Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Where did it go?[edit]

What happened to the pic of Queen Elizabeth? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn. --Laitche (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
She did wave as she was leaving. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I think why Wikimedia projects don't have the 👍 Like button... --Laitche (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal about featuring rules and candidates for POTY[edit]

  • I know there were several times proposals in recent few years. Although I would like to propose about featuring rules below three.
1. At least eight support votes required.
2. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes more than 2/1. (8 support 4 oppose is not featured, needs 9 support in this case.)
3. About Rules of the 5th day. change 12 support votes from 10.
  • From the next year to be the candidates for POTY at least 12 support votes required, less than 12 support votes can be an FP but not a candidate for POTY.
  • What do you all think about that? --Laitche (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No objection to these measures on my part. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • +1. This feels like shovelling my own grave if I ever want to get another star, but: Maybe even go up to 10 pros minimum, as the really good ones seem to easily reach that nowadays, and 15 for 5th day. --El Grafo (talk)
  • El Grafo, Thanks for the comment. I think fifteen is too many because that might not be speedy promoted... --Laitche (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a little hard to maintain differen criteria for POTY candidates and FPs, simply because the votes aren't really stored anywhere in a way that is easily machine-readable from the file page. Even if it's technically easy to implement (I might be missing a simple way), it might be confusing. I think we should find one set of rules to match both, that should be possible. And I agree that a higher number of supports and a higher ratio are a good idea, but I'm sure there are opposite opinions. — Julian H. 10:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think no problem only about the featuring rules. --Laitche (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Julian, Yes there are opposite opinions and I think when there are many support opinions, the proposal will pass. It's ok to take a long time to me :) --Laitche (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point in this. You'd have to convince me that in the last year (say) most of the images that pass with current rules that would fail with new rules are clearly images that we shouldn't have let become FP. If you want to collect a list of such images, then we can review whether the rules need tightened. Such analysis is hindered by the fact that supports may stop at 7 merely because that's the threshold, and they would have got another support had 8 been the threshold. My guess is there are a number of images that some people feel shouldn't have become FP that passed even with the proposed rules, and a number of images that unjustly failed to become FP even with the current rules. The problem is IMO more about misguided voting (for example, lazy "Like!" votes on images that are clearly not among our finest if anyone cared to look, and over-harsh pixel-peeping votes on excellent images with minor technical flaws). Fiddling with the threshold like this doesn't improve the quality of voting, it just makes for fewer FPs. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I cannot find any good idea to improve the quality of voting. That's why I've proposed this :) --Laitche (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Colin, I have confidence that I will never be able to convince you, so please convince you by yourself... --Laitche (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. It is nice to raise/tighten the FP bars. But at the same time, we need to be careful not to stop exceptional works. FP is not QI. Here we occasionally except very rare and difficult to accomplish works. And they are the real stars in POTY compared to boring high quality works. 2. And, I don't think we can have separate rules for POTY as it become complicated and we need wide community consensus for it. (I've limited Internet connectivity now; so may not comment again.) Jee 02:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if theres a problem with FP address that rather than fiddle with POTY and arbitrarily eliminate FP images from that. If there was a way to identify images that pass with high support 15+, 20+, no oppose or something have those images progress straight to stage 2 of the POTY voting would be a better solution then others which may not have drawn a large vote for numerous reason like it was nominated just before Wikimania, or a holiday season would still be able to included. The presumption that not many responders means it isnt a worthy image is a disservice to the contributors and the community and will put pressure on the other time periods as people will nominate when they know editing activity is at its highest,. This proposal is just creating a problem the community doesnt need. Gnangarra 04:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Wall hanging from Morocco‎[edit]

Hi, More opinions please? Yann (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)