover, artistically I find my images not too bad, it is not thus an argument which will make me change, and I am sorry if you see too often the word "Hérault" but it proves for me only one biases from you, and I find it curious for somebody who advocates the anonymilty in the photographs competitions. I have never had any doubt on the fact that your comments vary on criteria of places "Hérault" and authors Category:Featured images by User:Christian Ferrer. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
And in more I do not understand why you can be frustrated of my nominations, we are there to live together, I nominate and you vote or not. And if you're frustrated, I think it is more the problem which comes from you than of me. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
And in more the fact that you speak about photos already promoted says it length on what you think about the others voters, maybe certain votes are less relevant than yours? or maybe I am a profiteer? however I am submitted to even rules that the others and the fact that my photos draw so much your attention is a sign encouraging for my artistic talent. Jealous? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the problem with Kikos was in their comment "Shame!". I tend to think that they did not have the intention to offend you Christian. The word "shame" can mean both "embarrassment" and also "pity". I suppose Kikos meant the latter. But why do we discuss it before letting them state on this issue themselves. Maybe a voluntary mutual interaction ban between Christian and Kikos for some months would be a good idea. --A.Savin19:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if he want to say "pity!", I don't understand in what it's a pity, what is the means of that? An artistic term which I do not know? --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC) It cannot be something else than an allusion without any relationship with this image or with the photography generally. --Christian Ferrer
Sigh. I hate bias and have no wish to vote biased against your nominations. I am discouraged that time and again the regulars at FP complain we are sinking into awarding merely competent photographs rather than outstanding ones, yet those same people do not rise up to oppose when it comes to it. They are happy to not vote or let someone else oppose. "Whew!, Colin has opposed for me so now I don't need to trouble myself or make enemies". It is hard to oppose. Christian you must realise I feel bad when I do it. There is only so much one can take of that before tiring of the whole thing. Far easier for me to support everyone as some do and then I will have plenty friends when it comes to my own nominations. I know how it works. I don't care to play that game. Yes, I think at times my fellow reviewers have fallen into a trap -- that after so many dull landscapes to find one that is attractive or actually has some compositional arrangement gives them a long last opportunity to support, even though in fact the picture is merely good and not finest. I don't support an interaction ban between Christian and Kikos. Can anyone here ask for a ban from people who oppose their pictures yet fail to say so politely or with good language? Kikos may have expressed himself badly, but I don't see anyone saying his oppose was wrong. And oddly Christian thinks this is thus a "successful photo". Instead I suggest that Christian let someone else nominate his pictures until he has learned to focus a critical eye on his own work and select the "finest". And grow a thicker skin. -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
@Christian: It's a shame that a user with your number of contributions and FP does not know the basics of the guidelines. One of them is meaningful name. Which is not tjhe case of File:Sète, Hérault 09.jpg.
En français: C'est dommage (oui, shame se traduit aussi par dommage) qu'un contributeur avec autant de contributions et de FP ne connaisse pas les bases des recommandations. Une d'entre elles est nom signifcatif. Ce n'est pas vraiment le cas de File:Sète, Hérault 09.jpg. Pleclown (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Pleclown, In 90 % of my images, the name consists of the administrative name of the municipality (Hierarchical Administrative Divisions level 3), of the name of the department (Hierarchical Administrative Divisions level 1), followed by a number, what for contents with encyclopaedic purpose is in my opinion the most relevant. Without ironires I shall have been able to name this photo "little wall along a pond", but I think it's more than less relevant and I choose to keep that for the description. Or I shall also have been able to name this image "Lido de Thau" which is the name of this local place, but for a good understanding in other languages, I preferred to stay in administrative legal division there, which including the name of the municipality is widely enough precise in my opinion. And you will excuse me, there is an undeniably logic in what I have just announced and I do not see what the terms "shame, pity or dommage! (french) comes to make there inside the comment and can learn me to compose of better title. And if it is indeed the title the problem (or my titles generally), it is the first time, except Colin who discourages to see registered "Hérault" so often, where we point out it to me and in a curious way in more. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ky just say that I read the nomination comments & I believe that Christian behaved very well in this situation and Kikos & Pava were unnecesarrily cruel in their comments. Christian did a very good job of staying calm and positive amid all the nastiness dumped on his nomination. If Kikos and Pava were qualified to oppose that nomination they would have been able to come up with better reasons than "ugly landscape" & "picture about nothing". I totally get that language & dialect diffs can distort tone and stuff (I have to constantly remind myself that the single exclamation point (!) is not sarcastic here) but even the content of those comments does nothing to enforce FP quality standards and only serves to hurt feelings. There is nothing wrong with opposing an unfit nomination, but there's a difference between saying a picture lacks wow and saying that it is worthless, "common", and "nothing".
