Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

File:Lámparas, Djemaa el Fna -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg[edit]

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. Jee 03:26, 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)
OK, I missed Jee's point. Yo había entendido que Editted mientras que bajo la nominación. Lo siento. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:31, 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? Jee 15:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry; I misread the month as "March". ;( Jee 15:38, 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. Poco2 16:49, 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)

How to publish the final results?[edit]

We are on the last step; feel free to check for any corrections or fixes. Help them if you have a good idea. :) Jee 13:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice diverse bunch of winners. Chuckled to note the two train images tied. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of writing text over the picture...--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please comment there or edit boldly. This is only a heads up. :) Jee 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree with Jebulon here—while I'm a big fan of burned in text, it doesn't really work here. I boldly moved it off the image.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • May I change my vote so we can have a tie for first place? Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Disregard, I just noticed I changed my vote from the first place to the second place candidate before the end of the comp. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thumb sizes...[edit]

It is amazing how such a simple request can generate such drama and frustration. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Promotion Notification[edit]

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. :) Jee 16:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I borrowed the notice from the nominator's page for my little wall of fame :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


I noted this statement on the project page:

Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others.

Yet on the Commons image guidelines is says:

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)

our main goal is to feature most finest images from all others.

And on the Commons image guidelines it could be said:

Featured pictures candidates... can have a “wow factor”
Featured pictures candidates... can be the most valuable pictures... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:02, 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)
True, but it also doesn't mean every QI should be a FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
True too.--Jebulon (talk) 09:20, 31 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. Jee 06:54, 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. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 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. Jee 07:49, 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.Savin 08:02, 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.) Jee 03:01, 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. Jee 08:14, 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)
Agree, finest on Commons, not in the world.; however, when someone uploads stuff like that they get harassed: Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:31, 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. Jee 16:06, 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Jee 17:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No Votes for my image?[edit]

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)

Pictogram voting info.svg 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.
Pictogram voting question.svg 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. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 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)