User talk:Rhododendrites/Reconsidering FPC on the English Wikipedia

Since this has been posted in multiple locations, I'd like to encourage people to leave their thoughts on this talk page to avoid parallel discussions. This edit is mainly to turn the link blue. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in this area, but that sounds fine by me. The fewer redundant processes we have, the more we can focus our attention where it's needed. Sdkb (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Moved from idea lab. Hope you don't mind, Sdkb. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Overlap

Which images, if any, in the past N years, were promoted on Wikipedia but not on Commons? --Izno (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the overall statistics are, but last month (the one I analyzed when putting this together), there were two promoted here that have not yet been nominated there: File:Jodenster van kledij.jpg and File:Dorie Miller.jpg.

On the other hand, there are five images which failed here despite having no opposition which have been featured on Commons. I would argue that any one of them would be suitable for POTD: File:Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg, File:Boiga nigriceps Red cat snake.jpg, File:Koppie foam grasshopper (Dictyophorus spumans spumans) nymph.jpg, File:Blue Hour at Pakistan Monument.jpg, File:Ship wreck Carnatic 2017-04-22 Egypt-7947.jpg.

There are indeed some images which have passed here and failed there (and vice versa), but the number is relatively small. In my experience they're more often due to the opinions of the small number of participants differing from the results when more people are involved rather than any fundamental difference in priorities, but others may disagree with me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the more interesting cases are the images and media that were featured on commons but where significant opposition developed in the corresponding nominations here, leading to non-promotion. Those are the cases that demonstrate that we have independent standards from commons and can't just achieve the same effect by piggybacking off commons. One can't just count votes to tell whether they achieved a quorum, because often the dynamic is that one negative comment makes other participants reluctant to either support or pile on. Examples include Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mountain child.jpg, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/S/V Rembrandt van Rijn, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Faroese sheep, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Juma Mosque, Shamakhi, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lake Urmia, and Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Macropus giganteus - Brunkerville.jpg. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankfully, with thousands of images available and three being promoted every day, we can just skip over something that was promoted on Commons but not right for enwiki's Main Page. There are far more than would be perfectly good on enwiki's Main Page but aren't nominated here, but are promoted there. One negative comment can have that effect on Commons, too, but there are enough users who participate there that it doesn't dash the whole nomination. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Who do you mean, "we"? When you say "we" in "we can just skip", who does "we" refer to? Obviously not the FPC voters any more, because you're proposing to get rid of that process. But the filtering you describe is still a process, just one that's hidden in some smoke-filled room rather than being out in the open the way FPC is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to be ambiguous. I mean the English Wikipedia community, who would be selecting from Commons FPs for our POTD. That selection process could stay the same or it could be changed. We would be doing it either way -- it's just a matter of whether we need an additional to cultivate a separate pool just for the sake of that process. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

About voting participation on en-WP

Obviously there are more users on Commons and less on en-WP. As David Eppstein wrote above, in this diff, the dynamics on en-WP and Commons are different. It isn't that there aren't enough eyes for example on this nomination, it is just that the image is noisy, so there is no point in dropping multiple oppose votes. Often on en-WP reviewers don't drop a note because they are either neutral, or are content with the direction the nom is going (whether passing or failing). The lack of 5 signatures on an en-WP nomination is not a lack of consensus, it is a consensus to maintain status quo, i.e. to not promote (per the voting guideline). Bammesk (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The behavior you describe happens on Commons, too. People abstain from supporting far more often than opposing, but there are enough people participating overall that the reason for people abstaining usually becomes evident from at least one person making a comment (which is to say, Commons FPC would probably look much the same if only a few people were participating there, too). Since there are more photographers there, it may be a bit more common to see people try to provide constructive criticism in the nominations (trying to help each other improve the quality of images available), but it's largely the same. Also, how can you tell the discussions for which there isn't quorum to promote from those with consensus not to promote? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for your repeated assertions that the people participating in FPC on EN tend to be non-photographers? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that people at FPC here are non-photographers necessarily, but [strictly anecdotally] it seems like the Wikimedians who care most about photography are most active on Commons. I recall Colin saying something about this difference somewhat recently, so perhaps he can articulate it better than I can. I don't mean any disrespect to participants at enwiki's FPC. To the contrary, I find it admirable that people are dedicated to keep the process running and providing feedback to participants. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I am saying less than 5 signatures is not sufficient to conclude there wasn't enough eyes on the nom. There are no limits, so some nominators repeat the nom when they suspect there wasn't sufficient participation on the first go. For instance these noms [1], [2], [3] overlap in 9 of 10 days, so it wasn't the lack of participation on the first listed nom. This isn't always possible to demonstrate though. Bammesk (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I can't recall the earlier comment that Rhododendrites mentions. David Eppstein, wrt "non-photographers", I clicked on a dozen users participating on the current page. Then looked at their Commons contributions. Mostly folk were uploading content taken from a free source elsewhere on the internet. One user had a little compact camera with which they took some useful photos and another had their mobile phone. The only "photographer" I would count as being at FP level, is JJ Harrison. Apologies if I missed anyone (Rhododendrites you weren't on the FP page).