&& Colin, I don't really like how you're creating a culture of fear where you're basically saying don't nominate unless we will vote support. If every nomination was sure to have "wow" then what do we need reviewers for? An artist will never learn what makes an FP if they don't get to nominate their pictures and see which ones pass, as well as read kind criticism on their failed noms. I'm sorry for randomly jumping in but I feel like I have to speak up when I see a contributor get bullied by people who operate by The Standards and only The Standards. The world needs more people with thinner skin.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk00:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
And I find it so a little bit curious as the case of S. DÉNIEL in the discussion above, a load of people agrees to go to speak to him until on his talk page (I was not agree with that) on the base he voted without comment, with for result that now it set face and will not come to vote any more. And it would be disturbing if I am not satisfied by comment of the kind "ugly landscape" & "picture about nothing". To be precise it's not Pava comment which make I open this discussion --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Colin, What may I say? Thank you, a big thank you, for this sacrifice and the courage which you show to dare to come to vote against me instead of who you think that they have no the necessary courage. I think that they will be grateful to you for knowing what they want. And I am very happy to have known how to cause with you such a vocation of defense of the community. It is a curious way of voting and even if I am very far from agreeing, in the measure or you make it politely, it's not a problem and you can feel invests with a mission concerning me if you want. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Christian, sarcasm is a really bad idea on the internet. Add to that the language difficulties and you are adding to the problems. You expect people to vote nicely for your noms and to have a serious discussion above over-nominating but retaliate with insults to me. Kelvinsong, be careful before you label anyone a bully. Look we have escalated to threats of banning the reviewer and that is bullying. There's nothing wrong with Pava's vote. He is entitled to his opinion on the scene. I have tried to help Christian in the past to select which photos are his best by suggesting he tries to explain to us why they have wow. He refuses to do this. If the nominator cannot consider his own pictures wow then why should we? It is simple. I have had my own failures and some rejected for no wow but I believed they had wow when I nominated them. I'm not creating a "culture of fear" and don't use such inflammatory language if you want a reasonable discussion. I'm saying "Don't nominate at FP unless you think the picture has wow". And I'm asking Christian to set his personal threshold a little higher because nominating lots of QIs is unfair on those who do select their work. I do think Christian's noms are being held to a much lower standard that other photographers of whom we expect a high standard. I will go vote on that page. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry for calling anyone a bully but I simply couldn't think of a better word to describe what was going on on that nomination page. From what I've seen Christian has endured disproportionate harshness considering how nice and mellow his own comments have been. Now. I want to point out that FPC was created for two purposes. The first was of course to find and collect the best images Commons had to offer, the other was to attract develop and retain artists to the project by providing active critique and a reward for good work. And part of that second objective is to keep developing artists around so they may someday contribute extremely high quality work to Commons. So there's a lot of "How good is this picture compared to what else is on the project?" but there's also a bit of "Does this work show progress and potential and is the best of this artists ability?". This may actually seem foreign to people who think the purpose of FPC is only the first thing, but FPC is also a place to help train new contributors. When I first came to Commons, I had a few of my images promoted that I now believe did not deserve to be promoted if absolute standards were the only thing that mattered. But those FP awards encouraged me to stay on the project and I became a much better vector artist as a result of it, leading to dozens of (from what I have heard on my talk page & newer FPC nominations) very high quality images uploaded to Commons. Tbh I don't know if I would have stayed if my first nomination had gotten comments like "this is ugly" or "this contains nothing".—Love, Kelvinsongtalk22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
No I don't believe there is but I recall reading people in old talk pages referring to it and the other Featured systems as such. Isn't developing artists a purpose of almost all of these Commons-space projects (aside from library maintenence)? Of course Commons:Photography critiques is the ideal spot for this but nobody ever goes there and the name says it's only for photos anyway. Quality Images doesn't really give the same in depth review—Love, Kelvinsongtalk01:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, there isn't a good spot to develop photographers and FPC might suit that purpose, but those that come here would have to accept that people give critiques and have to be ready to accept some rather blunt commentary if they don't conform to community standards. If you go back even two years in the FPC archive you will note the very high standard that was demanded back then. That isn't always being reflected in the nominations nor the promotions these days. In fact FPC is becoming little more than another QI. However, anyone that tries to impose the very guidelines that made this such a valuable project gets rebuked and challenged for every oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Well I'm certainly not against you voting oppose on pictures you don't think meet the standards. My problem is with the unnecessarily harsh and cruel tone that many of the oppose comments carry. Don't call a landscape "ugly", if it's a problem with the colors, say "displeasing color scheme", if it's a problem with the composition, say "bad composition", if it's a problem with wow say "does not evoke wow", etc etcc && don't discourage nominations from developing photographers.