Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Proposed rule for FPC[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I start the proposed rule for FPC. "If a nomination ends with 6 votes for support and no votes for oppose, the nominator can, immediately after the ending, renominate the file."

What you guys think?

Votes for support:[edit]
1. Symbol support vote.svg Support Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Votes for oppose:[edit]
1. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see many amazing images not being promoted due to a lack of voters. I have won and lost candidatures on the edge of 7 supports, and I'm still not sure if those that passed deserve the status. For the media that seem to be harder to get supported (paintings, restorations, graphics), I'm not sure more time would help. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @ArionEstar I think you are starting to see why I questioned the rationale for this change. Really great images are attracting 20+ votes in just a few days. I have a hard time changing a system that achieves that so the mediocre images get a second chance to be considered in the same league. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Saffron Blaze: Really great images are attracting 20+ votes in just a few "hours". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
3. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. I can see the point being raised for media, but imo an image with <10 net support votes is usually not great and certainly doesn't wow many people. Seven is already a very generous level and extending the deadline would many help catch random or "friendly" votes and is not a sign of greater support for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DXR (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
4. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the reasons indicated below by Alvesgaspar, Slaunger, Diliff and Colin. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
5. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it will be better to have 10 votes or more for an real FP image, not less ... The most of our FP images are simply good images, not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
6. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You're actually free to renominate what you want when you want. -- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Proponent:[edit]

😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:[edit]
  • I am not necessarily opposed, but what is the rationale? Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Saffron Blaze: See one situation that happened. If you want to renoninate a file, you need to wait a month. The rule is: if the first nomination has 6 support and no oppose, you can nominate again without wait a month. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Where is the "wait for one month rule"? I think it is only an understanding to prevent the fpc page from too many nominations and wastage of reviewer's time. If a nomination failed due to holiday season, renominating immediately will not work unless people already come back. The current case is different; as we have not enough reviewers on such subjects. Jee 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • why not just extend the nomination time period if its 6/0/0... but then what happens with 5/0/0 or 6/0/1 unfortunately the line has to be somewhere for those on the wrong side of that line there will always be disappointment. Maybe the rule: 8.1 Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). be extended to less than 4 supports (apart from the nominator) that would remove the slow crawl nominations that tend be the more common ones that fall short. Gnangarra 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some works which have big wow attract quick supports; but some need time. So I don't think changing 5 day rule is good.
  • We handle more than 200 noms every month; so extending the duration will increase load; I afraid. Yes; people frustrated when failed on the edge. I had voted (supported) on edge cases just before the closing time, earlier; stopped that practice nowadays. Jee 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot support a change to the rules to make it easier for 'almost' promotions. I supported the original in the example, but I also have to say that promotion is not an exact science. If you end up around 6 supports you nomination is really a borderline FP, and who wants a borderline FP anyway? Also the lack of support is just another way to express (tacitly), that you do not think it is quite an FP. It is well known that many reviewers do not explicitly oppose a nomination, because opposition requires an explanation (and this may be hard to express, especially if you are not a native English speaker) and opposition often leads to abrasion as well and 'demands' for further explanations to defend you oppose vote. For me it was good enough to support as FP, but I also have to admit, that I have seen more featurable illustrations. And I will not support the renomination. I do not think it is an adequate use of community resources to again consider nomination, which has just failed promotion. Move on. Only 1/4000 files on Commons are featured. The illustration is still good even if it is not FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think it makes it easier. It just gives the nomination a second chance. It will still need sufficient votes on the second attempt. But I agree with you that this situation (few supports but no opposes) is indicative that people are not very excited about it and may have opposed if they felt more comfortable doing so. I agree that it's probably best to leave the procedure as it is. We have a similar problem on the English FPC, but different because we genuinely do not have enough participants to get a valid result in many nominations. This is not a problem that Commons has. Diliff (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It may even be, but a FP with only 7 supports and a FP with 20 supports compete for POTY without distinction. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But what happened here was lack of wow? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is very difficult to review the "quality of work" of Google Cultural Institute by us. :) Jee 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to even vote for oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please understand me right: I feel quite frustrated as my last FP candidate hardly got votes until the voting period was over. I would have been very happy even for an oppose. It's so frustrating when your work seems simply not to be recognised by others. However, I also understand why not everybody votes on every candidate. Sometimes I feel that I don't like a picture and I am not really able to say why. Sometimes (in rare cases but you could know which I mean) I know that the other nominator will give me a revenge oppose which I'm going to avoid by not voting at all. In some other cases I just don't feel competent enough to evaluate a work (e.g. when it's about svg graphics and so on). And sometimes it's just laziness, I have to admit. Perhaps we should at least introduce a similar rule like we have on QIC: Everybody who nominates a picture has to vote for another one. This could at least help a little. --Code (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A typical and sad situation. @Code: I am also like you. I do not like to oppose images. An oppose would make me very happy too. I also had an idea. When a nomination is not evaluated, its title is red and big. When evaluated, the title is with normal color and size. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well if people don’t feel compentent to vote on certain things, or are just lazy, does that mean it just doesn’t pass?—Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Or that some people around here only know how to appreciate photographic works and ignore paintings and illustrations and stuff—Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See, if we have a photo of an insect or architecture, we are mainly reviewing the quality of the photography; not of the subject. Similarly we appreciate works like this, though a few will pass. But when it is from Google art project, we have not much to review here. (Illustrations like Kelvinsong's work are different. Honestly I think we are in short of reviewer here.) Jee 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This does not mean that there is not FPs of the Google Art Project:
  1. File:Maker unknown, India - Krishna and Radha - Google Art Project.jpg;
  2. File:Joseph Ducreux (French - Self-Portrait, Yawning - Google Art Project.jpg;
  3. File:Paul Gauguin - Fatata te Miti (By the Sea) - Google Art Project.jpg.
  • ... And etc. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I had supported many earlier, when Dcoetzee was active. But most of them attract only bare minimum supports without any criticizing comments. In the archives, you can find related discussions. Jee 16:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a bit tired of this sense of entitlement. As Slaunger notes, many voters going "meh" do not bother to vote. So failing to attract support is often an indication it is not FP rather than necessarily an indication the world has not fully appreciated your creative talents today. Happy now?. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Slaunger, Diliff and Colin even though I am a frequent victim of the meh syndrome (as shown in the present page).I would make promotions more difficult rather than facilitating them... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am puzzled that Slaunger "will not support the renomination" as he feels the previous vote indicated it was not a strong FP, yet by not voting this time, the nomination stands a good chance of success through canvassing and the extra attention it is getting -- one oppose vote is not enough to counter this. Is that fair on the rest of us who accept our failed nominations when Kelvinsong gets two attempts (this isn't the first time) at reaching the threshold? And User:Julian Herzog's vote " it's not easy to read, a lot of stuff in there and things like the temperature profile are quite hidden" doesn't really read like a description of our finest illustrations. Are we falling, once again, of falling into the habit of supporting nice QI level images that don't actually reach the level of FP. If User:Saffron Blaze thinks such a slow nom is not our finest, then say so. If we feel this isn't an FP, or that such a renomination isn't fair game playing, we should oppose. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Colin: It is because I've voted once, and wish to spend no further time on that nomination. It would be inconsistent to oppose, if its re-nomination is acceptable, as it would be an oppose to the process and not the nomination, which I have previously supported. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not entirely inconsistent, if one views a nomination as more than just an objective assessment of a random image. Surely nominating until one gets enough support is not a tactic that should be met with abstention? A comment at the very least, would indicate the community does not approve of game playing. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If we do not want to accept re-nominations, I think we should state it in the policies/guidelines, such that it is clear as apparently it is something editors here are not entirely aligned about. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I’ve gone and withdrawn the nomination, okay? Sorry if nominating it twice, I didn’t know about any rule against that. I think some of the criticism here does not quite make sense though. Many people are citing ‘lack of wow’ as a reason for ignoring or opposing, which if you ask me is not always a valid criteria depending on the subject (and never seemed to be a relevant factor before, considering a pymol molecule screenshot and a Euro symbol somehow made FP 🐸☕️) but I won’t get into that. But you’ve got to admit that at least part of the problem is that people sit out or oppose for trivial reasons because they do not understand SVG. When photographs fail, they fail for very specific real reasons that reviewers give, such as “bad angle” or “poor composition” or “compression artifacts”. However I have noticed on nearly all of my SVG nominations, even the ones which passed, all people can come up with are vague things like “wow” or very trivial things like not enough contrast on a label or not being able to find the text data, or an SVG grammatical error which is well known to Inkscape and fixable by anyone in two minutes. Or irrelevant things like “it doesn’t show up if I drag and drop it in Mozilla Firefox” (it’s called designing for the medium, aka the Commons renderer—every SVG renderer has a different behavior and it’s like saying an English book sucks because your French friend can’t read it). Or they don’t vote at all. So I don’t think it’s quite the same if I renominate an SVG image that not a single person was able to find an issue with than if someone renominates a photograph that multiple reviwers already said had problems with color or focus or etc. && @Colin: I left a note on your page—Kelvinsong talk 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Kelvinsong I agree with you insofar that it is a pity that the SVG renderer on Commons is as bad as it is. I do not know if the SVG problem could be resolved by both uploading the SVG as an 'original' (as this is the file format you would want to make changes to) and then nominate a properly rendered png for FPC linking to the svg? I also agree with you that the number of qualified reviewers for illustrations are less than for photographs and it is a bit harder to get illustrations promoted due to that. However, I would be very reluctant to introduce special, more lenient review criteria for illustrations, as it gives an over-complication of rules, which are already quite elaborate. See it as a challenge! If you get an illustration promoted it is surely FP.Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Kelvinsong, you said your earlier nom had "unanimous support" and this is where you are going wrong. You have no idea how many thought your image unimpressive and didn't support. If your attitude is that we must find some fault or SVG bug before opposing, then it is no wonder people have better things to do with their time than get into an argument with you. You ask me not to vote "meh" but all I'm doing is being explicit about the reaction your diagram gives. If I'm frank, there are graphics designers at my work who could knock up that sort of diagram in the time it takes me to have a cup of tea. I googled for other diagrams and yours was one of the least clear. Lots of people at FP are unable to draw such diagrams and can only be impressed at seeing something professional for free -- but at the same time it is unexceptional and unoriginal. Perhaps the FP criteria for diagrams need revised so they are clearer about what really makes one of our finest diagrams. You are right that with photographs there are often easy targets to name when opposing such as noise or focus, but the same issues occur when an image is technically OK yet fails to have any spark with people: the nom simply fails through lack of support rather than clear opposition. Unless we can come up with a way of forcing all who look at a nomination to express their vote, then that's just the way it works here. People generally re-nominate if they have improved the image since last time, or they think the discussion because confused/unclear and so has a good reason for a fresh start. Simply re-nominating because your underwhelming diagram might scrape 7 votes this time is imo not a reason and simply playing the system. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If it takes you four hours to drink a cup of tea you should really see a doctor. && if anyone remembers we already tried creating criteria for FP SVGs but that went stale—Kelvinsong talk 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personaly I did not support (and no vote) the diagram by Kelvinsong because it does not talk to me and did not seem clear enough for a FP promotion. The no-votes are also explicit and this does not mean that no one watching. An interesting thing would be a counter that tells how many times a page (the nomination or the file page) was opened. -- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Invalid SVGs should be fixed, and sometimes I try that. Invalid_SVGs and Media_for_cleanup should not contain any QI, FP, VI, POTD, MOTD, or edit-protected image. I'm a big fan of SoFixIt, but I'm not bold enough to fix (overwrite) images while they are assessed by one of these projects, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For the future the error we’re talking about doesn’t affect the rendering, it’s more of a “who” vs “whom” thing. You can fix it without affecting the image; you could probably make a bot that would do that automatically for inkscape uploads—Kelvinsong talk 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Result:[edit]
 1 Support X 6 Oppose. Rejected proposal. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.