I remember when en:fp was well participated and there was considerable overlap with Commons. The Commons crowd were more international and naturally English speaking Wikipedians saw en:fp first. Some photographers like Diliff saw their purpose as primarily creating infobox-level photographs for Wikipedia articles, and didn't buy so much into the Commons idea of creating great educational photos that folk outside of Wikipedia would use. Indeed some photographers at the time used the most restrictive licences they could find in order that anyone outside of Wikipedia would have a hard time reusing their photographs. But gradually Commons FP became stronger and definitely a place where photographers could discuss technique and critique. The en:fp started focusing more on artworks and my interest in them was low. There always was a degree of reviewing the same photo twice that made it seem that one forum was unnecessary.

The level of participation on Commons now hugely outstrips en:fp. A great photo on Commons can get 10+ supports within 24 hours and 25+ within a few days, whereas the same photo may take days to get 5 supports on en:fp, or even get entirely neglected (especially if not lead photo in the article). While FP serves the main page, it should also serve a purpose in attracting and rewarding those who bring outstanding content to Wikipedia. There's nothing about en:fp that makes me think it is a special enough place to duplicate my reviewing effort. --Colin°^Talk 09:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Charles is also quite active here and seems like a good example to highlight. If I recall correctly, Charles said he only nominates photos here that have already gone through the Commons process successfully. In other words, if we didn't have a process here, we'd still have all of his FPs to choose from for POTD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do only nominate photos on English Wikipedia that have succeeded at Commons. The low number of voters at en:fp is a frustration, but the process is sound. I do believe that the difference is about whether an image is encyclopaedic, so probably 40% of my Commons FPs would not pass at en:fp, like some esoteric insects which only have stub articles. I don't understand Cart's comment "So, if a picture is not in an article, it's suddenly not a good picture?". If it's not in an article, how can it be featured? I believe the en:fp rules mean that an FP can be delisted if it is no longer used in an article. This says nothing about whether the image is a good picture or not. Also, we should not assume that voters on Commons are what she calls 'image experts' and that voters on en:fp aren't. We could change the en:fp rules to say that only Commons FPs could be nominated. Then en:fp votes would only be judging encyclopaedic value, not technical quality. Would save a lot of time and effort. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: part of the reason I put together this page is because I more or less agree with what you say at the end. But since enwiki's FPC process only serves to create a pool for POTD, it seems to me that if we're going to only use Commons FPs anyway we might as well skip one of the selection processes (i.e. the selection of POTD can just choose from Commons FPs rather than have one process to narrow down Commons FPs and another to choose POTD from among those -- participation being as low as it is. Added benefit: that way we don't need to bother with the whole additional delist-if-not-used-in-an-article process, since all that would matter is whether an image is used in an article at the point of POTD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"enwiki's FPC process only serves to create a pool for POTD" I don't think so. Surely it serves to award the best encyclopaedic images? POTD should be an extra acolade, assuming that we could improve the selection process (as discussed at length recently). Many Commons FPs (e.g. the more artistic ones) won't ever find their way into an encyclopaedia. Most of the current Commons FPCs are not used on any wiki and only a few would be successful enwiki FP candidates. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as I value processes which recognize positive contributions and very much get the significance of a star for one's volunteer contributions (I participate in FPC myself, after all), I don't feel like a secondary set of those stars for those who participante in a process that isn't working very well justifies retaining that process. If I misunderstand and you're talking about the value to readers of highlighting encyclopedic images, I'm just not sure which readers. If I want to see the most encyclopedic image of a particular subject, I don't need it to be an FP for me to be able to see it in the article. If I want to see cool insect images, the best images are highlighted on Commons, including most FPs from enwiki and more. I just don't know when I'd think to myself "I want to see insect pictures, but only if they are currently improving an article that exists on Wikipedia". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