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk02:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I once tried to explain that the use of the word 'bad' was needlessly critical. Now when I see a non native English speaker say something harsh I try to chalk it up to Babylon. Go figure. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) User:Kelvinsong, I too have developed my photographic abilities on Commons and by nominating work I hope is good enough -- I'm not consistently up to the standards of some here. But no, FP is not Photographic Critique or Photo Tutorial. The Photo Critique project died, I suspect partly because of the language issues and partly that Commons isn't particularly a social site. There are plenty other websites on the internet with the specific purpose of being a photo community to give feedback/criticism and help. Commons is ultimately a repository of educational media and that's the primary goal of the contributors. And FP is the project to select the best of these. If you can get something personally out of the process then great. But let's not corrupt the mission here in order to be kind to beginners. Standards have fallen certainly. If we keep promoting pretty-but-no-wow photos then that will become the new standard. Then we might as well drop FP and just have QI. I want folk to support my nominations because they think they are among the finest on Commons, not because they've opposed the last four I nominated and are worried I'll lose heart, or because of some patronising hope to nurture my talent. If you want uncritical praise, show your photos to your mum. -- Colin (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
To be precice, I did not open this discussion for Pava vote ("ugly" would not be my choice for a rewiew but however it is acceptable). I opened it for Kikos vote, and if there is an escalation in this discussion, IMO Colin is for a lot the cause of that, and my sarcasms are only a reflexe in answer to the argumentation of Colin who after saying a lot of thing hide itself behind "be polite, be carefull... Nobody invited Colin to discuss and if he cannot support a discussion or the answers of the others, I don't see why he intervenes here. Of course he is free to discuss but in every argument which he says, I reserve the right to answer. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It was Kelvinsong who criticised Pava's vote. Before you start blaming me for escalating this I'm not the one taking Kikos to ANU or asking for him to be blocked. You vastly overreacted to some clumsy criticism. I looked at the discussion on Kikos talk page and he is right -- if you are bold enough to nominate to say "This is among the best on Commons" then be prepared for someone to disappoint you and burst your balloon. If you can't handle that then don't nominate. Christian, there is absolutely no excuse for your sarcasm. If you are having problems with criticism that leads you to be sarcastic then the issue is yours alone. Find some way to discuss here in mature and reasonable terms. Kikos was clumsy but not intentionally rude whereas you are being intentionally rude. You have a right to answer but when you answer with rudeness then we see you are worse than the people you complained about. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that the file was updated (reduced resolution; but increase in file size) in between; but not mentioned in the nomination. Also speedy closed by the author/nominator himself. Not big issues; but like to know whether there is a consensus form the early reviewers. Jee03:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Lo siento, pero no tengo tiempo para andar traduciendo, si alguien hispanoparlante puedo hacerlo... No lo cerré de mala fe, de hecho me sorprendió que FPCbot lo cerrase, me leí la "info" de la plantilla y así la cambié. Vi que usuario Poco a poco había hecho lo mismo con las suyas, asi que entendí que se podía. Disculpen las molestias y un saludo.--Alurín (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
En el futuro, me gustaría simplemente evitar el cierre de sus propias nominaciones. Además, si edita un archivo mientras se está revisando que menciones la edición. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
De acuerdo, y con respecto a las ediciones, si se fija la última corresponde al 11 de febrero, mientras que la nominación comenzó el 8 de marzo, por eso no esta mencionada.--Alurín (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have much complaint about the closing; but concern about the overwrite. The reason for overwrite is mentioned simply "rec" and I failed to see any complaints from reviewers like "it is unsharp at full resolution" or something similar. Any reason? Jee15:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add that I from time to time close overdue nominations, independently of who started them. If there is consensus here that when doing that I should ignore my own nominations, I can do that, no problem with that. In this case we should also state it here, nevertheless I would still wonder what is the benefit for the project doing that. Poco216:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If the bot misses the close and then a regular here does it manually, it is unlikely to raise concern. Frankly, I would never close one of my own as I can't be bothered dealing with the griefers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I noted no notification for the last promotion on my talk page. Do bots do that or is it a task that waits til a human has the time to do it? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Bot only inform the nominator; it is upto the nominator whether or not to inform the author. :) Jee16:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Featured pictures candidates... must have a “wow factor”
Then when we promote an image we say:
This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.
