User:Gnangarra/Sandbox/FP thoughts

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

FP nominations have been creating controversy and agrument for a while, the discussions can get distracted by the way in which the comments are framed. The is partly because we all use the english language differently and for some they rely on translations from other languages by automated tools, all of this can and does lead to unnecessary bickering. What I propose is that we separate out the voting and the discussion onto two pages and change the candidate page to a gallery with links to both that doesnt show either thus reducing the pile on votes or a need for new eds to support every photo already nominated in the hope of garnishing some support themselves. In the future this type of formatting will also enable the creation of a bot to do most of the work in closing the nominations, rather than waiting for a passing regular.

Using an as an example a recent one of mine the didnt pass FP

Current format has on the candidate page

File:Larus novaehollandiae gnangarra 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2008 at 14:20:25
Silver Gull(Larus novaehollandiae)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Silver Gull(Larus novaehollandiae) created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by -- Gnangarra 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gnangarra 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurred at full resolution, however still a good picture overall. — Aitias // discussion 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically more or less ok, but it is another bird. Too static. Feet are hidden behind rock, looks awkward. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nicely composed shot with nice colors, but technically not really ok, compare to for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larus-delawarensis-021.jpg at the pixel level. Silver Gull is listed as 'Least Concern' so I presume it is common somewhere. Tomfriedel (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably about the most common and easiest to photograph bird in coastal Australia. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good... But it is to blurry to me to support. Calandrella (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --FilWriter 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too blurry at full resolution --ianaré (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Tomascastelazo. --Karelj (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Take note of the discussion page for the nomination its unused like most FP nominations, I propose a change to the candidate page layout and to the nomination page format using both the nomination page and the discussion page. With this format I also suggest the we can use an expanded description for the nomination giving more information about the image including source, size, and licensing this will have the effect of reminding the nominator about the basics before it even gets to candidate page, while also giving them an opportunity to address an issue like size.

This would become the candidate page format, noting the two links to Vote and Discuss you can follow these links but I have transcluded them here for ease of discussion.

Voting Page[edit]

This has an expand description and notes image details the source section could include a link to orgiinal if was from flickr or NASA etc, a comparision image for restoredt image could be included as could the detail of the work done in the restoration process. Having a requirment for the nominator to give a rationale for the nomination will also make the person consider the image and express what makes it special(wow factor) for it be considered, also if as occurs during nomination period an edited version is offered for consideration then that could also be added directly to the nomination and voting specifically for that would also take place there, when this happens the alternative version doesnt add to the clutter of FP though a link could be added to the gallery pict to indicate that an alternative is also suggested. As this page isnt tranasluced any more the image could be sized to 600-800 px like the view one gets on the image page.

File:Larus novaehollandiae gnangarra 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2008 at 14:20:25
Silver Gull(Larus novaehollandiae)

Information[edit]

Silver Gull(Larus novaehollandiae) take near the Fremantle Fishing boat harbour late afternoon,

  • Digital photograph taken by Gnangarra
  • Source is uploaded by photographer
  • Image size is 4,672 × 3,104 pixels, file size: 8.81 MB
  • Licensing is CC-by-3.0

nomination rational: because I think that this a good photograph of the subject in a large format -- Gnangarra 14:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. -- Lycaon (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Page[edit]

on this page, there is no voting its a place to leave and comments of discuss the image it makes it possible for images to added as a comparison without them also appearing on the FP candidate page confusing matters and cluttering the page even more. Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2008 at 14:20:25
Silver Gull(Larus novaehollandiae)

  • Blurred at full resolution, however still a good picture overall. — Aitias // discussion 20:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Technically more or less ok, but it is another bird. Too static. Feet are hidden behind rock, looks awkward. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Larus-delawarensis-021.jpg
    A nicely composed shot with nice colors, but technically not really ok, compare to for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larus-delawarensis-021.jpg at the pixel level. Silver Gull is listed as 'Least Concern' so I presume it is common somewhere. Tomfriedel (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably about the most common and easiest to photograph bird in coastal Australia. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Good... But it is to blurry to me to support. Calandrella (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


Overall I think this format will

  1. make nominators more aware of requirements, reducing frivioulous noms
  2. take some of the heat out of the discussions
  3. reflect what FP really is
  4. make bot closures possible

While these pages exist within my user space and sandbox please edit them and make adjustments where you see fit Gnangarra 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions[edit]

I've started a new section. I hope this is OK.
I like this idea.Even now especially long and heated discussions are moved to different pages, out of the nomination.
Of course it would be nice to have a bot too.
The format might be more convenient for the reviewers.