So don't participate. There are lots of Wikipedia processes that I, personally, don't have much interest in; that doesn't make them valueless. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

? I don't know how you got "I'm not interested so it should close" from that, but I'll take that as a cue to wait for additional opinions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

My comments are removed, I shouldn't have posted here since I don't know enough about the en-WP FP process. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites - I have initiated a vote on [:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates] Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems premature. My hope was to have discussions here and let that eventually shape an RfC. Granted, I wouldn't have asked question you did. Requiring enwiki FPC to only consider Commons FPs seems to just makes the enwiki process more redundant/unnecessary. Why not just have the enwiki POTD process select from Commons FPs rather than have two processes to go Commons FP → enwiki FP → enwiki POTD? I mean, I guess it's not far from what I'm getting at, but I'd just skip the middle step. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Not a problem if you wish to delay it. It would stay open for a month anyway. But we can't just use Commons FPs because of the problem that most Commmons FPs are not enhancing English Wikipedia articles. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

? Your proposal is to just use Commons FPs to select enwiki FPs to select POTD. Instead we could just use Commons FPs to select POTD and skip the middle step. Either way we're only using Commons FPs for POTD. The outcome is basically the same for POTD (but with more flexibility to use photos that significantly improve an article but didn't find quorum, etc. in some middle process). Of course, as I wrote in the essay, I think the standard for POTD should be significantly illustrates something we have an article about more than actively used in a given article (lots of overlap, but a bit different) -- not a discussion that needs to happen at the same time, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• About having Commons FP as a prerequisite, I am against it. The voters at Commons FP noms are photo enthusiasts, they are attuned to photography and images, rightfully so, they are not necessarily attuned or sensitive to encyclopedias, they don’t necessarily participate on en-WP, fr-WP, etc. Some of the subjects at en-WP are one-time events, historic images, historic events, artists, paintings, scientists, maps, diagrams, marine life, examples are linked, none are FPs at Commons, more examples at WP:FP, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There is no reason to assume Commons participants as a group appreciate (i.e. promote or vote for) encyclopedic images. They are primarily attuned to photography and images, not encyclopedias.

Sidenote: the images by User:Adam_Cuerden (see his user page at en-WP) are all rooted as encyclopedic contributions. There is no positive in adding Commons FP as a prerequisite for encyclopedic images. Bammesk (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• The claim that we promote FPs at less than one a day is wrong. There were 378 successful nominations in 2019.

