Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please participate in the discussion of the results of this poll here.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This is intended as a poll to see what opinions and attitudes prevail. You're advised to read the entire poll including all the answers first, and then go through it again, answering questions along the way. This should maximise your chance of answering in accordance with your own beliefs.

At this first stage of the poll, lengthy discussion is discouraged. Instead, each question allows to indicate your abstaining, being neutral, or taking issue with the phrasing of the poll. Please use these options if you wish to express dissent, OR add additional options to the poll, same as in the previous version. Please use this last option sparingly, because it might result in your view being seen as a minority view - if possible, you should try to select an option that is close to something you feel in alignment with.

As a final note, please do not propose complicated schemes. If you can't express it as a one-line header, there is a good chance it will be difficult to implement, patrol, or for newcomers to understand and abide by. From previous discussion, all of these are considered undesirable, or have proven to result in non-action due to lack of volunteers. Finally, I hope this poll gives you a sense of being heard and understood, and that subsequent discussion will be fruitful and lead to real, productive results.

Disclaimer: Inclusion of an issue in this questionnaire does not necessarily mean that I thought it was controversial. Subject repetition, where it occurs, is intentional *but not intended as a trap* - please give your honest opinion. An attempt has been made to include recent recurrent complaints. This is not meant to be inflammatory, nor is omission of a complaint that has been made - please consider the possibility that I may be neither omniscient nor omnipresent.

I suggest a polling period of two weeks for this poll.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination and closing

[edit]

The nomination period...

[edit]
...should be of fixed duration, no late votes accepted
[edit]
Note: Commons uses a template that automatically displays an "expired" notice after a pre-defined time period.
...should close roughly on time with any late votes accepted
[edit]
  • I am sure that almost all of these late votes are for perfectly valid reasons and should be respected. Negative votes may be more noticeable by authors. Have late votes in support received comments? It is only logical that the borderline borderline images with borderline vote counts will recieve voting activity. If anyone is suspected of abuse and there is good evidence for this, then I think they should be politely challenged in a non-judgemental way, and then possibly reported to administrators for a balanced opinion. I think all votes should be counted except any made after the final FP decision (whenever that is). Snowman (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that the late votes would be considered invalid, it's just that we have to draw the line somewhere. Taking your logic to the extreme, we'd have to leave the nominations open indefinitely just in case further votes came in. One of the reasons for supporting a fixed duration is that there can be less gaming of the nomination as all the parameters of the nomination are pre-determined: duration, minimum number of votes required, etc. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the FPC is actually closed (even if late) would be the deadline. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And that's what my comments about gaming refer to. There have been accusations that nominations have been left open unnecessarily when there was already consensus to pass. After the 7 day standard nomination period, somee nominations have been a clear pass and due to be closed as such. However, there have been a string of oppose votes at the last minute and they have been closed as a fail as a result. Consensus can swing one way or the other and closing it on time vs keeping it open can change the result. Hence support for a fixed time limit to avoid this potential gaming. Obviously a failing nom could just as easily become a pass at the last minute too, but I think there is support for a fixed period because at least it's consistent. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd be OK with a more loosey-goosey approach to the deadline. If the concern is that the absence of a bright-line rule would mean that nominations would have to stay open forever, then perhaps a way of addressing that would be a guideline that a nomination ought to close if the nomination has not received any votes for, say, three or four days (with the nomination being open for a minimum of 7 days). Spikebrennan (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • Nomination should stay open until consensus forms. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, or until it seems likely no consensus will form. --Avenue (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what it meant by a "late vote" - it this a late vote just before closure, or after closure, or both? Is it votes made in the time between planned closure and late closure? I doubt if this question has been understood by all, because of the the way that it has been phrased. I suggest a re-run of all of the questions in this section. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "roughly on time" is not quantified in the question and I do not know what this means - within a week, within a day, or within an hour? Snowman (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that this has been misunderstood generally. Late means 'after the pre-determined nomination duration'. Even if the voting period is decided as flexible, it still needs a duration to aim for. And yes, 'roughly on time' is not quantified but if this is a supported idea, we could discuss the definition in detail. Until then, it's best to leave it vague IMO. As it stands, it's probably a non-event since consensus is pointing towards a fixed duration with no exceptions. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 11:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination period should be roughly...

