Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Finally fixing the deprecated FP category "Panoramas"[edit]

Many of us have at one time or another heard that we should not use the "Panorama" category when nominating FPC, but it is still there among the FP categories and the page is still up, so a bit confusing. As a result of a small discussion on my talk page, I finally found the old discussion about this from over three years ago. It seems that the FPC Bot was not communicating correctly with the page making it just a very long list of photos in no order. At that time it was difficult to add panoramas to the normal categories, but that is no longer a problem thanks to the new gallery format. A vote was held and people started to copy/move files from "Panoramas" to other FP categories, but things sort of ebbed out and the work wasn't finished.

So now we are thinking of finishing that work by removing the link to Panoramas from Template:Commons FP galleries and Commons:Featured pictures page(s). After that, a text can be put on top of the Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas page saying that "This category is no longer active, please choose another category, for example: /Places, /Cityscapes, ..." As soon as those steps are done, we can copy/move all the files that are still not processed on the "Panoramas" page, to the other categories. The old page will still be around with its very, very long list of panorama files, resting in peace.

It has been a while since the old discussion, so it is only prudent to post a notice here before work starts in case anyone has something to add to this. We will hold off for a couple of weeks. --Cart (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think, if we're going to remove it from the list of FP pages, we need to clear it out completely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yep. That's why I've batted my eyelashes at Christian Ferrer to help me with this, since he knows a lots about the íns and outs of the FP galleries and categories. Anyway, the notice have been sitting here for a couple of weeks now, so we might get going with this any day now. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Counting delisting votes: rules unclear?[edit]

This delisting vote ended in 6:0 votes for delisting, but was closed as kept, which I found a bit strange. I looked at the rules again:

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured […]

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. […]

As far as I understood the rules, it should have been delisted, as 1) there was a clear larger then 2/1 majority in favour of delisting and 2) there is no minimum of 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes mentioned anywhere. After thinking about that for a while, that may not be how the rules were intended to be interpreted. The part The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs is what is confusing me: how is that to be understood in terms of rule #2? Should we take that as

  • "if the candidate does not reach at least 7 Symbol support vote.svg Support votes again, it will be delisted" or
  • "if the candidate does not reach at least 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes, it will not be delisted"?

Could we please clear this up? Pinging XRay who closed the vote. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, looking at some past delist votes, it seems that my initial assumption that there is no minimum amount of Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes required seems to be correct:
… unless the rules have changed since then? --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I'd choosen "kept" because there was no result (6 votes, not enough votes for a decision, so no delisting). It was one of my first closing procedures and I was very unclear what to do. --XRay talk 09:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm with XRay on this. I read the rules as there must be 7 votes pro or con and the 2/1 majority for a decision to be made, otherwise the nom is inconclusive and the file is kept. Not voting is often also a way of making a statement, "same as for FPs". But per El Grafo, the rules could be written in a clearer way. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it doesn't seem logical to have a different standard for delisting than for listing, unless it's made very clear, with a reason given. So therefore, my assumption is that a lack of total clarity is just an oversight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think I may have an answer to old delisting noms (from 2009) mentioned by El Grafo. A while ago, I happened to take a look at the Swedish translation of the FPC page info. I found that it hadn't been updated for ages! It stated that only 5 votes were necessary for an FP (of course I changed that), so it looked like in the past there might have been a 5-vote-rule for FPs. And yes looking at the page history for FPC, in 2009 only 5 votes were required. So it was "same as for FPs" back then too. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    5 votes to 7 votes happened on 1 July 2010 per this discussion. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Example of 6 delist, 1 keep that was not delisted. I agree with the reading that 7 delist minimum and 2/1. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

clearing up the rules for delisting[edit]

@XRay, W.carter, Ikan Kekek, KTC: Thanks to all of you, it's now clear that I initially misunderstood the the rules. I'd like to propose a simple change in the wording to make the minimum of 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist more clear:

2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days

Any objections? --El Grafo (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks ok to me. A simple solution. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • no problemo -- KTC (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Cart (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


Before we get too into this, SHOULD it be easier to delist than to list? I'm inclined to say yes... Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange assessments[edit]

While cleaning up some FP categories, I came across File:Boats, pier and bicycle CNV00007.jpg. It looks like the author, Olivercastaño aka Oliver Castaño Mallorca aka Skapheandros, have given himself a little pat on the back by adding FP, VI and QI assesments to the photo. There are no links to any nomination pages that I can find, but before I remove the assessment template, I just wanted to check with the rest of the users here if anyone knows anything about this or can give another explanation for it. --Cart (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

He added the templates himself (this year), no bot has added one of the templates. IMO the assessment templates should be removed. --XRay talk 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
And he had done the same for File:Stair car park.jpg, File:Luminaria.tif, File:Entelechy in lathhouse (inner acuatic landscape).tif and File:Death blue spirit (Ghost).jpg. --XRay talk 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Quite a busy little fellow. Agree that self-added tags like this should be removed. Just wanted to make sure in case I had missed something. He also has three accounts. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Skapheandros, Olivercastaño, Oliver Castaño Mallorca: Please could explain this situation, thanks / Por favor, podrias explicar esta situacion, gracias --Photographer 12:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
(XRay, you have to sign the post during the same edit as the 'ping' otherwise the 'ping' will not work. So here once more @Skapheandros, Olivercastaño, Oliver Castaño Mallorca: just to make sure it works. A mention works the same way as a ping so The Photographer did it right the first time. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC))
All images fixed. The first one was already fixed. --XRay talk 11:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Another user has reported him to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca. Apparently the Skapheandros account was blocked in 2012, so he just created another account and carried on, on his old user page. --Cart (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Panorama FP gallery page now closed - Should we create a category for such pictures instead?[edit]

The old not-working FP gallery/category is now closed and should not be used anymore. However, it would be nice to have these images gathered in some place. Christian Ferrer suggested that we could "...create a kind of category Category:Featured pictures of panoramas instead of this gallery." as a sub category to. What does the rest of the community think? Should we do this? Should we name it "Featured pictures of panoramas" to be in line with the names of the other categories on that page or would another name be more correct/appropriate?. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose creating this category. The criterion is not quite clear. Is a panorama any image that was stitched from two or more images? In the former FP gallery, there were only photos with a very wide aspect ratio of, say, 3:1 and more. But such photos are neither necessarily stitched nor always depicting a "panorama" in the meaning of "wide view", "landscape" etc. (see en:Panoramic painting). So, actually, whether it's panorama or not is in the end a subjective impression of the viewer. I'm not seeing any added value of this category for now --A.Savin 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)