I am also against requiring Commons FP as a prerequisite per Bammesk. It's a good and lazy way of discovering FP material, but that's it. MER-C 17:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know we cleared 365 last year, but if we extend that to absolutely any other recent year, it seems like an anomaly caused by one particularly active Mr. Cuerden, who went into overdrive to win the WikiCup and accounts for about 100 of those. Though we just barely cleared 1/day last year, the year before we promoted only 75 in total, and indeed last month we're back down to 12. Perhaps participation will increase a bit to bring it up to almost 1/day, but assuming Adam's not planning to be enwiki's FP machine again this year, it seems pretty unlikely. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, Adam has said elsewhere that he's temporarily out of commission with a broken desktop computer and a laptop that is inadequate for the sort of restoration work he does. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you nominate your own photos? MER-C 14:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@MER-C: I have/do sometimes. The reasons why I don't do it very often are largely outlined on this page. Low participation is frustrating and means anyone who becomes active has a major influence on the process (sometimes good, sometimes not so good). I also think people have different definitions of what they consider "encyclopedic" (infobox image, one per page, of interest to general readers on the main page, discussed in prose, in a high-quality article, and other things that aren't necessarily listed in the criteria). The whole idea that we go through a process which can be immediately invalidated if someone edits a picture out of an article gives me pause, and combine that with a tendency for standards to be applied that often require Commons-like levels of quality, and there's not much point in participating here for someone who already participates on Commons. I like that on Commons the focus is getting people to create better images rather than just on determining which is most encyclopedic, so as someone who uploads my own, I find that process much more valuable (beyond just being far more active). I know some people care about stars, but if standards typically require Commons-level FP already, those images already have a star. The Wikicup is a decent motivator, though, so you'll probably see some nominations from me in the near future (hopefully this page hasn't annoyed the enwiki FPC community too badly :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the commons process pushes people to focus on aesthetics over encyclopedic utility (photos framed for aesthetics over documentation or large numbers of photos of highly photogenic subjects) . Ideally the EN process should push people in the the other direction or at least push a better balance.©Geni (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Emphasis of English Wikipedia featured pictures

As someone who doesn't know the history of the Featured pictures initiative, I apologize if the following covers well-trod ground. It seems to me the significance of the "Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article" featured picture criterion depends on where the emphasis lies for English Wikipedia featured pictures. Is the intent to highlight a picture within the context of an encyclopedia article, so its value can be weighed both in terms of its individual merit and its complementary value to the article? Or is it solely intended to highlight excellent pictures without any surrounding context? We can then ask the same questions of Picture of the Day: is it supposed to just showcase excellent pictures, or pictures within articles?

Both of these approaches are possible, but tied to the answers is the available volunteer effort: is it worthwhile preserving a separate English Wikipedia featured picture process to highlight pictures within the context of encyclopedia articles, if it is splitting volunteer attention to a detrimental degree? isaacl (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The former. A professionally written encyclopedia should have professional standard photos that help explain the subject matter. FPC on Commons exists solely to showcase excellent pictures. MER-C 18:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The former indeed. The extent to which it succeeds in doing so, overlaps with the latter, can/should proceed with low levels of participation, or should be folded into a POTD process based on the much more plentiful and mostly overlapping Commons FP pool are the subjects of this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

If the answer is the former, that is, "highlight a picture within the context of an encyclopedia article", then the current English Wikipedia featured picture process should remain in place, and Picture of the Day should continue to draw from English Wikipedia featured pictures, in order to accomplish this goal. You can't highlight a picture based in part on its value within an article if it isn't in one. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not to highlight pictures within the context of an encyclopedia article, but to highlight pictures which significantly contribute to a Wikipedia article. The distinction is in the function of the process. Their featuring doesn't affect the article itself at all (i.e. the image in context is unaffected); it just makes the photo appear in a gallery (apart from the article) and as POTD (apart from the article).

But again, it's not doing a very good job of doing that, regardless of the purpose. We have two pools of FPs, one of which is substantially larger than the other because participation is considerably more. The larger pool includes most of the smaller pool, so it's not like we'd be missing out on much, and has more added to it at a rate of 3/day. Our process, by contrast, promotes images that are mostly (but not entirely) already promoted on Commons, and has very low participation rates, generating (with rare exception) less than 1/day. I'm saying why limit ourselves to those that managed to find sufficient participation at enwiki FPs when we can select the same images (and more) from the much larger pool of Commons FPs for POTD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

