Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Nomination drive

If VPC wants to be self sustaining then we need enough nominations to maintain interest. I'd suggest that everyone interested nominate a few images per week. I've been just doing it as part of my usual reading. The FPC archives might be a good source of images. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but I guess we'd also not want to look like it was just a closed circle. I have felt for a long time the big issue here is voters, rather than noms, i.e., things were reasonably strong a while back in terms of noms, but people weren't voting. I'm not sure if that was because people felt the criteria were too airy-fairy or what, but I think when people nominated, had their noms closed with 'no quorum', they probably got to the point of saying 'what's the point' and gave up. Personally, I'd probably rather have a nom fail with good arguments against it than just sit there and fail by not attracting votes (not that I want my noms to fail at all :-), but at least if it gets shot down I know people have bothered to look at it). I have thought of a number of ideas, none of which are that great, but that would try to get more voting at least until business picks up and things are more self-sustaining. Say something along the lines of saying that 'for every image you nom you have to vote on two others' or 'lets get a group of say ten interested users and everyone agrees to vote on every nom (whether support, oppose, or at least neutral/comment, it doesn't matter, but make a statement)'. I don't really know, but perhaps if the action picked up a bit it would make things seem a bit more interesting and more people would want to keep coming back for a look, and then hopefully to get involved. --jjron (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the lack of awareness and acknowledgment. Unlike FPC, main page, VPC doesn't show up anywhere. I'm still trying to get a VP to a portal. I made Portal:Primates in a special way where the selected pictures are marked with a bronze star for FP or the VP logo for VPs. ZooFari 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I already use fungal VPs on Portal:Fungi alongside FPs, and that is a featured portal. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And that's a good start, but I would like the bronze star or VP logo used like in the primates portal. It makes it visually appealing and would inspire much more nominations. I hope portals are made like that in the future... ZooFari 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly Zoofari is right though in his original comment. VPC doesn't really show up anywhere, it's really just a self-recognition thing when someone opens the image. Is this a reason why things are quiet? Is this actually really a problem even if true? If so, is there a solution? (FWIW I don't think the suggestion someone made once with sharing the POTD with FPs is at all likely in the near future). --jjron (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another issue: Unlike FP, the VP template does not show up on Commons. Since there's no bot that would exchange templates between Wikipedia and Commons, we should move the template to Commons. ZooFari 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we could probably just have it added to the Assessments template at Commons so it's there as well. That template is updated by Dustybot, Wronkiew's bot over there, for FPs, but unfortunately, he seems to have gone missing, since Dustybot isn't updating the FPCUrgents template. wadester16 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal- Number of articles and time limit

I think the number of articles has much better emphasis on EV than the one-month time limit. How about knocking the time limit off and propose a required number of articles? I'd say it would be much better and easier, IMO. ZooFari 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree: I've always felt this way; I believe that a picture is really valued if it has multiple uses. Hence my collection of robust VPs. The time, to me, seems negligible. wadester16 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The way it is now works well. Cacophony (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also disagree, but then again that time limit thing was one of my original proposals. FWIW I have commented regularly both here and at FPC about article spamming, and I feel any criteria that suggested an image had to be in multiple articles, or implied 'the more the better', would be doing nothing but encouraging article spamming. That's my real objection (I'm not just being cantankerous :-) ). --jjron (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well there is also the other way. Propose a number of articles and a time limit for those. ZooFari 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure I understand. That would seem to make no one happy - people that don't like time limit wouldn't be happy cos now they'd have multiple time limits, people that don't like article spamming wouldn't be happy cos you've also enshrined that... Am I misreading? --jjron (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

VPCold template

Either {{VPCold}} needs to go on the image talk page or it needs to categorize the images. I, personally, don't care which, although for consistency with the former featured picture candidate templates, it should probably go on the talk page. But one or the other has to be done. If you create an image description page for a Commons image and that description page doesn't contain a category, it adds the image to Special:Uncategorizedimages. This page is an important maintenance tool for finding copyvio images and it needs to be kept clear of commons images. --B (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't quite understand the purpose of VPCold. Does anyone use it? Why? I'd be inclined to just delete the template and delete the en:wiki image page when the nom is finished if not promoted and it doesn't get the VP notification (as is, or at least used to be, done at FPC). --jjron (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't even know we had one of those for FPC, but apparently somebody uses it. I think both are useless. wadester16 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that FPCold was created in 2006: Revision history of Template:FPCold. I would have been around then but I can't remember any discussion about it, though I possibly wasn't really involved at FPC Talk. Regardless, I can't remember it really being used. However checking through Pages that link to "Template:FPCold" it seems that Radiant chains went on a drive around late April adding it to failed FPCs, and also created VPCold at the same time. I don't know why. Personally I think the lot should be deleted; I can see little to no point in tagging failed candidates. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Have left Radiant a note on his talkpage asking him to comment. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to just delete the template and delete the en:wiki image page when the nom is finished if not promoted and it doesn't get the VP notification - This is what I think the best option would be. As for why I created the template: I was active going through Special:Uncategorizedimages, looking for copyvios. However, I found that many images were commons images. I marked many of them for deletion, but I faced backlash from several users and admins - they claimed that things like VPC and FPC nominations were "valuable history" that we shouldn't get rid of. Perhaps we could just have the template place the images in a category - I posted on several talk pages as well as the village pump looking for consensus, but I never got many replies. I actually started a list of commons dupes instead of marking them for deletion, so that way it would be easier for admins to look through - the response I got from a few was that "we cant just go deleting image pages like crazy. we'll have to go through the list one-by-one and it just wouldn't be worth the time." I had made it my goal to clear out all the commons dupes from special:uncategorized images, but I couldn't find much help. Perhaps now it's a better time to do so. Radiant chains (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, here's the original discussion between me and User:Amalthea. Checking back to most of the old dupe images I've found, most of them have since been deleted. I still think the best solution would be to either have the image be automatically categorized, or, even better, just note the nomination on the talk page. Then, the en.wikipedia local image page could be deleted, which would probably result in less clutter. Like jjron, I too find the templates useless, but apparently some people find them quite useful. Radiant chains (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Failed noms are meant to be tagged with {{db-f2}} by closers (used to be {{missing image}}), which is meant to bring about a speedy deletion of the unnecessary image page. Did something go wrong with that process somewhere along the track? Re the history argument, that is maintained anyway - all nominations are archived, and the images retain a link to their nominations through the File Links section. Perhaps those you contacted didn't understand the process. --jjron (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no more beaurcracy. Some images don't have it and just causes confusion and that template does not have any honors to FP. Just creating unneeded pages at Wikipedia and I don't like the idea of categories either. Why would people find failed FPCs? Why would we have an FP template and a FPCold template at the same time? No good reason at all. Both templates at both projects are useless and I suggest creating a discussion over there about getting rid of it. ZooFari 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Time frame for renomination

So, if a VP nomination fails because nobody bothers to say anything at all, positive or negative, about the image, how long should the nominator wait before trying again? Bencherlite^Talk 09:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. There are no rules on it. It's your decision. upstateNYer 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the nomination received a grand total of zero comments despite being up for three weeks in total, I've got the message and closed the renomination myself. Thanks everyone. Bencherlite^Talk 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Preventing MFD

It looks like some featured pictures people feel that the valued picture candidates people have been fishing in FP waters. I can see where they're coming from.

