Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 11

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Proposal to temporary change number of active nominations

Its been rough year around Commons for many editors, there has been a lot of heated disputes and nasty comments thrwon around, FPC hasnt been immune from these problems. What I propose is a temporary change to number of active nominations(excluding self nominations) for the period from the 14th December 2010 until 31st December 2010 lets encourage people to appreciate and recognise what others are doing to make Commons a better place. Gnangarra 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you proposing an increase or decrease in the number of active nominations? Powers (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • unrestricted for the period(17 days) Gnangarra 23:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • If the community wants more than 2 active nominations per user.. it is something that can be discussed.. I find no-sense to have unlimited nominations for a period of 17 days.. Ggia (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • please re-read the propsal, its sole intention is to encourage people to appreciate and recognise what others are doing after whats been a very poor year with many fine contributors leaving due to disputes, abuse, nasty flame wars surely theres sense in doing that. Gnangarra 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That's a noble call, one can only hope will be listened to. It can be achieved even without a change to the rules, as anybody can put aside her/his priorities for a few weeks and nominate images by others instead. --Elekhh (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
        • A nominate other peoples images week (or month) would indeed be even more in the spirit of appreciation. Good idea. --Dschwen (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I was always in favour of having looser limits on non-self nominations. A short period would serve to show how good for spirit it is :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for the proposal, Gnangarra. I think it is a good idea.
    • But what are we going to do with those who continue self-nominating "business as usual"? Many nominators do not follow these discussions or find them hard to understand, because they do not understand English well. I mean if we disallow self-nominations for a period (which I do not mind personally), will the nominator not feel as much hostility as we are trying to "repair" with such an initiative by being told, "Oh, you must not self-nominate, you have to withdraw that." If we do this, we need to take care in announcing it on relevant pages, perhaps the nomination page should be preloaded with a multi-lingual template instructing the user prior to nomination, that we have this initiative?
    • Moreover, as I think the number of nomination will go down, I think we should relax on the "two active nominations per nominator rule". Perhaps we do not need a limit in this period, but if so, it should perhaps rather be "max n nominations by a specific creator". That could encourage nominators to go look for new, yet undiscovered talents on Commons, who might feel honored that someone else has nominated their image for FPC. And that might recruit new reviewers and give a synergy effect. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the initiative should be for a full month to be meaningful. One week is too short of a duration. To make it a full month, we may want to start it January 1, 2011 as a fresh start on a new year? That also gives some time to spread the word and make the proper announcements. --Slaunger (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't think it should be compulsory (i.e. rule) rather an appeal, maybe presented as a friendly banner on the top of the FPC page. I think the two weeks period over Christmas as proposed initially is a good idea. --Elekhh (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Why not? As Elekhh suggests, we could make it appear as a Xmas gift's banner. No reason why we can't start right now, after a minimum consensus is obtained -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree that we could start earlier, maybe next Monday. --Elekhh (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment we have to consider that the users in wikimedia are not all christians.. if we do it for x-mas.. lets do it in March in the Iranian Newroz celebration (Iranian new year), Muslim festivals (ie. Festival of sacrifice), other cultural celebrations... etc. Ggia (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (edit-conflict) As a non-compulsary appeal. I do not think we should mix it up with a Xmas present though as that has cultural/religious associations. We might call it a seasonal or end-of-year appeal. --Slaunger (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • When mentioning Christmas all I wanted to point at was that it is a holiday season in most countries (including many non-Christian majority ones). I don't think the proposal should be directly related to it, so I agree with you, "end-of-year" sounds good.--Elekhh (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Please dont get side tracked this has nothing to do with any event its to help move Commons community forward past the recent unpleasent events, with the dates I just thought a week to get the details sorted, then run until the end of the year. Its great to that everyone is positive about so lets just make it happen and appreciate the efforts of everyone. Gnangarra 10:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Since nobody else volunteered I made a draft, please feel free to directly improve this draft or provide alternatives, or feedback.--Elekhh (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it is very adequate at flagging what we want to flag. Thanks for taking your time to design it. Should it be mentioned that two noms per nominator is relaxed meanwhile as long as it is creations of other users work? --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've added a sentence mentioning this (and revised the title). --Avenue (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) New title is OK with me. As expressed previously and consistent with Dschwen's comment above and with Slaunger's concern, I think that the rule should stay. The action would be much more powerful if the appeal is to nominate other author's images instead of one's own, not on top of one's own. --Elekhh (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not wedded to a change in the rule. But I thought my addition reflected the general consensus above, where three people supported somehow relaxing the restriction (99of9, Gnangarra, and Slaunger), and I didn't see anyone saying there should be no change to the rule. If that was implied by Dschwen's comment, I guess I missed that. Since you also object, it probably doesn't have a consensus, so I'll remove my sentence. (To save anyone from having to look through the history for it, it was: "For the rest of the year, nominations of others' images will not count towards your personal limit of two active nominations.") --Avenue (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Wonderful idea! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I like this too. Let's see how it works. Jonathunder (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think we should restrict the authorship of those pictures to Commons users (no NASA, no LC, no flicr, no etc.). I still remember some guy nominating 20 NASA's images of galaxies on the same day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that should be clear enough from the text as is... --Elekhh (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Looks clear enough to me. Gnangarra 04:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All right, I put it up since it's already the 14th. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not good with multilingual templates, but could a language switch be added such that translation into other languages would be possible, or am I just making something which was supposed to be simple too complicated Smile? --Slaunger (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Language switch is there on the top, but currently the banner is only on the English version. Would be nice to have it translated to all the other languages, and as a priority to French and German, given the current number of users. Any volunteers? --Elekhh (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