I think the various statements could and have lead to confusion as to what COM:FPC is really about. Firstly, I am not sure our main goal is to find the most valuable. Even if it were the language across the project should be harmonized to some degree. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, "Formal things" section needs a complete rewrite. It is way too long and has lots of meaningless unhelpful text (e.g. "Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects"). Why should anyone want to wade through all that before nominating. To to make matters worse, those aren't even considered the "Complete guidelines", Commons:Image guidelines is. But the so-called complete guidelines reads more like an attempt at a beginners guide to photography and contains a lot of simplifications. Does anyone here refer to it? So I'd support an effort to create new rules/guidelines that were considerably shorter. Possibly supplemented by help pages on specific issues like CA or Noise. Coming back to the original query, I think "value" is an important judging criterion but not the most important. We are an educational media repository, not just a repository of pretty pictures (which is why I'm a bit disappointed by the winning POTY image, which is a great photo/artwork but of little educational utility so not really representative of what Commons is about vs Flicrk/500px/etc). So I'd like to see "educational value" (not "encyclopaedic value", which is different) as a criterion to be considered alongside all the others such as technical quality, and artistic values like composition and lighting. I wouldn't say "educational value" must necessarily be high in order to achieve FP, but it helps and for some pictures like diagrams, is of more importance than artistic perhaps. -- Colin (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your position on value (and the formal thing re-write). Value comes in many forms and we should respect that at FPC. I also think we should not present any one criteria as the topmost. We seek the finest images, which includes images of technical excellence, exceptional beauty and/or high educational content. These values are often expressed as "a wow factor". Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
While I completely agree with the statements above, I am also worried about the other major languages (Spanish, Russian, etc.) that lack even the most basic formal information (like the 2 MP threshold). It appears that a lot of FPX candidates come from people that probably have read the (practically non-existing) rules in their own language and are not aware of the requirements. So perhaps we should aim to streamline the English version of the rules and than translate them into at least the most common languages. --DXR (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting debate. I'd be back here, I've many things to say. But first, this statement : "Featured Picture" does not mean "Technicaly better than QI".--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. It will be useful to consider the opinion of the jurist Heta Pandit in last year's Wiki Loves Monuments: "I would have also liked to see some more human element. The relationship between monuments, nature and people is so important. ... A lot of the pictures were like tourist brochures." Adam Cuerden's opinion is also interesting. Jee06:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
A solution could be that all the featured picture candidates cross at first successfully the Valued image candidates page. Thus it would not be necessary any more to discuss the value of the featured picture candidates because it would have been made before. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:34, 309 March 2014 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Assuming there are 3 FP-quality photos of the Pacific Gull (just a "sample bird"), only 1 can pass VI. But there isn't, and shouldn't be any restriction that prevents the other 2 from becoming FPs themselves. (✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 07:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
And the project VI is almost dead. EN Wikipedia abandoned the VI project years ago. I think Commons will also do it soon. Jee07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
???? I disagree absolutely. The VI project is alive and very active. Some of us think that the VI project is the most interesting of the three "quality projects" here in "Commons" !!!(out of this discussion's scope)--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As for me, FP is kind of a mixture of high quality, EV and wow; where each of these three components may partially or entirely overweight an other. Quality images are merely about technical quality, as well as Valued images are (or should be) about EV. This also means that making an FP candidacy dependent of QI and/or VI status would exclude images with "particularly big wow" what is contrary to the purpose of FP. Also, ack Jee on the VIC project. The maintenance is very poor and there is strong bias towards less notable, "easy-to-shoot" scopes. For my part, I have stopped my participation on VI quite a long time ago and do not intend to come back. --A.Savin08:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we move away from the discussion initialized by saffron who just asks to be more coherent with the statements wrote in the project page and in the Commons image guidelines. I agree with him that the formulation of rules or others things is very important and must be coherent, it is not a general questioning of the system. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Jee, why should we care what wikipedians say? They obviously don't fully understand Commons' mission and only see what we do for them. Regardless, if they want their own POTY competition they can. The entire Signpost article basically slams our POTY competition because it doesn't live up to their lofty ideals of encyclopedic value. In fact the tone is even a bit patronizing. I wager the winner of the POTY gets used by more users (off wiki) than any image they think is worthy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Saffron, I think you mean why should we care what Wikipedians say?. I wish a balance as I'm not too Wikimedian or Wikipedian. :) (I'm already aware that many Wikipedians have a anti Common agenda. But I know many people working comfortably on both projects like us.) Jee03:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I sit corrected :-) Indeed, wikipedians... those elitist snobs! Kidding aside, I work in both projects and can respect the different approaches. That's why I chafe at comments like those found in the Signpost. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Why all this "them and us" talk? It doesn't help and isn't accurate. Adam is an image-person and very active on Commons and participates at Commons FP as well as en:wp. He's entitled to his opinion and although I don't agree with all he says, I think there is something in it. The winning POTY is a great photo and I'm sure Saffron is right that it will be widely used, but really one has to struggle to find an educational use. It certainly doesn't represent the best of Commons for the simple reason that such art photography is rare here. It is more like a winner at Worth1000 than Commons. Of course, educational material likes "eye candy" pictures too -- have a look inside New Scientist magazine, for example, and you'll find articles illustrated with artwork rather than diagrams. And I've recently had some fun taking macro pictures of textures, which are more pretty than educational. Commons has a (in)famously loose definition of "in-scope" and I think there is room for such pictures. But Adam's argument is that the contest should somehow represent the breadth of images at Commons rather than just the most eye-catching picture. This is particularly problematic for Adam's area of historical restoration where the images are sometimes rather worthy rather than beautiful. Lastly, I do wonder about the demographics of POTY voting actually does represent Commons opinion -- I recognise a lot of Wikipedians in the vote lists. Rather, I suspect, it is just as an internet popularity contest with no rules and so the most popularly-attractive picture wins. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The FPC community have no control over POTY after once we selected the FPs. Most people participating in POTY voting have only a generic POV and they don't care the technical quality of EV much. Instead they vote for "difficult to produce" cases more. All the pictures other than the street seller in the #12 list matches with my assumption. It is not very bad; but what slightly disappointing is the repetition of #3 of the POTY 2012 as #1 here. More over, it is a self created work; whereas all others are difficult to reproduce. But I agree with both of you that it is an excellent work by itself. Jee08:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Colin, if I went to en:FP and said all of Adam's restorations are so boring and I am disappointed those type of images get featured, I think people over there would rightly tell me I just don't get it. Adam saying he is disappointed with the POTY results at Commons tells me, regardless of his participation level here, he just does not get it. This brings us full circle to my original point. Value, EV, technical excellence, etc are all mashed up here at FPC, as they should, because commons serves more than one purpose. The guidelines should make that clear. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Your argument about saying that wrt Adam's restorations would rightly be interpreted as not getting it, for there is certainly a place for such images in an educational project. A picture of a lightbulb element burning due to lack of the argon gas has some utility, though the bold red background makes it a little in-your-face for a lesson rather than a bedroom poster, but Adam feels that once it was Photoshopped to float in the air then it lost its educational value. That it went to much in the "Art for art's sake" direction. I don't think that is "not getting it" but just reasoned opinion that we may agree or disagree to various extents. Clearly you disagree completely with that, while I think it has lost something but still is in scope and has plenty other merits. Adam's second point is that in 2009 we celebrated the winning picture in each category but did not do this year. Again, I think that's a reasonable view to take and certainly not in my mind any indication that Adam doesn't get Commons. I don't think that winning picture represents Commons (or Commons FP) at all, so if the purpose is to celebrate the best-of-the-best then celebrating a more diverse range of photos/images would help. And I agree with Jee that it says something about us if a very similar image was #3 last year. Clearly the FP process hasn't selected enough WOW-Photoshop images to compete -- I'll go add "How to Cheat in Photoshop" to my shopping basket. :-) Colin (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Colin, my main problem was with the signpost article's focus on what some Wikipedian's thought was wrong with the POTY comp. I thought it a bit unbalanced and self-serving. However, I understand Adam's viewpoint, I understand EV, I understand the balance between art for art's sake and a useful image and I understand the POTY competition is not perfect and never likely to meet everyone's desires. Nevertheless, I have a sense you are trying to make me understand something that I already understand. With that said, I agree, it would have been nice to celebrate the diversity of image categories. Perhaps something to address for next year's round. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm objecting to you saying that Adam doesn't understand Commons and that the Signpost was a Wikipedian view of Commons. Neither are true; you just happen to have different viewpoints. One could make a rather stronger argument that anyone who thinks the POTY winner represents the best example of Commons finest has got us confused with some other photography/photoshop website, and so doesn't understand Commons. It is a great picture, it belongs here ok, but until we start seeing this sort of photography routinely created and nominated by Commons folk, then I maintain such images are highly unrepresentative of Commons. So, yes, I think celebrating the category winners again would be something worth doing if it achieves more diversity. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Concentrating this discussion on criticizing too much the winner or his work (I don't think Adam's intention was that though.) is not very fair now. I think we should proceed in a more generic way. Jee16:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Discussions need examples. But perhaps more important is the distinction between QI and FP that only seems represented by the word "wow", though is really quite strongly influenced by the word "finest". Because often QI is merely adequate. No obvious flaws in lighting or composition. No glaring technical errors. It seems one has to find a fault to not be QI rather than for the image to actually be good, never mind brilliant. Perhaps that is fine, and all we need is a rating for "good enough". But let's not kid ourselves that QI is held to the same technical and artistic standards as FP. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Re-nominating an image
Are you allowed to re-nominate an image? I went to go nominate an image I ran across today for Featured Image status and found out that it had already been nominated once. The nominator withdrew his nomination 3 days after he nominated the image. The nomination in question is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Atardecer en el Congreso de la Nación Argentina.jpg. I agree that the photo is a bit dark and noisy, but the architecture of the building is very well displayed and the contrast between the dark of the city and the bright of the green building top and orange sunset is fantastic. I personally find it to be both a beautiful and valuable image. Zellfaze (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you can re-nominate, but usually you should address the issues that caused the failure the first time. I can tell you based on experience here that this will not get a warm welcome in its current state. The post processing is too extreme for the norms around here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would take it then that it isn't going to be worth to do so? That's too bad. There is a lot of post-processing, but it still serves an excellent illustrative and aesthetic function. I don't really want to propose something thought that will just be snowballed. Thanks. Zellfaze (talk) 19:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
It has a dramatic flair to it, but due to the lack of subtly with the post processing it will very likely be rejected. However, FP status does not really change the value of an image. If the image is needed in an article feel free to put it there. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Renomination is simple - just add /2 after the file name. But it'd probably be a good idea to try and fix fixable aspects, or wait a bit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
FPC Bot
The bot is down since 11th morning and Daniel78 didn't respond to me so far. So I manually closed all the pending nominations so far. But (un)fortunately I will be on vacation from tomorrow onward as we are going to visit our parents. So please follow up Daniel. Have a hopeful Easter. See you next week. Jee17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
No Votes for my image?