Wikipedia is supposed to be a non-zero sum game, where projects don't need to compete with each other. I think we can alter VPC slightly so that things don't get tangled with FP so much, and incidentally might give VPC more success. Is anyone opposed to this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Share your ideas. Though I think people mention VPC in good faith: it's not canvassing or fishing, it's offering a legitimate suggestion and opinion, which is what is needed at FPC (expanded opinions and thorough reviews). The most recent mention came from someone who wasn't around at the last MFD. The rest of us bite our tongues lest we get crucified again. upstateNYer 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late. upstateNYer 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ayup, That's what I'm talking about. :-/ Well, it's never too late. We might be able to convince the nominator to withdraw, for instance. :-)

Can I ask a question? I see that a picture can't be VP and FP at the same time? Why was that approach chosen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take part in the creation of VPC, but I would assume it was to prevent legitimate turf wars. upstateNYer 23:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So who created VPC?

And ... would it be ok if I changed that, so that a picture can be both VP and FP at the same time? That would change the dynamics from a de-facto zero sum game into a potential cooperation. <scratches head> Does that sound like a good plan? I think some FP regulars might take it a bit easier with the MfD thing, if they saw that change, because they will see it as a step towards cooperation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Elucidate actually created the page, and User:Intothewoods29 was very active at the beginning also. Both rarely edit on Wikipedia any more. I have no objection to your plan, but I would presume that the idea would go over even worse with the opposition to VPC. upstateNYer 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

May I weigh in? A change to allow recognition in both projects would be a substantial improvement. With historic media the overwhelming challenge is access. VP has had several problems, the biggest of which is its encroachment on historic media. Institutions have been willing to donate thousands of encyclopedic medium resolution images with the hope that a selection of high resolution material would be restored by volunteer labor and perhaps spend a day on the main page. The impression VP has created with historic media editors is of a parasitic program that threatens to create setbacks to progress. When we've raised these issues before the responses have been openly scornful. Since the last round of MFD two respected museums in The Netherlands have partnered with WMF: Tropenmuseum and Spaarnestad. So here's hoping that resolves your earlier skepticism about whether we were serious and credible. If the existence of VP didn't function as a shunt to keep important historic media off the main page, it would be much less destructive. I still wouldn't be convinced it does much good, but I'd no longer regard it as a cancer that needs to be excised. Durova³²¹ 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This viewpoint still has no significant proof and most likely never will. There is not a shred of evidence that implies that the existence of VP remotely affects the willingness of media holders to release their archives. Indeed VP is so small that probably 100% of them don't even know it exists. And it still comes down to how the WMF plays its cards. Do they say, "Well, we have a number of "picture" programs and there is a chance that the democratic group at FPC on Wikipedia may not accept your image on EV grounds, so you could [for example] end up on the Main Page of Commons." When I ask sources for media, I don't promise them WP Main Page, I promise them recognition on the image page and mention that the image could be honored by our various picture programs – if the users agree with me – with a small possibility of WP FP. There's always the chance that image may only end up as a QI at Commons, which never makes even Commons' Main Page. I really don't know how WMF is enticing sources without implicitly lying to them if their only play is WP Main Page. If this is a cancer, it is the most benign seen by mankind. upstateNYer 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put this another way. Featured pictures run on the main page; valued pictures do not. I can and do share traffic statistics that Wikipedia's main page received an average of nearly 6 million page views per day in August.[1] By contrast, The New York Times sells 23 million copies per month. These are numbers curators understand. It's a very persuasive argument for openness, but we can only make that argument for FP--never for VP. Of course there are no guarantees for selection; the relevant caveats are always included in the discussion. But the specific encroachment of VP upon FP candidates and existing FPs does present a problem. If VP recognition were not a barrier to FP recognition, that obstacle would be removed.