This analysis is flawed without data on how many of those 3/day actually contribute significantly to topics of high encyclopedic value (the function of the en-specific process). Or, to put it more bluntly, if we just allowed any upload on commons to count, without consideration of quality, we'd have however many hundreds or thousands per day! Wouldn't that be so much better than your proposal to limit the photos to the paltry 3/day that come out of the commons FP process? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Standards between enwiki and Commons FPC are similar (which is not the say the same), and both have the same function for the respective projects (to highlight some subset of images considered to have the most value, to put those in galleries, to select POTD, and to recognize/encourage positive contributions. The difference is relatively small, and that bears out in the considerable overlap in their output. Obviously not every upload is subjected to this kind of evaluation, so the hundreds of thousands per day seems like a reudctio ad absurdum.

But it's fair to ask for data that we are in fact doing a poor job here. Most of what we promote is promoted through the Commons process, but perhaps 2/3 of what Commons is promoting is useless for enwiki, making those few that we promote that they don't worth the exchange. I think the likelihood of that is fleetingly small, but it's true that I don't have data here. I think what's much more likely is that most of the people who participate at Commons FPC aren't native English speakers, so don't update at enwiki first, such that while some of the Commons FPs might not currently be in an enwiki article, most could be added. Then there are those that are sepctacular pictures of a subject, but aren't, say, the infobox image so probably wouldn't be promoted to FP (but, I would argue, can make for an even better POTD -- I'm thinking of, for example, a detailed macro photo of a flower or headshot of an animal rather than the whole species of either. We often put these further down the page and/or in galleries, which make them less likely contenders for FP but, again, are the sort of thing that attract clicks from the main page, which is what we want out of POTD). Anyway... I'm writing too much again when I'm supposed to be getting work done... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It's why I asked the specific question if the intent is to feature pictures in the context of being in an article. To me evaluating how a picture contributes to an article is indeed evaluating it in the context of being in the article. If I'm looking at a gallery of pictures that are being featured for their contributions to an article, then I expect when I visit the articles, I'll see the pictures.

When you say the process isn't working well due to participation, that's why I asked the question if it's worth keeping this goal if there aren't enough resources to maintain the process. If we were to shift to having Picture of the Day draw from the Commons featured pictured pool, we would be dropping the goal of having Picture of the Day showcase pictures that have been evaluated on how they contribute to articles. That's perfectly fine if consensus can be reached, but given your reaction "the former indeed", I suspect there are challenges. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason for having the FP project is to improve article quality by placing technically good and relevant images in them. I think the same goes for featured articles and featured lists. The criteria doesn't say anything about the main-page, it only considers articles. The main-page, Signpost, Wikicup, and the awarding of a star are incentives, not objectives. All content on the main-page go through a review, and link to en-WP articles. This improves article quality, and rewards it with visibility. The DYK section rewards article creation (7 days). The right side of the main-page rewards the updating and sourcing of articles. The main-page is the face of an encyclopedia and draws from its articles. Bammesk (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Incentives are from an editor's perspective. From the readers' perspective, having sections on the main page with specific purposes helps them find content of interest to them. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see the featured content projects (FP, FA, FL) as article improvement projects, not as content curation projects for the main-page. I think that's why there is no mention of main-page in the criteria. For example, the effort that goes into a FA isn't necessary for its one paragraph on the main-page. Bammesk (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The decision to create sections on the main page with specific content is made in consideration of the audience for that section. For featured content, this implicitly means that the criteria of the featured content form the category from the readers' viewpoint. So if Picture of the Day becomes a showcase for Commons featured pictures instead of English Wikipedia's featured pictures, then accordingly the category of content being shown is shifted. isaacl (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I think we may be talking about two different things. What I am saying is that featured content projects are defined in terms of article improvement. So that's what featured contents do, improve articles, hence improve the encyclopedia, and serve its audience. In that effort, the main-page is an incentive, not the end product. I am not arguing for or against the main-page, its purpose, curation process, etc. Bammesk (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your initial reply puzzled me, because I agree it's talking something different, and that's why I responded that I was looking from the readers' point of view, rather than the view of editors. isaacl (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Close it down - experience of an anatomy editor