[edit]
Note: even the flexible options require a minimum and/or maximum, depending on option
...7 days
[edit]
status quo
...9 days
[edit]
in operation on Commons
...10 days
[edit]
suggested at previous straw poll
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • Nomination should stay open until consensus forms. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comment above, I'd suggest a _minimum_ duration for a nomination to be open. A nom ought to remain open as long as it is still attracting votes or comments. If, say, three or four days passes without a nom getting any more votes or comments then the nom should be closed. But an arbitrary bright-line should not cut off a discussion in progress. Spikebrennan (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations without clear consensus should be dealt with by...

[edit]
...closing and renominating
[edit]
...extending the nomination period
[edit]
...closing with a possibility to renominate
[edit]
This option was added after later in the run of the poll to take into account comments made below.
...closing, with renomination only when the picture has changed
[edit]
This option was added after later in the run of the poll to take into account comments made below.
...closing and barring from renomination
[edit]
This option was added after later in the run of the poll to take into account comments made below.
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

The minimum number of votes required for promotion ("quorum") should be...

[edit]
...4
[edit]
...5
[edit]
...6
[edit]
...different for different types of work (e.g. contemporary vs. historic)
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
  • I feel obliged to abstain since any image nominated should be promoted unless a good reason is given no to promote. From this perspective then, even if the only support is from the nominator, an image should pass an FPC IMO. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • Any responses here depend on the responses to the next question. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that is important to establish wheter the meaning of this is A) 5 votes overall (support, oppose, neutral or any other) or B) 5 votes in support only ... or even C) 5 votes not counting neutrals.
    It's ambiguous till now; for example: What if there are 4 support votes and one oppose (it could be considered as not quorum for not having 5 supports). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 01:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)    [reply]

Quorum should refer to...

[edit]
...the overall number of (!)votes on a nomination
[edit]
...the overall number of supports on a nomination
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
  • As I noted above, I feel obliged to abstain since any image nominated should be promoted unless a good reason is given no to promote. From this perspective then, even if the only support is from the nominator, an image should pass an FPC IMO. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. The purpose of quorum is to ensure the image is peer reviewed by an acceptable number of contributors. Why on earth would we promote an image just because no one was inspired to comment on it? Fletcher (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, the absence of anyone explicitly opposing should be taken a vote of neutrality. If one support is weighed against no opposes or no comments, then those who did not comment have decided the image is ok for promotion. Under such a circumstance I feel that the absence of any comments or opposition should mean an image is promoted even if there is only one support. Bear in mind that this is my opinion, and that other like yourself will have differing views on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Outcome of a nomination should be determined on the basis of...

[edit]
...vote counts
[edit]
..."consensus"
[edit]
to be determined by an editor who did not participate in the discusssion ("closer")
...vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

6 Supports and 3 Opposes should result in...

[edit]
...not promoting
[edit]
...promoting
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

8 supports and 4 Opposes should result in...

[edit]
...not promoting
[edit]
...promoting
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

About eligibility and evaluation

[edit]

Minimum resolution of FPs except panoramas should be...