On a related note, it really is difficult to hold a discussion with someone who persistently asserts that disagreement with his own viewpoint is equivalent to fabrication. Shoemaker's Holiday and I have contributed hundreds of featured pictures; we have no reason to mislead you. During the last MFD a member of the board of directors of WMF UK stepped forward to substantiate our assertions, and the head of the Open Progress Foundation did so also. You expressed disbelief that museums would talk to us at all, and now that we have actual partnerships you suppose they arose through deceit. Please consider withdrawing that part of your statement; it is a very serious accusation. I assure you the fear it expresses is baseless. Durova³²¹ 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I'd jump into this conversation since you obviously have already mentioned me. Forgetting that I haven't got a good idea what a "MFD" is that y'all are talking about, I'd like to assert that since VP and FP are seperate entities, VP disqualifying an image from being FP and not being on the main page, with that setup any image someone might think is good will be ran through FP first, to not do so isn't logical. If it fails FP then it can be brought to VP. But why in the WORLD would anyone run an image through VP before trying to see if it meets FP quality. First thing I notice is that absoutely AMAZING images that have been nominated here, like this one, presumably do not pass because no one is watching and voting here. Images, like this, do not pass due to unreasonable requests and not enough votes from people who understand the science. Both images are amazing and highly EV. But failed likely do to almost zero traffic at VP. Actually the first Parachute image probably is FP quality and definitely worth a nomination. As for the image you criticized I posted to FP, the opposes are basically all centered around lack of understanding of what is being shown in the image, read Durova's most recent comment about it to understand the technical difficulty to create a shot like that. Anyway my point is that why would anyone go to VP first before trying FP with the current rules and there is clearly not enough people participating in VP to make it even worth it looking at the archives (and I just looked at the current month and September). — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Figured out what a MFD was and commented, considering y'all linked it here. :P — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Regular FPC users know what can and can't make it as an FP. There are many photos that are highly valuable encycolpedically, but won't make it at FPC. Here's a few: Rensselaerswyck map, SUNY Building, Chicago, etc. These images never would have made it at FPC; I needn't go to WP:PPR to be told that. Obviously borderline images would go to FPC first. upstateNYer 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• It seems I spend too much of my typing time here responding to your false accusations, leaving us from the real issues at hand, but here you go: I never said I don't believe you can get educational institutions to release their contents; I offer you a full-on apology and barnstar for finding the quote that proves it (unequivocally, not in some gray way) - not sure how you think I could make a comment like that after the German archives were released (unless you doubt my basic intelligence?)... I mean come on. I also don't suggest "fabrication" nor have I said you do your work wrapped in deceit. My point is that if you're making Main Page promises to get potential donors, without fully explaining the democracy that decides on FP, in addition to the other pictures programs at Commons, that's not right. I'm sure you do a great job working on getting these media donated, but name/title dropping on me isn't helping your case. It doesn't change the fact that VPC does not negatively affect FPC in any way. I see no proof because you and the users that agree with you offer no proof. The burden of proof on MFD is for the nominator (this was a very big issue at the last MFD, with many users not being satisfied with sufficient evidence); mentions of VPC within various FPCs is not the fault of the VPC program, but of the users. And following that logic, allowing the comments at FPC is not the fault of the users, but the FPC project, I said in the last MFD that maybe FPC should make a "No VPC comments" rule. Rather than jumping to such drastic measures, maybe a simple rule would solve your problem. upstateNYer 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • We'd have to go through that long MFD to get the exact quotes and context. You didn't seem to ever deny that cultural institutions might release material to WMF, nor have I ever attributed that position to you. It was more a tenor of persistent disbelief at the notion that the editors who were directly in contact with you onsite might actually be the ones conducting the negotiations. Even within this thread, you appear to frame the response around a supposition the Wikimedia Foundation itself conducting these talks. They're barely involved firsthand at all; it was the German chapter that negotiated with Bundesarchiv. We wish WMF had the staff to become more hands-on, believe me. ;) Again, please withdraw the mistaken assertions about what I am or am not communicating to these institutions. That appears to be based upon a misreading of my original statement, and clarification has already been provided. This is a serious matter and your suppositions on that point are in danger of derailing productive avenues of discussion. Durova³²¹ 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • In an effort to show proof in my previous statement, I did go through the old MFD; making a strong, evidenced statement takes a little time and research. You've already successfully derailed the conversation, especially by not responding with proof of your accusations or beliefs. Not sure how else you expected me to interpret "You expressed disbelief that museums would talk to us at all..."; I never made any such assertion. I have no doubt that it is single users here that can and do get donations; I've gotten donations myself. That is a moot point and please don't bring it up again, lest we waste even more time. This discussion is about how VP hurts FP. I still await your explanation, with evidence. A response to the simple solution of not allowing VPC mentions at FPC would be nice too, considering it seems to solve everyone's problem. And to clear up a misinterpretation (my fault), by WMF, I meant anyone at all related to it, including any editor here or at Commons; I don't mean to credit the actual Foundation for gains made by individual users. I'll be clearer in the future on that point. upstateNYer 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • It comes as a surprise how personally you appear to take this; the tone of the reaction leaves me at a loss for how to participate in a manner acceptable to you at all. Let's not reduce this to he said/she said; this isn't a battle of personalities. The underlying issue here is that access is the principal challenge to historic media content. Our primary need is not a process to distinguish the good from the great, but basic access to good material. This factor affects the area in ways that contributors to other areas can hardly imagine, and I've endeavored to understand your perspective and explain this to you. Let's take one example: remember the Mission San Juan Capistrano nomination from several months ago? It's incredibly hard to glean good historical media about my own geographic area. When you first declined to reconsider your borderline closure I pleaded with you to reconsider; you expressed optimism that other nominations would follow. I already knew what a dearth of material existed in open sources but was unable to persuade you a problem existed; in half a year's time nothing else has surfaced. So another editor and I are making plans to visit the next county (the counties in this part of the country are very large) and hold a conference with the mission's staff in hopes of obtaining additional context to enhance the encyclopedic value of the image. Really, I've knocked on doors. I've sent press releases to the regional newspapers without success. The local historical societies are unusually gunshy: what's needed to move forward with serious negotiations is one more example, and in this regard I've spent months in a holding pattern principally because of you (yes, you as an individual). Each time I answer one of your concerns it's as if you move the goalposts. You aren't the focus: the goal is access to the millions of images in the historical society archives. I've been groping for months for a polite way to express that you have been merely the obstacle. Durova³²¹ 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I think that statement proves it is you making this a personal matter. Your efforts in getting material have absolutely nothing to do with VPC. You have yet to show evidence. And I never made one edit to your Mission nom; I assume you're mixing up your photocroms. And I can't believe you're still so sore about a nom that ran for 10 days and even went 5 days before getting its last support, and short of the 4 support minimum. It's not my fault there was lack of interest. If you're so sore about it (or other ones, as you obviously are) nom it again! It's really not difficult and I would think sufficient time has gone by. But you can't honestly tell me that I am the factor that holds you back in your efforts, that I (or VPC for that matter) is the weight on your shoulder when you discuss options with these places. It has everything to do with groups not wanting to release; trust me, I know exactly what you mean about local historical societies being unreasonably gun-shy. I'm working on my own local one to release useful images for articles and they are worried about (of all things) fewer people visiting them. I'm trying my best to say it politely that you can't have fewer than 0 visitors in a month. But you placing this blame on me and this program is absolutely ludicrous. You've explained and reiterated your points so many times, each time I completely understood what you were saying, but each time I was not convinced. It's all hearsay and complaining with no hard evidence. I can't believe you would bring this to the level of blaming me for your problems. upstateNYer 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Heh, you're right about that example. Should've double checked before selecting it. But seriously, have another look at your own statement for tone. Goes over more like the student debater who gloats over scoring a point in competition than a serious editorial discussion. Whether or not it's intentional, over time that does leave the impression of habitual antagonism. Is it really so surprising that some of the site's most dedicated media editors have given up on consensus and nominated this process for deletion twice? The specific thing that brought me to this thread the post where you speculated that Kim Bruning's suggested solution would antagonize the historic media editors. So I responded to say that it would actually resolve a key problem--not enough to make me a supporter of VP but enough to tolerate it. The discussion could have moved toward resolution on that basis, and could still take that direction. If you want to shake hands and get back to content that'd be great. But if you prefer to continue discussion please take a more constructive route such as explaining why you support this process so ardently. Durova³²² 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I did in fact think that Kim's suggestion would stir up even more of a battle over VP if the rules changed the way she proposed, but apparently I was wrong; I have no objection to it, and if you don't, it seems we can make at least some progress. But you asking to take a more constructive route is surprising, considering you've now blamed me for any issues you're having with gaining media donations and have yet to give sufficient reasons for destroying VPC. Your expression of animosity toward the program due to getting content is all well and good, if you can support the claim answering the questions of "Why?" and "How?". In the four months since our first grand debate, you have yet to fulfill that need, which is why I'm not the only one that disagrees with this. Rather than always dropping the "the two most prolific historic image restorationists..." line, maybe you should consider that well more than two people disagree with this proposal, even after considering your repeated arguments. upstateNYer 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Thank you for at least a little agreement. I still have no idea why you support this program. Have presented my own position in a variety of ways, which it seems you quote mine for purposes of rebuttal. Do you actually have positive arguments in favor of VP? About the only case for it I've seen from anybody is to create an analog to the GA program, but that analogy doesn't hold up very well. If there are inherent reasons for VP to exist then I'm willing to hear them. Durova³²² 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
                • VP offers less-than-perfect photographers, along with other users just strolling the wiki, to get some recognition for their work, especially if they've produced an image that is exceptionally well used, but doesn't hold up to the FP requirements. I do think of it as a GA, not really caring about the comparison made regarding that a GA can typically be improved to FA because it's text. Yes, true, but there's still almost three times as many GAs as FAs, which shows you that not all of them are updated (indeed many editors stop at GA considering that step to be "good enough"). One argument against VP is that it has no point because it doesn't make it to the Main Page. Does that make me start an MFD on WP:FSC? Of course not. Once in a blue moon, a featured sound will make it to the main page, but only in conjunction with a related image. All of that said, it' doesn't matter why anybody likes it or takes part it in; they just do. It also doesn't matter why because the reason for an MFD is for the nominator to present relevant evidence for deletion, proving why it's bad for the wiki. So far nobody has done that, including you. And you're reiterating your claim that VP hurts historic media editors again below in your debate with Christopher Parham, and just like every other time, you are not telling us why or how it is negatively affecting you, only that it is. Reread all of your permutations of this claim on the wiki and find me one (you won't) where you actually answer why and how the program is derailing. If VP were deleted now, how would that affect anything regarding voting on FPC? How would it affect your ability to get media? It wouldn't. This is a user issues, and the users wouldn't change. Also, arguing for grey-area noms to be given extra slack or even reversed because you're intentions are "more important" than the rest of ours isn't within the FPC criteria. But then again, it's obvious that me and my cabal are only here to make your life miserable anyway, because it's all about you. upstateNYer 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • Comparison to featured sounds is an exceptionally poor way to make a case for VP. In order to make room for featured sounds I've offered to take all of my featured pictures out of the queue, so that sounds could reach the main page with minimal impact on anyone else's work. Have you made that offer? Has anyone else? Sounds don't bubble to the main page by force of osmosis; they reach there (even at featured level) because a dedicated core of volunteers makes sacrifices. Please cease the ad hominem and non sequitur; it reads like you're playing to the crowd rather than answering serious questions. Durova³²² 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • You're kidding, right? Section 5 of the Main Page is "Today's Featured Picture". Only 4 sounds (now here's me doing research to find evidence to prove a point) have made it to the Main Page as a supplement (not stand-alone) to POTD since January (Nixon, Au Clair de la Lune, Piano Sonata No. 28, Propaganda of Spanish-American War). That's four days out of a possible 282: a measly 1.4%. If you're making sacrifices, it would be interesting to know where. I don't really care whether you are or aren't, but if you're going to make the claim, it would warrant evidence based on my findings above. Therefore FS is essentially in the same realm as VP; nothing comes from them being promoted, only additions to a page that collects them all. Oh wait, it also offers users a way of compiling some of the project's most valued works, and brings general happiness, enjoyment, and intellectual stimulation to its users - interesting. And before you start going off saying that I want to decommission FS, I'll make it clear that that's not what I'm saying here; I'm simply being devil's advocate to show the close current relationship between the statuses of VP and FS. upstateNYer 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I hope that FP is WP:NOT democratic, that would be a problem (long story), but not something we're dealing with today.