Why there's just one vote (except of mine) for my image, but ten votes for other, later posted images? Why my picture is ignored? :( Mariofan13 (talk)
Whether or not that's a good thing, many users just don't support instead of opposing if the current state of votes already captures their opinion about the image. In this case, most visitors probably agree with Kangoroo's comment. But I understand that you might want to hear more than one opinion. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry about less votes, Mariofan13. The voting behaviour depends very much on the image. Take e.g. a look on this nominiation - first vote nearly two days after nomination. From my experience on this plattform there are two main reasons why an image receives less votes: 1. the motive is uninteresting and does not really attract the attention. 2. there are some minor issues with the photo but voters with tendendy to contra wait for other opinions in order to not destroy the nomination. The first (contra) votes massively influences later voting behaviour. I for myself wait a few days with articulating minor issues on FP noms to avoid such an influence and give the nomination a chance. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
What Tuxyso says is true, though support votes also influence nominations as people get confidence to support a weak picture that perhaps doesn't deserve it. These behaviours show that many reviewers are uncertain of their own confidence to judge an image and take comfort in going with the crowd -- which is basic psychology. The only way to avoid that is to try to hide existing votes (like on Photo Challenge). Also, since reviewers and nominators come from the same crowd (and often know each other to some degree online), there's a natural inclination to avoid causing offence by opposing. Many, many reviewers just never hand out an oppose vote and wait for others to do so, or relying on nominations failing to attract enough support rather than actively opposing images. And some reviewers traverse the existing nominations handing out supports just before nominating their own image. Which is close to buying votes. These things unbalance the fairness of the system.
Wrt oppose votes killing a nomination, I do think that if the issues with the nomination are easily fixable, then a comment is more polite than an oppose. So some things like noise, CA, wonky verticals or horizon, could all be mentioned without opposing. Ultimately, if the nominator doesn't fix them then the comment could be changed to an oppose.
Tuxyso, your comments at Mariofan13's picture don't really match with support for the image being FP. If you don't believe it should be an FP, why didn't you oppose? -- Colin (talk)
Colin, I think here is the wrong place to complain about my reviews. Let's discuss your arguments on the review page of the appropriate image. Hiding votes is imho no good idea. I really like the idea of open peer reviewing processes which also include the aspect that reviews has to be justified / clarified and that the creator of an image can ask questions. If we are hiding votes a lot of learning potential of the FPC page is lost. I also think that it is not bad habit to be careful with opposing votes - it has, personally spoken, nothing to do with personal relationships (I do not know Mariofan13) but with respect for the contributors who spend a lot of time creating good images. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Tuxyso, I'm not complaining about your review. We're discussing why people vote, don't vote, oppose, support. So I'm genuinely wondering what made you choose "neutral" when your comment "the photo is rather soft" would seem to suggest it can't be "Among our finest images". I'm not suggesting, btw, that FP adopt a feature of hiding reviews. Absolutely there are positives to seeing other people's reviews -- for a start it is hard for someone new here to gauge the consensus level without seeing what their peers think. And there can be a lot to learn from the feedback. And discussion between reviewers can be healthy. I'm just saying that the downside is that one person's review will affect others in ways that aren't completely fair -- an early oppose has a bigger effect than a late one, for example. I agree that contributors spend a lot of time creating good images, but if they want recognition that those images are good then QI is very much the place to go. FP is worthless if it awards prizes to "good pictures" out of "respect". I really think we should "judge the picture" and if it isn't "among the finest" of our huge collection and of "high technical quality" then say so with an oppose. If we lower our standards and let through QI images, then that doesn't show respect to those who genuinely have achieved an outstanding image -- and ultimately the forum is worthless. If too many people don't oppose or don't vote on images that they don't think are FP, then they are putting a lot of weight and responsibility onto the few who do. And those few who do oppose will themselves suffer for this as they get a harder time on their own images in response -- which is just natural human behaviour. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Colin, I guess that our opinons are not far away from each other. It is also my observation that early negative votes have a stronger influential effect than positive votes. And exactly that is the reason why I wait a few days to give the first negative vote. I am also with you that we should not soften our quality standards. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Info The image File:Kaiserkrone Pflanze.JPG is a QI, but the bot didn't put the QI-Infobox on the description page. It was promoted on April 14th at 9:52 an dnow it is April 6th, 13:52.