[edit]
...1000 pixels in the larger dimension
[edit]
status quo
...1500 pixels in the larger dimension
[edit]
  • I'd like to see us using this going forward, but it would have major implications for existing FPs. We can't have different standards for existing and new images. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I really care that much either way, but isn't this inevitable as the number of pixels keeps going up? upstateNYer 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily. We're talking about the minimum acceptable pixel count, not what is typical at any given moment in time. We could have 200MP cameras and still keep 1000 pixels as the minimum (if we chose to). We have to consider keeping consistent standards for all FPs including existing ones, not just new ones IMO. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pixel resolution won't go up forever - we are constrained by sensor size and the wavelength of visible light ultimately. People tend to confuse 2 megapixels and 2 megabytes too. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also a theoretical limit for Moores law and computer speed, and Moores law still marches. I think that new FPs should move up to a higher resolution. Some of the older FPs would be nominated one by one to be de-listed, as they are now when better images appear. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The highest resolution crop cameras are already limited by diffraction at f8 or so. Ignoring imperfect optics you don't have to go much further in pixel density for the extra pixels to be of no practical benefit. Obviously full frame is a little further away, but not much. More resolution ultimately requires wide apertures and/or a bigger sensor. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...1 megapixel in area
[edit]
...even larger
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • It really all depends on the nomination. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about animations and videos? --Avenue (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support bumping up minimums for recent photos, but exemption for rare/historical images needs to be preserved. Fletcher (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a number of images I like that were DQ'ed on size grounds; from where I sit, a picture should be an FP on the strength on the image shown, not the strength on the pixels in a set of dimensions. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rule should be more specific, it should take into account videos, historic images etc. --Avala (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation It’s nice this option was put here. A 1.375:1 aspect ratio (35 mm) image comprising 1 million pixels would be 1173 x 853 pixels. Clearly, the distinction between “1000 pixels along the major axis” and “1 MP in total area” isn’t much difference. The modern standard webmasters design to is 1024 pixel-width browser windows before one gets a horizontal scroll bar. I suspect the most common (or, in statistics, the “mode”) practice of Internet users is to have their browser windows just a skosh wider than this; perhaps around 1100 pixels. If a reader clicks on an image to go to the file page, and then clicks on that image, they go to a page with no “links” column on the left—just a big blank page fully dedicated to the image. Accordingly, what is shown there is most often automatically scaled to 1100 pixels wide. The issue before us is this: Are we to require that there be a level of zoom (have a magnifying glass) beyond this point? Must the reader be able to explore only select portions at greater detail? I would suggest that some images “work better” if one can zoom; others, not so much. I would propose a more flexible approach. Greg L (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These pixels should be...

[edit]
...strictly on subject
[edit]
...strictly the dimensions of the image
[edit]
...not considered a must-haves
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Withholding EXIF info...

[edit]
...is okay
[edit]
...makes pictures ineligible
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Image software can lose the EXIF inadvertently. If you stitch several images in Hugin for example it strips out the EXIF. Fletcher (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photo stitching or other similar processing would be a perfectly acceptable reason for EXIF to go missing. Also free images taken from other websites may already be stripped of EXIF data and there's probably little that can be done about that. But most photo editing/manipulation software these days seems to be aware of EXIF though, and keeps it in tact, so regular photos submitted by Wikipedians ought to have EXIF data, and photo submitters should be encouraged to leave it there. I'm not saying it should be a requirement, but it should still be considered to some degree. —Pengo 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
[edit]
  • EXIF data?!! I'm lost... Gazhiley (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the metadata at the bottom of the Image page (eg see this example). Digital cameras automatically save information about the photo when you click the shutter, such as the speed, aperture, data, camera settings etc. Certain people (either deliberately or accidentally as part their workflow in processing images) strip this metadata from their photos, which means that the info is lost. Hope that helps. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I'm still none the wiser but now in relation to what the need for this is... I've never seen that and thus taken any interest in it so no idea what use it is... Ta for trying to explain it though! Gazhiley (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely fail to see how this should have any bearing whatsoever on an FP's ability to pass or fail; frankly, from the perspective of an unphotographicly-minded person, this seems unneeded even in the picture space it occupies. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • There is too much ground between being ok and making the picture ineligible. The latter is to harsh a consequence, but I am not willing to sign that I think it is ok either. It sucks, it should be at least frowned upon. It takes away educational value from the image. To learn from other photographers EXIF data should be supplied. --Dschwen 16:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it is good practice for photographers to submit camera metadate of their own images. Sometimes the images are from a third party (ie flickr) and the camera data is not available, but this should not exclude images from a third party being eligible for FP. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not uploading the maximum resolution available...