For now, tell you what, let's not get into who did bad things to whom, and just try to reach a solution for the future.

I think 2 minor changes at VPC would get the FP regulars to take a much more friendly view towards VPC. Would people at VPC agree to these?

1. (Remove a rule): A picture can be both a Featured Picture and a Valued picture at the same time. (This removes the (perception of) competition, and allows for cooperation moving forward)
2. (Change in focus): Valued Pictures are pictures with the largest encyclopedic value, (regardless of quality?). (By altering the focus somewhat, folks don't end up stepping on each others' toes so often)

These seem fairly logical to me, but I haven't talked number 2 through with everyone yet, so these might not be perfect yet. Can we do even better?

Also, is there some way in which FPC can improve?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FPC is essentially a democracy, especially after the reworking a few months ago (where it was made clear that almost no votes would be discounted). But this is the way it should be, per the need for consensus. I agree fully with your suggestion above. I think #2 should be amended to include a common-sense minimum for quality (we don't want absolute crap): "Valued Pictures are pictures with the largest encyclopedic value, with a common-sense minimum for quality". This is essentially how I have been voting at VPC anyway. upstateNYer 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, noted!  :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) (Democracy is not Consensus, in the same way that dictatorship is not democracy. But like I said, potential disenfranchisement at FPC is an issue for another day. :-)

FPC is the most democratic process at Wikipedia, if you ask me, especially after the rift (and dramafest) in June, where several editors were upset about nomination closers and their ability to interpret consensus. The process mainly removed discretion in the act of closing, making this a true democracy, and not a consensus-based system. And regardless, whatever WP:NOT says regarding democracy fails the common sense test, no matter how loved and engrained within the system is: as an elected member of a legislative body, I know that consensus is the second truest form of democracy anyway. With respect to actual voting at the table, the only difference is that with consensus, you can have the rare opportunity to become a benevolent dictator when necessary, to reintroduce common sense into people. That ability does not exist at FPC, therefore discussion revolves around, and the outcome is determined by, votes (and not !votes). upstateNYer 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think our understandings of consensus are very different. In the context of an online community with open participation, a democratic system is very vulnerable to multiple avenues of attack (and the "attackers" might not even realize that they're doing something bad) . I end up explaining diverse aspects of the system we're using to people every couple of months or so. In this case I think robustness is an issue. We should probably discuss that elsewhere though. I think we're in agreement on the basic issues on this page now! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, FPC is essentially a democracy due to complaints by a few users in June about borderline closings (i.e. making that necessary executive decision when determining consensus in difficult situations). Shoemaker's Holiday, the nominator of the MFD, actually proposed to make strict vote counting the rule at FPC at the end of July (proposal failed). Now he is one of the main closers. I haven't really investigated his closings (if I had time like that I'd keep closing noms anyway), but for all we know he could be following that method anyway. I assume nothing really grey has gone through yet since closed noms are posted now and users can read them; nobody has yet complained... but maybe that's because he errs on the side of promotion (you wouldn't complain if your 3.5 supported nom passed, would you?)? upstateNYer 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed removal in number 1. There's a good reason why FPs can't be VPs. ZooFari 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright; can you explain what that reason is? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Because FPs are like super-VPs. They have all the EV, but they're higher quality. Aside from VPs not needing to be of the highest quality, they must also have been in the article for a month. But this is a minor concern: any image that passes at FPC is going to end up being in the article for a long time, even if it hasn't been in there for a month yet. So to make a current FP a VP as well would do nothing but say "this has been in the article for a month." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, and that's pretty much harmless, correct? On the other hand, explicitly saying "an FP is not allowed to be a VP" turns FPC/VPC into a textbook zero sum game, and that's not so harmless (never play a zero sum game if you can avoid it).

