Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Procedural question about contesting FPX[edit]

Quick procedural question: I recently contested an FPX. Now the FPXer Peulle had made an oppose vote before adding the {{FPX}}, leading to an unintended double vote after I replaced it with {{FPXcontested}}. Would this confuse the bot? Recently we also had a discussion somewhere about how early votes can influence later voters, so, should I have struck one of the votes? --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bot only counts voting templates, it doesn't care who made the vote. The FPX template is supposed to be the same (as far as the Bot is concerned) as an 'Oppose', but we all know that the Bot has failed in this respect in recent years, so this will have to be double checked manually when the nom is closed. This technical error occurred because Peulle went about this in an unusual way. Normally the whole reason for FPX should go inside the template and not as a separate vote. I have striked the first of the votes, as you suggested, since it is the only way to fix this because you can't strike the 'contested' template. We know that no harm was intended here, just glitches in the system, so we'll keep an eye on it. --Cart (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Scientific images[edit]

Hi, if anyone is more into the selection process, please take a look at Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2017/Winners. there are many good pictures that were uploaded by newbies and were not suggested yet for any recognition here. It took a lot of effort and volunteers' time to gather these images, some of them are "special" for their unique technical content. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Thanks for posting here. I've gone through and nominated a few of them over the past months (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but I agree there are several others that are potentially good candidates here. Are the winners finalized now? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes User:Rhododendrites. However, I think Ivo want to make it official on Nov, the 1st and is currently contacting the winner or the national chapter involved. The final ranking was summarized seven days ago, I sent a mail to all the jurors last Sunday and nobody opposed, so it is confirmed. Today I have inserted the last motivation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Minimum time before a renomination[edit]

As far as I know there is no minimum time between the closure of a nomination and the renomination of the same image, but a few people have suggested that there should be. I propose this idea for consideration:

"An image which has been considered at FPC and not passed may be renominated under the following conditions:

  • if the image has been edited or a new version has been created to address issues that were raised during the previous nomination then the new edited image or version version may be nominated immediately after the closure or withdrawal of the previous nomination;
  • if the image has not been edited and a new version has not been created to address issues that were raised during the previous nomination then 60 days must elapse between the closure or withdrawal of the previous nomination and the new nomination."

This policy would not be retroactive. --Pine 20:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)



  • I think that an image which received only support votes but did not pass with the minimum seven support votes in a nomination would be okay to renominate immediately after the closure of the previous nomination, but this view is not shared by others. --Pine 20:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per comment below.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and Charles. Too many variables. --Cart (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Charles's proposal below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many strict rules. Let's keep FPC as simple as possible. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support the first point. Given that an image has been "significantly reworked" (meaning not just a few simple edits), it should be allowed to be renominated. I do not agree with the second point and I feel that a 60 day grace period is too short, given that there is no other qualifier to address the issue of how the previous nomination went. While it may be reasonable to accept a renomination for an image that lacked a single support vote and had no opposes, it might not be reasonable in other cases, such as there being a single oppose that blocked it from passing, or there being a narrow result barely barely preventing it. With this suggestion, such narrow results are not kept separate from nominations that failed abysmally with lots of opposes and no support. I suggest adding such a qualifier, for instance that "in order to be renominated within 60 days, the previous nomination can have received no opposes". Alternatively, I would suggest the period should be 365 days. Thus, as the suggestion stands currently, I must oppose.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are too many options in the proposal to give a simple support or oppose. From my perspective:

1. Any image which receives a positive balance of support, but fails to reach the required majority may be renominated (by any user) after 12 months.
2. An image which receives an equal number of negative and positive votes or more negative votes should not be renominated.
I can't think of any exceptions. If an image has been "very significantly reworked" then it will be a new image and able to be nominated on its own merits. Nominators should perform most reworking during the nomination period. 'No opposes' or a 'single oppose vote' are not valid criteria. My last FP had 19 positive votes and one oppose by Peulle. The oppose vote was not changed even though the faults had been corrected and that's just how it goes sometimes. There will often be one voter who has a different view (and it's often me!). Charles (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

One year is much too long whatever are the criteria. Two months may be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
We don't want to encourage people to nominate something every 2 months. But to a large degree, this stuff is really self-policing. If we don't want something renominated, we can oppose it for that reason, as we just did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)