[edit]
...is a flaw and needs to be addressed
[edit]
  • Moral support; I suppor this in principle, knowing it will never happen. upstateNYer 01:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support. --Dschwen 16:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but as I said below, there is no way to know what is the full size of the picture, due to cropping (which is often necessary) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Changed my mind, see below --- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in view of my comments added to Upstate's comment below... Gazhiley (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is 2010, 12MP point and shoot cameras are available at walmart for less than $80 now. There is no reason to be uploading extremely scaled down images and expect us to approve them as FPs. This is why I supported AT LEAST 2MP to be accepted as a FP (with exceptions of course for irreplaceable historic images, etc..). — raeky (talk | edits) 18:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several issues here. Candidate images get reduced in size for multiple reasons. Some are acceptable, some not, and some reveal deeper issues. Cropping is generally acceptable, as long as you have enough resolution after the crop. Scaling (reducing the size) because you want to keep a higher res copy for yourself (e.g. for commercial purposes), well, I think that's not really with the ethos of Wikipedia. (I'd like to know what others think). The other issue is that scaling is also done to hide poor focus or artifacts which can only been seen when viewing a very large image at 1:1. I think it's unfair and silly that an image might be accepted if it's submitted at, say, 2000x1300 where no problems can be seen, but the same image would be rejected if submitted at 6000x4000 where a 100% viewing can be more revealing. But I've seen this happen. The extra resolution should be considered a bonus, not a burden. When considering a very large image, you should also consider it at the minimum acceptable size (e.g. 2 megapixel) when it makes sense to do so. (e.g. a large map image should still be considered at 1:1 because the detail is important, whereas a 25-megapixel portrait should not be required to pass 1:1 scrutinization). Summary: Crops OK. Larger images sizes should be encouraged. —Pengo 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...is not a problem
[edit]
  • Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unless it's historic material, obviously) Jujutacular T · C 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Muhammad(talk) 17:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh... as long as it's satisfactory. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to increase the minimum size requirement, too many practical problems with enforcing this idea. Fletcher (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I myself always upload the highest-possible resolution for a file, I also don't make money on the side for my photos, so I can sympathize with those whose photos do serve as a source of income. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's to say what the maximum resolution available is? With stitched panoramas, it might be cumbersome to upload a 20,000px wide image, and what if you don't want to do perspective correction at 20,000px due to computing limitations. Not to mention that most panoramas, and plenty of single images as well, require perspective correction, distortion correction, or other digital manipulations that regionally effect the true resolution of an image. So should this criteria be expressed as: "The portion of the image having undergone the most, if any, digital magnification, must be at native resolution for upload". Such that no portion of the image is larger than native resolution. The other way to look at it would be that no portion of the image can be smaller than native resolution, such that the part of the image undergoing the most de-magnification would be upsampled to native resolution, making other parts of the image even more-up-sampled. This doesn't even get into the problem of scanned film images, where the native resolution is entirely debatable. Some modern large format film plates could reasonably be scanned at 6000dpi while some old prints might have no more film information available beyond 400dpi. So, yeah, I think this proposition is unenforceable, vague, and unnecessary. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benjamint 02:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone else finds a better resolution available, should just post that in the ongoing nominee, that´s all. If someone deliberately nominate a lower resolution version (which I find hard to happen) and that picture reaches featured status per quorum, it´s ok, the picture has proven to be worthy even when not at its maximum. And anyway, it can be replaced anytime by a better one if desired. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not ideal, but I respect the fact that some photographers make commercial use of their pictures. NauticaShades 15:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • No way to determine what is the best resolution available. Cropping is a normal practise (e.g. in macro). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're talking about about downsampling here. If a crop is made of the highest rez version, then that crop is still the highest rez version, no? upstateNYer 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's certainly the way I understood the question... It should be the highest poss resolution of whatever the final image is - whether cropped or not... Gazhiley (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it's also very difficult to determine if a photo has been downsampled. The biggest problem with this proposition is that we will be hard-pressed to know is a photo is full resolution, especially in the case of stitched images. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "maximum resolution" has been taken a little too literally. I'm sure the spirit of the question is not intended to cover gigantic and unwieldy panoramas or require precise maximum out-of-camera resolutions. As it hasn't been taken that way, I'll sit here for now. Maedin\talk 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and the valid point remains that it's not possible to determine whether it's been downsampled, and to what degree. We can never be sure how cropped the image was prior to downsampling either. In the case of telephoto or macro photos, sometimes it's absolutely necessary to crop to fill the frame with the subject, so we can't always expect Muhammad or Noodle Snacks' photos (singling them out as they tend to be the focus of the frustration over downsampling, and of course Fir0002 in the past) to be the native resolution of their cameras. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Am I not correct that this proposal suggests that 'down-sampling would be reason enough for opposition'?? I suppose I'm a bit confused as to what the spirit of this proposed criterion is actually. We already have a pretty hard-and-fast size requirement for images that are simply too small, regardless of native resolution. It's already a legitimate reason for opposition if an image is judged as being subjectively to small (ie. "this image just doesn't have the resolution necessary for a landscape"). So what are we changing or fixing? It's a solution looking for a problem. Is the goal to prevent Fir0002-esq commercial-use protection? In that case its unenforceable, one could just lie by saying: "Yeah my image is only 2.1 megapixels, but I had to crop it, do some perspective correction, and thats the biggest file I was left with"... etc. etc. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that this is a poll, not a proposal. Its objective is to document community opinion on matters of current or persistent interest are relevant to the operation of FPC. This is the first stage of a two-stage process. The next stage will include proposals and open discussion. To keep matters organised, long discussions at this stage may get folded into the hide template. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria...