Featured pictures are not an indication of quality

I am not a fan of the featured pictures process. Here is a gallery of what was our featured media (from an old discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_9#Featured_media):

• 
  Insertion of the SO muscle.
• 
  Circulatory system
• 
  CT brain
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I think this does a great job of illustrating how variable "featured pictures" are - these images differ widely in their characteristics and were or are all featured pictures. Yes, lots have some good qualities (good images, historically significant or hard for an illustrator to create, useful, etc.) but as clear above, most do not seem to satisfy all the qualities one would expect of a "featured" image. Most are just "good" images. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to get rubbish media delisted

• 

Ergh, believe it or not this is a featured image. Yes, I am grateful to the illustrator for creating it, but I'm unable to have a rationale discussion about this (as one may on, say, good articles or featured articles). I've enumerated a number of problems on the nomination, most specifically quality and accuracy yet this remains a featured image Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Images_of_the_human_skeleton. As a subject editor the lack of focus on accuracy I found very disappointing. This really sent the message to me that the process is not interested in some of our basic wiki principles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), this image was delisted in October 2015: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Human skeleton redux --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, you're right I forgot about that second nomination. The whole first incident left quite an impression in my mind; still disappointed it had to be nominated twice for this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT) If the image is rubbish than why is it still used in an article? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to add great media

Original – Image of the left femur of an extinct species of elephant -- possibly a mammoth from the Pleistocene Ice Age

In my opinion this image is one of our best images, yet for subjective reasons (eg "bad lighting") was not listed Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Left_femur_of_extinct_elephant. This was particularly disappointing when compared with the still featured image above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It is hard to even get a grasp of what is featured images

Most pages now redirect to commons. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Close FP

So in summary the reasons for delisting from my point of view are:

1. The process is useless, most editors I suspect use WikiCommons off the bat, and even trying to clarify the status of media is difficult because most auto redirect to commons
2. Featured pictures locally are not a guarantee of quality, so what's the point?
3. It's very difficult to nominate new images, as beauty is subjective and principles differ between general vs. subject specific appeal
4. It's very difficult to delist rubbish pictures

My experience with FP has been very demoralising, so it is one corner of the Wiki-world I don't participate in anymore. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

What next?

Hi Rhododendrites Any progress since this last post? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: No. I had hoped this would get more input from people who aren't already involved with FPC, since those who volunteer time with a given process are [understandably] most likely to oppose ending it, but oh well. Maybe an RfC would attract other voices to find a clear consensus one way or the other, but I'm not seeing enough agreement that it would be worth doing so. In other words, I think I'll just tag this page as a personal essay and leave it at that for the time being. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• OK Rhododendrites, but don't you think it would be worth me re-activating the small change I suggested to only allow Commons FPs to be FP at English Wikipedia? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a small change, and there's been no support for it, as the original proposal is to eliminate the English Wikipedia Featured Picture process. Perhaps you can describe what current problem do you think your proposal might address? isaacl (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The differing focus makes a difference

Observe User:Adam_Cuerden#2019. While many FPs here are also FPs on Commons, the lack of EV as a criterion on Commons means numerous good-quality images did NOT pass there. You get more of what you show you value, and it's clear that a lot of suffragettes wouldn't have been promoted - which I do think would have discouraged me from doing as many as I did - had Commons been the only way forwards.

In addition, Commons' two nomination maximum is a major discouragement from any speed of work. I have five nominations on En-Wiki just now. Were Commons the only way forwards, I'd have little motivation to work at that rate.

Honestly, if Commons FPC were the only way forwards, it is exceptionally unlikely I'd have the motivation to do what I do here, in the amount I do it, and I'd probably drift away from Wikipedia after a while.

It's not like I do sound restoration much now that WP:FSC's been shut down. There's a big difference between your passion having a place to share it with people and getting buried somewhere it'll almost never be seen. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.3% of all FPs} 18:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: For sounds, give COM:FMC a try! It's not the most active but there's enough activity to be self-sustaining. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)