The #2 change is that I'd like to make FP and VP be just slightly different, so that FP's are not quite super-VPs anymore. This should attract more people to VPC, and cause less friction with FPC (hopefully :-) )

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say pointless rather than harmless. The idea behind this rule was to stop images needlessly piling up templates on their image page, and pointlessly running through both processes for no reason. Around the time VP was first floated there were some suggestions to abolish WP:FPC and centralise things at Commons, partly for these same reasons. That didn't go a long way at the time, but could return, especially if editors see success at getting VP deleted on trumped-up reasons.

VP was basicallly meant as a recognition of highly encyclopaedically valuable images that lacked the quality to be FPs - if the image was improved or a better version found then there was never anything to prevent it being 'promoted' to FP, but there was and is little point in it being both.

What you probably don't realise is that almost all participants at VP/VPC are also involved at FPC and originate there. There is no competition and plenty of cooperation (given the same people are involved). Having said which, to be honest I'm struggling to see a lot of point in VP atm, I'd see even less point with your proposed changes, but I won't support it being deleted for phoney reasons. --jjron (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a "zero sum game" type situation...it's like if you ruled nobody could own both a Kia and a Ferrari at the same time, in theory this might create a zero sum competition but in reality it wouldn't. Everyone who could afford a car would get the Kia, unless they could afford the Ferrari, in which case they would buy that. The two simply can't compete because one is evidently subordinate to the other. There's no prospect that VP will appeal to images that could pass FP; if anything the existence of VP allows FP to be more strict about its quality criteria since there is another place for images that don't quite make it to go. The experience at FAC suggests that a subordinate process will encourage standards tightening at the "best of the best" process. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm loath to draw analogies between media and text processes, there is a faction within FAC which resists promoting certain types of articles. Very broadly speaking, that type of problem is applicable here. The majority of regulars at FPC are digital photographers. Digital photography is a challenging medium and many of these people are wonderful at it--it's a boon to the site that we have them. Yet the challenges they face are very different from what the historic media editors face. For example, we have a variety of historic featured pictures about Japan and could promote quite a few more, but the available archives have much less material about Korea. I know a Korean editor who's in contact with the administrators at the Korean language Wikipedia; we've discussed preliminary strategies for approaching Korean cultural institutions. I've run periodic searches for historic media about that culture, and the first candidates are not likely to equal the Japanese material on technical merit. A year ago that would not have posed an insurmountable barrier. Since VP got instituted the photographers have been apt to put the cart before the horse: in the misguided pursuit of quality some of them have actually been doing things that encroach upon our ability to access to high quality historic media. The historic media editors have endeavored to communicate the problem in a variety of different ways, but our work is so specialized and arcane that some reactions range from disbelief to hostility. Durova³²² 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of what's happened at FAC and it discourages me. It seems very plausible something analogous to that is happening with FPC as well (though I agree the text/media analogy is strained). However, that's an FAC/FPC problem. If you are unhappy with the articles being promoted or failed at FPC, the place to propose changes is in the featured picture criteria. It sounds as if you believe the standards applied to historical media are too strict. Yet, if there's no consensus to lower them, that's something we must simply live with. Deleting an indirectly related process in an effort to reduce standards at FPC does not strike me as productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One issue is that this shift in review patterns has occurred without actual change in the formal criteria. That is, people who do not do this type of work have asserted new expectations that aren't part of FPC standards. Sometimes that's obviously out of touch with common sense and reality, such as the reviewer who mistakenly thought I had restored a Rembrandt painting (and admired the so-called restoration). Other times the new unwritten expectations are equally unrealistic but it takes direct experience to see why. Durova³²² 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

However again I doubt you could find data to support your assertions. We recently celebrated the 2000th FP. As I identified at the time "it took almost four years for the first 1000, and...less than a year and nine months to make the second 1000". My personal feeling is that standards have probably declined somewhat in the last year or so, which helps explain this acceleration in promotions. Without having reviewed the numbers (and I'm not going to spend my time doing so) I would suggest that obviously in absolute numbers, but also as a percentage of total promotions, historical image promotions have also increased over the second 1000. Historical images are also far less likely to be delisted. So I don't really see why you claim historical images are being held to unrealistic expectations, and in particular, why you blame this on VP - if this was the case then there's far more likely reasons than VP. I have never voted differently due to the existence of VP and I can't see evidence of others having done so either (they may have, but I haven't seen it). I have suggested that images would be better suited to VP, but they are simply images I don't feel meet the standards anyway and would oppose regardless. For example, at least one of the accused "Canvassing in FPC" attempts at the MfD was apparently my edit on this which I don't feel that any reasonable person could regard as canvassing - for the record I have little doubt that 18 months ago this image would have been shot down in a hail of opposes, but on current standards it ended as a questionable promotion. And besides which, there is also a lack of evidence that historical images are being affected - of the 18 VP mentions raised at the MfD only one (arguably two if you count a 1995 event with thousands of existing photos as historic) would fit in our general definitions of historic images. --jjron (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, if there is consensus to change standards at FPC in any particular direction, I imagine that the process can be crafted to effect that change. For instance, if people as you say are asserting standards that are not present in the criteria, it is up to FPC closers to exercise discretion in discounting those opinions. (i.e., the necessary change might be to permit that discretion.) Christopher Parham (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes Christopher, indeed the criteria may be changed if required, and have been tweaked from time to time. However what Durova is not acknowledging is that standards evolve over time without the criteria actually being changed. For example the 'bar' for macro photography is far higher than it was say three years ago due to a wealth of high quality macro contributions over that time. Indeed many of the recent delists have been older macro images that were often considered excellent when promoted in say 2005. The criteria haven't changed to reflect this, but voters' expectations have gone up due to better contributions. However macro photographers aren't blaming this on VP. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jjron, there's been a huge dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT throughout these discussions. During the early phases I brought forth an arsenal of data, which was summarily brushed aside by the people who supported the valued pictures program and still haven't given coherent reasons why. Valued Images at Commons makes sense, but when you look at the differences in the project missions an analogous program at en:wiki does not make sense: Commons is the central media repository for nearly 300 languages; en:wiki is not a media repository. Right there at the get-go this program falls on its face. It's had nearly a year and hasn't gotten off the ground. Durova³²² 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop claiming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you're guilty yourself. We heard you, every time. We just don't agree with you. Major difference. It's notable that a user that finds no interest in the program is one of its greatest defenders here. upstateNYer 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is not data. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The reverse would make more sense to me; Commons as an image repository has an interest in image quality itself. Here, on the other hand, "encyclopedic value" is really the only sort of value much consistent with our mission. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Specific efforts to populate valued pictures by delisting actual featured pictures, from one discussion:

• While I now see some effort, it is still not the quality we want and I don't think we will obtain it. High EV, but just an unfortunate misquality. I would say nominate at VP, but you people are just too peevy about it so I say delist, replace, and send it on its way. ZooFari 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm, yeah, good point. Sure, it is extremely encyclopedic, but what about quality? I'd see this photo better at VP for such conditions it is in. FP is not all about EV, unlike VP, so I will change to keep when I see some effort in it. ZooFari 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• It's not the window reflection (which I didn't even notice until you mentioned it) or the technicals that bother me; it's the effects of age: scratches, dust, marks, hairs, etc.—all reasonably fixable by a relatively skilled hand in photoshop. Remember, these FPs were nominated way before VPC existed, and passed mainly (in this case only) on their EV. Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them. I'd fix either of these if I could; but I have no experience nor time to learn how to restore at the level you do. We aren't doing harm; maybe this will be a saving grace for the VPC program. wadester16 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• The history is extermely interesting, but it's not like the window reflection tells that story; it only shows two windows in the background and no other identifiable information. And you don't need that story or the reflection to know the image was taken from a plane. I believe the image would be better without the reflection, but it's tolerable given the rarity of the photo. That said, while restoration isn't a requirement, it's most certainly become an expectation. This image could easily sit happily at VP until somebody takes on the scratches and dust and can then be re-nom'ed at FPC. wadester16 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Do you see this as an FP or a VP? I believe the fact that the argument against it being delisted boils down to EV. But that's not all FPC is about; on the other hand, that's mainly what VPC is about. wadester16 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

From another:

• Indeed. See my comment below about "demoting" lower quality FPs (which were promoted mainly on EV before VPC existed) to VPC. wadester16 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - Agree this would make a better VP than FP. Technical quality is low - stitching errors, pixelated edges, inconsistent sharpness, grainy, etc. The EV is extremely high though. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (later struck through by poster)
• So shouldn't it be a Valued Picture instead of a Featured Picture? Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that this drive didn't even go after the really low quality FPs. Going purely from historic material:

• 
  576 × 461 pixels, file size: 175 KB
• 
  862 × 587 pixels, file size: 313 KB, also halftoned and artifacted
• 
  Decent resolution, but there are tons of better archival photographs of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.
• 
  Borderline at 1,013 × 800 pixels, file size: 409 KB, tons of Lewis Wickes Hine photography on this subject is available at better resolution and better composition.
• 
  800 × 769 pixels, file size: 101 KB
• 
  500 × 674 pixels, file size: 290 KB
• 
  740 × 529 pixels, file size: 73 KB
• 
  See below.

The Chancellorsville example is particularly telling. That got restored from File:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg when I nominated it for delisting, but really the result is not good: scanner streaks, scratches and spots remain. And the lower left corner remains in bad disrepair. I wouldn't nominate a restoration which looked like that, and if I did the chances are near zero that reviewers would accept it--a good example of how some people's historic work gets judged by different standards than others. But the drive to retain this left essential questions unanswered: we could get better quality images of Confederate dead, and we could get better quality images of Chancellorsville. No one answered why this particular scene needed to remain featured rather than superior material on related subjects, and reviewers appeared to be groping during the original nomination:

• Neutral Historical, but really very bad quality. Hard to call this not knowing the rareity of the shot. -Fcb981 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)'
• Support as per Thegreenj. I love the cracked and broken plate at the top; very fortunate that images like this have survived in any form. mikaultalk 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support original Agree with Fcb981 that I, not an expert in historical photography, find it hard to judge the historicity of the photo. Quality is not too bad, all considered. In any case, I feel the original is better, not only because of the cracked plates but also because the figure in lower left gets cut off in the crop. --Asiir 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

After that delist nomination turned into a low quality restoration and Passchendaele got kept, I pretty much gave up on delisting bad material even when it deserved the boot. So to see the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki get singled out for a VP/FP shuffle--at nearly 7MB--sends the message that people hadn't spent ten minutes clicking the FP galleries to see which FPs were weakest, or put much thought into what's replaceable versus what isn't. And people who don't take the time to do that easy research are really unlikely to ever have done serious searching on the Library of Congress site, which has wonderful content but beastly site architecture.

You don't react like you have any idea how many hours or thousands of images it took to glean the source material for our only Indonesian FP, then more hours restoring it. I know a Wikimedian in Indonesia who's working with a local museum to get images for WMF: he has to supply his own equipment because the museum has no budget for it, and then he'll have to snail mail a DVD to the Foundation because the bandwidth in his part of the world isn't sufficient for electronic transfers. When we say slow down, you're moving the goalposts too quickly in counterproductive ways, what we get from certain people is the brush-off. Yes, it makes a difference to curators to see examples of their own cultural history already at FP. Once those doors open and we have access to more material you can redefine the standards any way you like, but please make a serious effort to to so according to rational standards. Because the recent trends don't even hold up to superficial scrutiny. Durova³²² 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but after reading through I don't believe that those nominations were motivated by a desire to populate VP. I read them directly as being driven by the concerns mentioned in the nomination statements. VP is mentioned later and incidentally. You also bring up issues of consistency in FP delisting nominations. A valid point, but not particularly meaningful to any discussion of VP's merits. I tend to think I am in pretty broad agreements with your commentary on FP, but don't find myself comprehending what this has to do with VP as presently constituted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The nominator of the Nagasaki bombing was the author of five of the eight quotes listed above, including the words "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them." That's a statement of explicit intent; it couldn't be any clearer. Durova³²² 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is with those quotes. Just because you dislike VPC and get offended every time it's mentioned doesn't automatically mean that we are attempting to dump FPC for VP. I suppose a quote like "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs" would sooth you better? VPC or not ain't going to change FPC much. ZooFari 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, responding to ZooFari) When this program was new I even participated in the hope that it would find its place. But as months progressed its enthusiastic supporters increasingly promoted it in ways that drew complaints. They had no need to do so: five years of FPC archives could have been mined for potential VP candidates, but instead they set their sights on existing FPs and FPCs.

Even from the start this program had conceptual shortcomings: it purports to be an analog of the Commons Valued Images program, but a principal reason Commons has that program is to serve as a media repository for hundreds of WMF projects--a purpose which is explicitly outside of English Wikipedia's project scope. See Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY. One might try to defend VP for creative feedback and encouragement, but Wikipedia:Picture peer review already served that purpose. VP provides a pretty logo to put in one's userspace, but basically that's what barnstars do.

This program has failed to gain community support is because it serves no unique positive purpose. It continually recruited from the same pool of volunteers which it quickly tapped to the point of diminishing returns. When concerns arose the supporters refused to acknowledge that problems existed and engaged in verbal sparring instead of improvement. The result has polarized the site's best media contributors. You needn't have alienated my former support, but those factors tipped the balance. Now this program gets terrible word of mouth when it's mentioned at all. It's useless to ask me to reinterpret "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them" as something other than what was actually said. Those words, within the larger context of what else was being said and done, were why this program got MfD'd months ago--and probably why it's been MfD'd a second time. This program is far more important to you than it is to me, so if you don't want it to get marked historical one of these days it would be a good idea to take this feedback on board and learn from it. Most of the people who consider this project unnecessary have stopped trying to communicate with you. Durova³²² 02:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Preventing VP from being shut down.