or something like that in french. It is not a "word to word" or literal translation, but the "spirit" of the idea is here, in my opinion. One may understand that the choice of images made by others has no number limit, that the rule of two self nominations is still here, and that it concerns only individuals contributors, not Nasa, Army, Flickr etc. Did I understand well ? I wish, please, the opinion of other french speakers. Thank you !--Jebulon (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastique, merci beaucoup. --Elekhh (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm magnesium powder, yes, but not only. Smile--Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually looking over it again, in the English version there is an important "instead". As noted previously the call is to nominate other author's images instead of ones own (i.e. putting ego aside) not simply additionally to ones own (i.e. sort of charity). So I took out in the draft the "En plus des deŭx vôtres" and the emphasis on "librement". Also removed the link to the same page it appears on as superfluous. Does it still sound OK? --Elekhh (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for that misunderstanding. That's what I was afraid of, and I disagree with the idea ("instead" meand for me not "ego aside", but "artificial overdone sacrifice"). Let's go anyway. But in this case, I have three active nominations now. My own (nominated before the present situation), and two regarding work of others. Is it an issue ? Furthermore, I think the "additionally" is not a "sort of charity", but I'm pretty sure that the "instead" will strongly reduce the succes of this operation...But I repeat: let's go now.--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
IMO we should not close one of your now three nominations as the third nomination of a different creator was done in good faith. As I have written previously, I think a more relevant limit for nominations is n (e.g. 2) open nominations per creator and not per nominator. That will also encourage nominations of others work more than the current rule. --Slaunger (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Its a non issue the proposal was for unrestricted nominations of other users works Gnangarra 14:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That was also my understanding! Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Seems that we have slightly different views on this, but that should not stall the process. I will not contest any nomination of images by others beyond any limit, however I don't think that in the invitation it should be explicitly called for unlimited nominations. When the limit on nominations was set up, its aim was to make nominators more responsible, encourage quick withdrawal of poor nominations, and to facilitate higher quality reviews, and I think we still need all of these. After all there will be no joy to anyone if images of others are nominated only to be FPXed. --Elekhh (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)