[edit]
Multiple answers permitted and encouraged
...should be different for historical vs. contemporary images
[edit]
...should be different for photographs vs. other images (animations, diagrams, drawings, sketches, paintings, renderings)
[edit]
Used on Commons.
...should be created individually for each subject category
[edit]
e.g. wildlife, macro wildlife, landscape, panorama, portrait, ...
...should be the same for all categories
[edit]
i.e. nothing specific is needed for any one given category
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • A universal set of criteria will be impossible to obtain since there are always exceptions made to said criteria for issues like notability or historical significance. By the same token, allowing individual groups to create their own criteria results in the FP process forfeiting any Wikipedia wide hold it has on the FP circuit - this in effect would make the FPC process the new A-class, as projects would adopt a criteria that works best/exclusively for their images an no one else's. What we need here isn't criteria, its common sense: the idea of a featured picture will differ from one person to another, and I think it best that those individual standards be used instead of criteria. The only possible exception I would make to this perspective would be for matters relating to Wikipedia's policies and/or guidelines in general; for example, the disqualification of fair use images (which I should note I disagree with on grounds that an image's FP status should no revolve around the matter of who own the copyright to it; its being used on an encyclopedia, not a internet news network) falls out side the criteria since this is a matter that relates to existing policy/guideline pages already on site, and should be handled according to said policies/guidelines. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comment above, universal criteria is not an option. Furthermore, I do not support the creation of a criteria for each subject category (third option above), since some can be merged and certain criteria could apply to more than one category (for example: landscapes, wildlife and portraits). - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributed questions for immediate response

[edit]

When I weak support or weak oppose I would like...