Thank you for your answers. @User:Tuxyso: What do you exactly mean with "soft image"? Why the picture is no FP in your opinion? In my opinion you should vote contra/neutral and tell why the image is no FP/what can the photographer do better the next time. Giving no vote looks like you're ignoring the photographer, because he's an unimportant newbie and so his picutres generally cannot be FPs. Question Why there are some scans which are promoted to FPs but good photographs are not promoted because they're just good, not perfect? I don't really understand. The only thing you have to do for a good scan is to buy a good scanner and put the picture onto the scanner. Creating a good photograph is much more difficult. Mariofan13 (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Mariofan13, you can't force reviewers to vote. Nearly all of us are active on Commons because it is fun and we do it in our free time. If an photo is uninteresting it is only legitmate that it receives less votes - that has nothing to do with newbie / no newbie. Also nominations from very active contributors (like Poco, or Christian) are regulary ignored. You can expect a lot of votes if an image is really outstanding and eye-catching or if an image has serious issues. If an image is "solala" reviewers are not attracted and prefer reviewing other images. I answer questions regarding my review of your image on the nomination page, feel free to ask them there. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the main reasons for the lack of votes on your picture are as Tuxyso said -- you got an early oppose and other people agree with it. People are reluctant to "pile on" the negative votes -- you'll never see an image with 15 oppose, but you may see many with 15 support. And particularly people may be reluctant to over-criticise a newbie. So if you want lots of review comments and feedback to learn from, then why not ask for this in your nomination? -- Colin (talk)
Concerning scans: FP doesn't only value the work that has been put into creating an image by whoever uploaded it, it maily judges the result. So for scanned artwork, for example, it is the combination of good art or valuable material and good scanning quality. Also, very often (both for scans and photographs), the hardest part is not creating the image but getting access to the subject. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)12:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm the only one around here with this style, but I only vote on photos which I know how to appreciate the beauty of, and prefer to remain an unsaid "neutral" for others. This is because of possible prejudices and bias. In other words, I usually only vote for the types of photography that I'm involved in. Although sometimes I may still vote on other types of photography if the photo manages to catch my interest for whatever reason. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that is reasonable. There are more photos than most of us have the time to judge properly, so focusing on images where you enjoy the subject or have some expertise in creating yourself is a good strategy. For example, scans are in fact much harder than just buying a good scanner and inserting the document, and many of our scanned images are also restored too. But this may not be obvious. -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment OFF-TOPIC: It is important to keep this section as a point to improve our level constructively. Please, I invite you to take a walk and leave personal attacks. I've been reading some negative comments unhealthy level, it is important to remember that it's not what you say this, but how you say it like this. Let's together to keep this section no longer observe critical comments as personal attacks then make vows revenge. Always presumes good faith is the key. I recently saw nasty comments, it must be fought with an effort of good will, but we will be bringing this section to fail. I will not go into controversy, I will not respond to any messagest. This comment is directed mainly Jebulon and Colin --The Photographer (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, The Photographer, I'm having a hard time understanding what you wrote. I don't think anyone in the above conversation is the kind to do revenge votes. But if you mean we shouldn't discuss personal/human issues here and stick to only discussing pixels and lenses, then I disagree. It may be hard to do, but the psychology of how people vote is important and influences not only the outcomes but also the perception -- as the original poster sees no comments on his picture purely because of voter-psychology and not because one image is less worthy of review than another. -- Colin (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete Failed means failed. Non-FP means non-FP. No arguments about that. However the photo should be entitled to that 1 renomination since it was just short of 1 vote. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 09:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
DeleteI agree with AK, it shouldn't have become FP, therefore it shouldn't keep the status. I know that it is painful, but these are the rules Poco209:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Thanks Poco, It is important to be aware of these things. This election is invalid and must be removed unfortunately is never too late to rectify. It would be good to establish a committee to evaluate the voters --The Photographer (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
if it is already featured then let it be. No reason to remove FP status. You guys are acting a bit like hijackers. The author of the image cannot remove the image, the FP or any other status. The author has lost control over his image after donating it to commons.. but it seems that you can do what ever you like with other's pictures. The rules have not foreseen this situation so let it be. It doesn't make your images better if you are derogating others. --193.110.198.718:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleteif it is already featured then let it bethat is the point: it is NOT already featured, because it has not 7 valid support votes. No reason to remove FP statusThere is no removal, because there is no FP status. You guys are acting a bit like hijackersYou guy are talking a bit like somebody but a gentleman... The author of the image cannot remove the image, the FP or any other statusNot true, ways to remove images exist. And there is no real FP status here. The author has lost control over his image after donating it to commonsNot really, see the licenses. but it seems that you can do what ever you like with other's picturesWrong, the current debate is the evidence of the contrary ! The rules have not foreseen this situation so let it beConsensus: When we have rules, "they may change". When we have no rules, let's create what is needed !. It doesn't make your images better if you are derogating othersNo need ! And I give my signature:--Jebulon (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete It shouldn't have passed. The community is generally quite good at spotting invalid votes, but achieving 100% would be quite hard for humans. Even a computer might not always be reliable -- the little program I wrote to sum up the votes for Photo Challenge checks voters have 50 contributions but it is a bit crude. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete Allowing the invalid vote might lead others to use this as a part of a ploy to game the system. Even if this is discounted, the fact remains the image did not pass our simple test and if desired could easily be re-nominated. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, and it is very easy. We have frequently re-noms after a failure, I think we could do the same after a doubtful promotion. Could somebody act (As for me, I've already two current nominations...)?--Jebulon (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Yup. I've already suggested that in my vote above. Anyway it was a narrow miss, so it's worth giving it a renomination. --(✉→ArcticKangaroo←✎) 09:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
InfoDone. Re-nominated at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Koch – Mayor of the City of New York.jpg/2. I kindly request colleagues who close nominations (Jee, AK) to check the contributions of previously unknown voters, especially if it can change the result. And your argumentation Martin I cannot second, as such a rule would invite some unserious sock-/meatpuppet players to nominate pictures "on a wing and a prayer", hoping that the closing colleague will not notice the missing eligibility to vote. With that said, the FP star has been removed for now, at least as long as the current nomination is active. --A.Savin16:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this one Jee. Confronting people with images that may not be prepared either emotionally or intellectually to see is wrong. You rob them of choice simply to further someone else's agenda. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Saffron for your reply and disagreement. I didn't fully understand (probably due to language problems). Correct me if my interpretation below is wrong.