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

this ok your welcome interspecre it in the above sections for particular points, anyway I dont think anyone would start a discussion to impact the voting but the longer and more heated the discussion gets the more likely it is affect the result. By having the discussion separate I think there is going to less imapct on the result which can only be a good thing. This also translates to an FPR page as well. Gnangarra 03:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another view[edit]

I don't see it as a good idea to seperate discussion from the voting. The whole review process is being taken further from a discussion of the merits of the image, with a concensus on whether it is FP worthy or not, to an election ballot paper - tick the boxes and move on.
It would encourage even more people to place votes without giving their reason, and would delay the education of new comers who at present can imediately see the sorts of criteria others are looking for (given that they haven't bothered to read all the notes about such things).
If discussions become long winded and off the point, then by all means move them, and the talk page for the nomination is as good a place as any.
To respond to your 4 points:
1) make nominators more aware of requirements, reducing frivioulous noms
  • I doubt it will reduce "frivioulous" nom.s, basically if people want to ignore all the other info given, they will :-)
2) take some of the heat out of the discussions
  • Maybe, but why is this assumed to be good? I expect the result will be to much reduce people posting their reasons, and far less discussion will take place.
3) reflect what FP really is
  • What is FP really????
4) make bot closures possible
  • By counting support/oppose lines? I much prefer to have nom.s closed by a human. All that is really needed is to have someone post the total after validating votes, a bot can automate all the rest after a suitable delay to allow others to scrutinize the closure.
--Tony Wills (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I came into this discussion by chance and well, I would like to poke my nose into it if nobody minds. I appreciate the work done by Gnangarra, but IMO the separation will lead to confusion. I believe the process is good as it is and it doesn't require any fixing. --Muhammad 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
poke away, this was just to gage some reactions to my thoughts and see if/how to develop it to a full proposal Gnangarra 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet Another view[edit]

I think there is merit to the proposal. Perhaps it can be reduced to the Gallery Page, with all indications, etc., etc., where a large thumb would appear, click on image and it takes you to voting AND discussion page. Support and oppose votes would also automatically show in the gallery page. So what we would see in FPC page would be rules, requirements, guidelines AND thumbs with a tally of support/oppose votes only, which would give an indication of interest on the image. In order to vote, you would, as proposed, click on image and vote and discuss if needed.

Also, perhaps we can do the same with rules, guidelines and requirements, having only a short description on the main page with more detailed information in the back page.

And lastly, what really has to be defined is What is an FP?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is an FP?[edit]

One of the issues that I keep pointing to is What is an FP? Now Tony Wills is asking the same question. And I am sure many others ponder the question at least from time to time. I see this answer as the very first step in order to take FP to another level (which is due). By starting with a clear definition, we can then design the environment to support the ideal. Everybody can put forth a statement that for them is an FP, we then can rephrase the different statements and come out with a general statement with enough elements that are agreeable to most, and it is inclusive.

There is no secret, it is a common method of establishing critical lines of action in order to obtain certain results.

There is a saying that if a man does not know where he is going, he runs the risk of getting nowhere.

FP is a great idea, with an excellent opportunity to really position itself as a source of good free license photography in the web, and be a place that because of its prestige will in itself attract good talent.

I know that I only mention photography, but that is my natural bias because I am a photographer, but I also see all graphic arts on the same level.

So lets define whar is a FP.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


To me Featured Picture are the exceptional works that we host, I have a bias towards the works that are the result of the efforts of our community whether its a photograph, drawing, restoration or something else. So what is an exceptional work I consider technical vs subject accessability, this means that the easier the subject the greater the technical qualities are required. Gnangarra 13:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)