[edit]
...my (!)vote to be interpreted as a full support or oppose
[edit]
...my (!)vote to be interpreted as a weaker support or oppose
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
  • A feature picture really needs to have some full support. Weak support is often a sign that there's something wrong, or the image is borderline. I don't think that's addressed properly with the "half a vote" system. Having a lot of weak support shouldn't qualify an image if there's no regular support. —Pengo 17:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

...where "weaker support" or "weaker oppose" means...

[edit]
...a support or oppose that counts 1/2 of a full one
[edit]
...(please add other suggestions)
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]


When FP size criteria are raised...

[edit]
...any old FPs not satisfying the criteria should be nominated for delisting
[edit]
...old FPs can stay
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Exceptions were made at the previous size-based FP purge, ...

[edit]
...so the old exceptions can stay
[edit]
...so the old exceptions can stay and new exceptions can be made
[edit]
...but the old exceptions could also be re-evaluated
[edit]
...but this time, we shouldn't delist any
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

The delist nomination period...

[edit]
...should be of fixed duration, no late votes accepted
[edit]
Note: Commons uses a template that automatically displays an "expired" notice after a pre-defined time period.
...should closed roughly on time with any late votes accepted
[edit]
...is subject to a minimum period and waiting for quorum
[edit]
...is subject to waiting for quorum only
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Duration for delist nominations should be...

[edit]
Options here are based on the observation that they often do stay around for longer than promote nominations.
...7 days
[edit]
Supposed status quo as per instructions.
...9 days
[edit]
...10 days
[edit]
...2 weeks
[edit]
...3 weeks
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]


The nominator's support...

[edit]
This refers back to questions above about vote counting and quorum
...should always be considered towards the vote total or consensus
[edit]
...should never be considered towards the vote total or consensus
[edit]
...should only be considered when the nominator is not the creator
[edit]
...should only be considered when the nominator is not the creator or editor (at the time of nomination)
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]
  • I mostly agree with what Julian said below. The nominator obviously thinks the picture is good. His/her argument matters for consensus and consensus (not vote count) is what really matters. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's or editor's support...

[edit]
...should always be considered towards the vote total or consensus
[edit]
...should never be considered towards the vote total or consensus
[edit]
...should not be considered unless the edit was created after the start of the nomination
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Nominations without quorum should be dealt with by...

[edit]
...closing and renominating
[edit]
...extending the nomination period
[edit]
...closing with a possibility to renominate
[edit]
Neutral
[edit]
  • Honestly, I feel it depends - sometimes an extra day or two may yield results needed to close, sometime I think it better the image just be closed without prejudice toward renomination. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the situation, I think. A nomination placed in the 'additional input' section might well receive the necessary support (or opposition) within a day or two. NauticaShades 15:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
[edit]
Don't agree with the way the question is phrased
[edit]

Contributed questions for the second round

[edit]

I'm not a featured picture regular, so I don't know if this has been debated before, but I submit this question: Should a featured picture director be appointed similar to Raul's position at FAC? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For those without any understanding of his role, could you explain how this would work at FPC? What exactly does he do? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 08:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raul schedules articles for the main page and determines consensus among FAC's. That job is sort of split here: Howcheng schedules images for the main page, and various members of the community determine consensus in FPC's. It's an interesting suggestion - FLC and FAC have "directors", why shouldn't we? The community can outline our process for closing (as we're now doing), then a director (along with a couple "delegates" as there are at FAC and FLC) could carry out that process. Perhaps it would minimize controversy. Then again it could backfire - targeting controversy on one person. Jujutacular T · C 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC and FPC are quite different, though. At FAC the emphasis is on judging whether an objection has been addressed. Since most nominations at FPC are not edited during the process, final consensus is a more straightforward matter of weighing total support against opposition. Chick Bowen 19:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, there's currently no problem to fix. If we see a problem arising, we can fix it. Right now, I say we stick to, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." upstateNYer 21:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Review_of_closure_process_2&oldid=1123114018"