My opinion is just my opinion; noway represents the FPC community. That's why I posted here to know what others think. I supports Pristurus as I think his argument is genuine. I appreciate his long time efforts to run MOTD too. But I think it is risky if any "controversial" media pop up on the main page in future. It must be pre reviewed by at least by a few people considering the importance of the main page. Any thought? Or the FPC community think it is not our business to care MOTD? It is true MOTD and POTD are different; but any damage cause by MOTD will affect the reputation of POTD too because outsiders don't know the internals (of these system works). I don't want victimize Pristurus on this matter. Anybody who have enough volunteer time can help him, if possible.
"You rob them of choice simply to further someone else's agenda." It is a pity others make benefit from this. It is a bad practice to add a nomination just hours before to prevent any possibility of a review. But such things happening in Commons. It damages the intentions of other people too. :( Jee02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it was me that misinterpreted your opinion. I was under the impression you agreed with others that it was fine to display that media the way they did. In general they thought because the subject was important that people should not be sheltered from it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
No; I just defended Pristurus and disagree with the way it was handled. As I commented there "And, if there is a consensus to avoid such themes in future, we can think about it." I'm not blaming Kevin Gorman, as those people (not Commoners) don't know how the system works. Here in this matter, not much admin involvements. It is a matter that should be discussed with the "people involved". Do you think generic Commoners (other than admins and who has some political interest in WMF affairs) subscribe the "list"? No. So comments like "This isn't the first time that Commons frontpage has featured content that, while often appropriate material to be hosted by Commons, has been framed in an inappropriate way likely to cause dismay, upset, or scandal to the average Wikimedia Commons viewer. It flies in the face of the WMF-board endorsed principle of least astonishment—no one expects to click on Commons' homepage to see a still image of a stack of corpses at Buchenwald." in a public forum is not very helpful. It is just like what we often read on Jimmy's page about Commons.
I agree with you that we should me more tolerant to positive criticism. But what we see is to an attempt to nominate more controversial contents. See one post about Fucking article in the list. Jee03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it was Pristurus that selected the frame and clearly stated he believes the need to educate trumps people's potential feelings on the content. What he fails to notice is the very act of dismissing how someone else may feel is the first small step that may leads to atrocities. The politics between en:WP and COM I am not that concerned with. There are plenty douche-bags in both environments. Perhaps Kevin is one of them, but his argument about the shocking content is sound and principled. Pristurus's was not. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I partially agree. But I think his argument "For me a "softer" motive would be a belittlement of the historical events in Nazi Germany." is defending himself. You can see a neutral user appreciated him. "Thank you, Pristurus, for choosing this picture. Thank you for being so reflected and so bold to do it, and to stand to your choice and explain it here, calm and well-founded amidst the storm. Thank you for choosing a very appropriate date and thank you for nominating it very well ahead for anyone to notice and react. Now I appreciate your choice beyond any question. Thank you all for changing my mind. - .js"
I will not read Pristurus's comment word by word as he is not a native English speaker. All we need is a healthy discussion and respect the consensus, if it will be to avoid such cases in future. Jee03:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I fully support Pristurus, and I think Kevin is wrong. The main issue is forum trolling when he does not participate here. Pristurus proposed this well ahead, so anyone who had any concern had time to comment, and propose a change. And obviously Russavia's controversial proposal one day before the due date is wrong. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a specific concern. I did propose some videos for MOTD, but as everybody else, I can't be everywhere at the same time. So to improve this, we need more contributors, who will propose and review more content. Frankly, now I see a lot of agressivity around, and it doesn't help. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Strong oppose we don't need such censorship, we dont need picture filters. --Ralf Roleček 10:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Comment I created a related RFC at Commons:Featured picture candidates/RFC: Censoring NSFW photographs before I spotted this thread. However as the RFC will have a wider audience, it seems reasonable to let it run. I would encourage participants here to add informative examples and viewpoints to the RFC, though adding images of nudity would probably be seen as pointy and inflammatory rather than helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Support per Colin, simply because there are benefits to it and no censorship is happening. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files)
Oppose --A.Savin 20:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Info -- Memory is short. About two years ago I started a thread to discuss:
Done, and not by me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Question Looks fine. May we see a demo or example on a draft page? --Myrabella (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
.--Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Awesome! You all might find this amusing from the first archive of this talk page back in 2005. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep for reasons of "legal certainty" ;-) ... Subsequently detected errors should not be used against the candidate.
Delete Failed means failed. Non-FP means non-FP. No arguments about that. However the photo should be entitled to that 1 renomination since it was just short of 1 vote. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)