The participation in this project is non-existent, currently theres just 2 pictures listed. What is everyones opinion on why participation is so low on this project? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I also want to note that there are currently less than a hundered VPs. I have an idea, see below:

New and brief proposal

I haven't seen muchany progression since the last Mfd. If we don't do something, I don't see why we should continue to run it. Therefore I would like to propose changes for the VP program, ones that would completely alter it into a different process. My main idea is to create an assessment project similar to the quality image project at Commons. Their program is based on their FP program, yet very successful. Since we can relate our programs with the ones at Commons, I think we have a chance to make ours successful as well. All we need to do is think outside the box. One reason why the Quality image program at Commons drives many nominations per day is because the evaluation standards are much more simple than the FP one. It only takes one reviewer's input to promote an image, otherwise rejected. Our VP program does not have many quality expectations, so I figure we could do the same. Fortunately, we have a few users that sometimes participate in this program—enough to start a good assessments project. The assessments do not necessarily have to be broken down to groups like they do in Commons (e.g. composition, exposure, etc). Instead we could just rely on one expectation, in this case EV. If groups shall be proposed, examples would include usage, originality, and/or historic value.

The way promotion and consensus would work

As in the Quality images project at Commons, nominations would stay opened for a certain amount of time. If a reviewer does not come by during that period to assess the image, the nomination would be closed without promotion. If a reviewer comes by, however, and agrees/decline promotion and no objections arise within a certain period after review, the image would become promoted or fails, according to the review it would receive.

If you think this is a good idea for rehabilitation of the program, we could proceed to much more detailed proposals. Please share ideas and concepts; we really need to take action soon. ZooFari 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support simplifaction of promotion process. I think this is a significant detractor at present and I agree with a simplification of the process. Probably, this would also require the VP criteria to be more detailed, so that individual assessments are still consistent. Elekhh (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Quality images are diagrams or photographs which meet certain quality standards (which are mostly technical in nature) and which are valuable for Wikimedia projects." It's a matter of project scope: Wikimedia Commons is the shared repository for all WMF projects. That site serves nearly 300 language editions of Wikipedia plus various Wikibooks, Wiktionaries, etc. People from all those projects go to Commons to seek material so it makes sense for Commons to facilitate that. That purpose is explicitly outside the role of English Wikipedia as a matter of policy. If you want to really improve media content it would be so much more useful to make contacts at an art school in your community and get in touch with the faculty that teaches advanced Photoshop classes. If we interface with them to get digital image restoration into their curricula, I have contacts that could get the best student work exhibited in the physical space of a museum in a European capital. That would be great for the art school, a wonderful credit for their most talented students, improve our museum relations, and provide a superb cache of content for WMF along the way. Each time a new museum joins this type of partnership we can gain tens of thousands of medium to high resolution encyclopedic images. Aim higher; set your sights on a broader horizon. The opportunities are real. Your intentions are good; you could be accomplishing so much more. Durova³⁸⁰ 05:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds great, but practically speaking, most of us don't have the time for such an intensive venture. Many of us are students and devote a lot of time to study and many others have full time jobs, which allow us only so much time here. Your plans are exciting, but only someone with a lot of time can make it happen. Based on the vast amount of work you produce (which, of course, is stellar), I would venture a guess that you're either doing restorations and GLAM communication for a living, or you do not have a paying job (for whatever reason; I'm not speculating, just going thru the logic). The rest of us do. Not trying to be a Debbie downer, just a realist. If people are interested in these ideas, they'll jump on them themselves. Now, as you've asked us to stay away from WT:FPC with VPC-related issues, I kindly ask that you let us try to invigorate this program, while not trying to sell GLAM to us unnecessarily. We've heard you at WT:FPC and Signpost. If that doesn't do it for you, WT:VPC definitely won't. upstateNYer 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks ZooFari for re-opening the discussion. My strating point would be the potential role I see VP could have, such as: (1) providing a platform for stimulating provision of good images which are well placed and add most Value to Wiki articles, (2) providing a stimulating reward for emerging photographers which don't have the equipment to produce FPs, contributing thus to Wiki openness, and (3) providing the opportunity of an assessment of image quality distinct from FPs, i.e. with an emphasis on Wiki article display size and full screen size value rather than poster size quality. As FP gets more elitist, as well as biased for technical quality and judgement based on poster size images (while most Wiki users will never look to an image at that size) it appears to me that VP makes a lot of sense. The problem I see is rather that VP is currently not yet well defined, for instance through general description like: [VPs] .. may possess many of the characteristics of a Featured Picture, but for a variety of reasons not quite make that mark or the WP:Valued picture criteria. I would suggest reviewing these, with a view of having a much stronger emphasis on EV. Elekhh (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the need to start a local process for that from the ground up when Commons already has a project which does the same thing and has over 7000 reviewed and promoted items? Duplication would amount to wheel-spinning Would be more productive to start a wikiproject to work with Commons by importing their promoted images if they're better than what we have, and by nominating en:wiki's best material there for use at other WMF sites. Durova³⁸¹ 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying: not a separate photographic quality assessment but assessment of how well an image illustrates a Wiki article(s). Elekhh (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Those goals would be better served by working with the existing Commons program rather than trying to operate a parallel program locally. For example, this image is a valued image at Commons that gets used on 31 pages at 10 projects.[2] The Commons program helped it reach the German, French, Russian, and Bulgarian Wikipedias. Volunteers feel very rewarded and encouraged when their work gets translated and reused widely. The Commons program is already strong; it's easier and better to go directly there. A local duplicate program couldn't ever be as useful. Durova³⁸¹ 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • (e/c) Which, by definition, is en:wiki specific since you won't find me playing around with image placement at the Turkish WP (since I don't speak it). I like your idea. upstateNYer 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
        • The wonderful thing about the Commons programs is that volunteers from around the world do that translation. This Commons valued image of one of the dead sea scrolls is getting used at the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Farsi, Hebrew, Finnish, Afrikaans, and Malayam Wikipedias. Suppose your non-featured photography were getting reused that widely. Talk about feeling valued! Everyone knows about the Commons projects and they're already strong. Best to work where the best synergies already exist. Durova³⁸¹ 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Mine[3] are[4]; and I didn't need Commons, either. upstateNYer 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
            • So let's see if this is consensus: with volunteer time at a premium the ideal way to focus effort is to shift from one unsuccessful attempt to compete with a thriving Commons program to...compete with a different thriving Commons program? Bear in mind, when there aren't enough active volunteers locally the goal of encouragement can have the opposite consequences.[5] Durova³⁸¹ 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
              • As can the stubborn domination of a project. upstateNYer 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
              • By your definition of a parallel program, I believe that en:Wiki FP would also fall under a Commons competition. ZooFari 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
                • Commons and en:wiki have significantly different featured picture programs. The Commons featured picture program provides the equivalent of cover art to the main page of Wikimedia Commons and a variety of smaller Wikipedias that mirror the Commons POTD. Commons FPs need not be encyclopedic or actually in use anywhere, but esthetic value is more important there and they need to meet higher technical minimums than we require locally. The key factor is whether a process finds its own unique niche worth the effort of sustaining as a program (as opposed to awarding barnstars). A process is not an end in itself; a drive to mirror the quality image program may do nothing more than balkanize it. Durova³⁸¹ 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm of the belief that all images should be at Commons unless they are required to be here by fair use or some other provision. I think supporting Commons has the best net effect of all of the options, and also engages local participants from a wide variety of language groups (as well as helping them build resources in their own language). Having an image program here at en therefore seems redundant, especially when Commons have a good one going already. And re FP - you may well be right, that preceded Commons if I recall. Orderinchaos 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We can't apply fair use rationales to project space, so that leaves images that meet pre-1923 PD but not the life +70 rule, seized Nazi images affected by a US ruling on copyright forfeiture, and a few other legal quirks. Those constitute 2% of my en:wiki featured credits (and probably none of anybody else's). Durova³⁸¹ 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

Wikipedia works on a consensus model, so how about this: try out ZooFari's idea and see if it works. If VP promotes 20 images a month for three months in a row, I'll create the "you told me so" barnstar and award it to the people who had faith in the idea. Fair enough? Durova³⁸¹ 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we wait until the WikiCup starts? :) upstateNYer 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation

Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's the decision?

The WikiCup will be starting pronto and any changes to the Valued Picture program should be made before it precedes. What have we decided? ZooFari 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems that everybody was on vacation. As stated above I support simplification of the process but I think that would require more elaborate criteria. Elekhh (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, let's start by the criteria:

A valued picture:

1. The image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia and has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month.
   • Images that only make a minor contribution, such as a gallery image, would not be considered to have high encyclopedic value. Images must have been suitably located in at least one article for a minimum of one month in order to help demonstrate that other editors of that article consider the image to be worth retaining and thus to have encyclopedic value. Images that do not meet this criteria are ineligible for VP status.
   • An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.
2. It is among Wikipedia's most educational work.
   • It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
   • It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
   • A valued picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing. Encyclopedic value is more important than an attractive appearence. Highly educational, and historical images may not have to be classically beautiful at all.
   • commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
3. It is not a featured picture on the English Wikipedia.
   • A featured picture may not become a valued picture. If a valued picture becomes featured, its valued picture status is revoked.
4. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
5. Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:
   • Is succinct
   • Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable
   • Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other media.
   • Describes the location of the subject where relevant

What do you believe should be changed? --ZooFari 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I generally like the criteria as it is, although I would separate It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more into a separate point and would move point (3) to last. What I think is needed is either more detail or a separate guideline to assist consistent assessment of encyclopedic, educational and aesthetic value. As past experience shows, there are different views on these, and without some guidelines, the proposed promotion system by individuals could lead to inconsistent results. Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could create multiple assessments as I suggested above (as in QI at Commons) that will fall under different categories, each with different, but still similar, criteria. We could have one main criteria that will summarize the importance of educational and aesthetic value. We could create categories such as usage, rarity, historic value, and great demonstration, each with more detailed criteria. An editor would then be able to assess them under one of those categories and see if they meet the standards, otherwise decline promotion. --ZooFari 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Below some examples. Elekhh (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Historic value / Rarity

• 
• 
• 
• 

Aesthetic value

• 
• 
• 
• 

Usage

• 
• 

Educational / Great demonstration

• 
• 
• 
• 

Excellent examples, Elekhh. Shall we form a criteria proposal? --ZooFari 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Criteria proposal

General Valued picture criteria: A valued picture:

1. The image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia and has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month.
   • Images that only make a minor contribution, such as a gallery image, would not be considered to have high encyclopedic value. Images must have been suitably located in at least one article for a minimum of one month in order to help demonstrate that other editors of that article consider the image to be worth retaining and thus to have encyclopedic value. Images that do not meet this criteria are ineligible for VP status.
   • Images are considered exceptionally valuable under at least one of the following criteria:

a.) Aesthetic value

• It is among Wikipedia's most aesthetic work.
• It illustrates the subject in an exceptionally compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

b.) Educational / Great demonstration:

• It is among Wikipedia's most educational work.
• It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
• Diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
• commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.

c.) Historic images/ Rarity:

• It records an important historic moment, which cannot be repeated and replaced by better images.
• Scans and images depict originality. Documents with historic scratches or damages are not restored and colours are natural.

d.) Usage:

• The image is used in a large amount of articles in addition to the primary article it illustrates.

1. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
2. Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:
   • Is succinct
   • Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable
   • Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other media.
   • Describes the location of the subject where relevant
3. It is not a featured picture on the English Wikipedia.
   • A featured picture may not become a valued picture. If a valued picture becomes featured, its valued picture status is revoked.

---

Above are elements to start forming a proposal. Feel free to share ideas. --ZooFari 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reworked a bit, but I think it still needs more detail. Feel free to work on the same draft. Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Closures needed

Some of the older candidates can be closed. Two waiting to be promoted. Elekhh (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I did a few. I'll get to the rest later. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template for contributors

Just a reminder that we have an userbox template for VP contributors {{Template:User VP}}. Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia.

Recently closed nominations

I think it would make sense to keep recently closed nominations for a week or so on the main page under a separate section. This would allow new participants to have a better understanding of the whole process. Elekhh (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued picture criteria - amendment proposal

I suggest a few minor amenments to the Valued picture criteria to make participation easier, primarily by clarifying what the project is about:

1. Move criteria nr.5 "Image caption" up to become nr.3 as it directly relates to educational value.
2. Reduce time condition from one month to three weeks;
3. Add examples to illustrate what VPC is about, by presenting a selection of the best promoted work so far:

Is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Highly educational, and historical images may not have to be classically beautiful.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Please signal you support, opposition or any comments below. Elekhh (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't participated here in a while, but I figured I'd add my two cents. I think changing the time condition doesn't really do anything. Any picture that lasts 3 weeks in an article will probably last the entire month. Changing the condition would just allow someone to nominate the image sooner. I don't see a problem with that, but I also don't see any reason why we couldn't just wait a week until the month was up. Adding examples is probably a good idea, but you might want to limit the number of examples and add a small explanation for each one. It wouldn't have to be anything elaborate, just something short like "this has great EV because ..." Makeemlighter (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment. I fully agree. Will see what I can do... Further suggestions and contributions welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been told that votes based flawed premises, their vote will be ignored. Is a the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Kevin Grady where he says he is not evaluating all the uses a valid vote? Is the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brandon Graham pressures Terrelle Pryor‎ where it is based on use in a secondary article (with an edit summary that says "vote oppose based on usage in mask") valid?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)