Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures




 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was no consensus, keep, take it to the talk pages too, I'd say :-) For a variety of reasons, this proposal has probably generated more heat than light - keep talking about the evolution of both projects on the talk pages, I'd say, with particular attention to smooth running without any project undermining any other (this is self-evident regardless of whether or not that applies to this situation, about which I haven't really formed an opinion). Privatemusings (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures
The valued picture program was instituted without broad consensus and its purpose was never clearly defined. It was, at best, a solution in search of a problem. And has consistently created conflict. As early as January I worried that this process would become a ghetto to shunt highly encyclopedic material off the main page. Now that's on the verge of happening: the digital photographers who dominate featured picture candidates are embarking upon a drive to delist the most important scientific and historic photographs. See and Featured picture candidates/delist/Titan globe.jpg. Possibly the impetus is because picture of the day has a serious backlog. More mainpage time for digital photography would be good for a few digital photographers, but is it really in keeping with the encyclopedia's mission to shunt important history and science off the main page? Resoundingly, no.
 * Valued pictures thumbs
 * Valued picture candidates
 * Valued picture criteria
 * Valued picture candidates/January-2009
 * Valued picture candidates/February-2009
 * Valued picture candidates/March-2009
 * Valued picture candidates/April-2009
 * Valued picture candidates/May-2009
 * Valued picture candidates/June-2009

Wikipedia is not in need of a visual analog to 'good articles'--not when it keeps astronomy and history off the main page. Nominating this process for deletion as the contributor of over 200 featured pictures: Valued Pictures has had its chance, and is a net negative. Durova Charge! 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Durova Charge! 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Durova Charge! 18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Never minding the slight bias that Durova has, I agree with all of his points. Note that the subpages should be added to this MFD too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Keep if fixed. I wouldn't mind changing it to "Good images" or somesuch, so that WP:GA has an image counterpart. Ten Pound Hammer , his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Since this is being used to inappropriately deny historic pictures Featured Picture status, it is doing more harm than good. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that may be a bit exaggerated. For example, I may have nom'ed Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg for delist, but also helped Featured picture candidates/Crossroads Baker along. Note the difference: the quality—and not the technical quality, the restoration quality. Durova herself has raised the bar at FPC, and users now hold historical images to those expectations. I believe historical images need restoration before going to FPC now. VPC is a great place for the unrestored ones (until they're restored, and at that point can be nom'ed at FPC). It also helps old images by hosting ones that are too small for the FP star, but still have massive EV.  wadester 16  04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment below Wadester's main post. Durova Charge! 04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on some comments below, I think that Mark Historical would be more appropriate than delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark historical, second choice Delete, per Durova. We are primarily an encyclopedia, and our content should be informative. While that does not mean we can't also be pleasant to look at, if we have to choose between being informative and being attractive, we should choose being informative. Featured Pictures, parallel to Featured Articles, should be the definitive pictures for our encyclopedia. Imagine a project that would try to give a status to "those articles that are encyclopedic and informative, but not pretty to look at", and remove them from Featured Articles because of this. --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, when it comes to unrestored historical images, being a VP is analogous to being a GA. A little more work and you can get that star. Would you now suggest we delete WP:GA?  wadester 16  06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's highly debatable whether editing historically significant pictures is "our best work", which is what "Featured" is supposed to mean. Sure, if we're trying to display a photo of a mosquito larva we crop, and color balance, and refocus until it shows what we want it to show; but items that are historically significant in themselves, not just in what they are showing, aren't like that. Editing doesn't improve them, it destroys them. You know, that Declaration of Independence would look better if the first guy hadn't signed his name so large, like he was showing off or something, let's make that smaller. And that recording of Neal Armstrong's speech when walking on the moon - we all know he meant to say "One small step for a man", so let's edit that in. And that darn Zapruder video of JFK being shot, it's all grainy, you can't even see the bullet bouncing around, let's make that clearer with a bit of modern CGI reconstruction. Until you do all that, sorry, that document, and recording, and video, just don't qualify for Featured. Just a little more work, and they can get that star. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also debatable whether editing = manipulation. Restoration is a very different activity to the hyped examples you provide. Intention is everything, and sympathy with original detail in restoration is the opposite to your description. Removing dust and scratches from photographs is normal practice in their presentation and a perfectly standard and legitimate part of image processing. --mikaultalk 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark Historical per the nom. It's being used as a path down from FP—a net negative.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - when a featured picture is not "good enough" any more, it is still a picture that featured. When the opinion is that a picture should be and could be better, then find a better scan of an original and have it restored. If it is just a photo, there might be a version of a higher resolution we could ask for. However, in the final analysis removing the label of featured picture is a lie because they featured. GerardM (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The situation at WP:FPC is somewhat concerning and this is simplying compounding the problem. It is clear that there is a net loss. Sedd&sigma;n talk 01:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Notified WT:FPC. Keep PPR as it isn't part of the valued picture process. No comment on the rest. MER-C 03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good eye about PPR. Ten Pound Hammer seems to have gotten a little overeager there.  Picture peer review is a fine program, unrelated to the VP problem.  Have removed PPR from the list.  Durova Charge! 03:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think examples like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this show that VPC is not a net negative, but definitely a positive. This comes along at a very poor time. I'm worried that VPC is being used as a scapegoat for failed FPCs and, should VPC be deleted, we will notice that either 1. nothing changes; 2. if they do, it would have more to do with the current FPC restructuring; or 3. something may change, but nobody will be able to definitively say whether it was the deletion of VPC or the restructuring of FPC (i.e. too many variables and no control). I think we should wait on this until FPC is fixed first, then we can revisit this issue. That's probably the only fair thing to do.  wadester 16  04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the timing of the demotion nominations and Wadester's recent statements pushed this issue. Note the quotes:
 * Indeed. See my comment below about "demoting" lower quality FPs (which were promoted mainly on EV before VPC existed) to VPC.  wadester 16  05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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... wadester 16  05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see this a 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.  wadester 16  04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wadester demonstrated little understanding of the Nagasaki historical context, and apparently failed to read the image description for Saturn's moon Titan. Before this nomination opened he was also offered coaching in restoration, a process with which he is unfamiliar.  His estimates regarding feasibility of restoration are not trustworthy.  Durova Charge! 04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand behind each comment posted here and feel that they actually enhance my argument that this is poor timing. You didn't address any of my points (such as the 9 examples I gave as to why VPC is a good thing, or the fact that I respect historical images, but only when their restored quality meets my expectations [the comment way above]) and when someone disagrees with you (or at least when I do), you either assume stupidity ("...demonstrated little understanding of the Nagasaki historical context"... see my reply) or that one didn't read your comments ("failed to read the image description"), which with me, is never the case; it seems to be your trademark "easy excuse" when running a crusade against a non-existant cabal over minor—if not trivial—issues. I don't care if the Nagasaki or Titan images ever become VPs. I voted in a way I thought was correct. Durova, I am allowed to have an opinion, and I opined that I don't believe either of them should keep their FP stars. Then I offered a possible solution, nom'ing at VPC. I didn't say that was the only solution, just one solution that I thought makes sense; I would be just as happy if the outcome was solely the loss of the FP star. I propose that we halt this MFD for the time being, fix FPC, sit on this for a bit, and then if someone thinks this issue is severely, negatively affecting FPC (with strong evidence), go through with it. How does that hurt things?  wadester 16  05:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Here Wadester complains that the timing is poor, but in the demotion nominations he calls the timing ripe: Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them...wadester16 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) If we sit back now, and allow him to 'fix' FPC according to that agenda, many of the site's most encyclopedic featured images will get demoted. That damage to our FP structure would be difficult to repair: when VPC gets misused this way VPC needs to go. Durova Charge! 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured this was a vendetta against me specifically, but didn't want to be so bold as to say it publicly, at least not until you did first. Tho I like how you requote a quote you already quoted; probably assuming nobody read it the first time (oh, irony). It's oh-so-much more meaningful now. I'm going to no longer respond on this page lest we get into another 100,000 word argument that brings you to another boycott I'll be blamed for (what could be next? - it's like playing Carmen Sandiego), but I would request that you show more maturity, refrain from conjuring up so many unfounded and unsupported conspiracy-theory claims, and stop trying to make yourself out to be some sacrosanct martyr. Cliffnotes: I suggest holding off on this rash, timely, and pointed move until things are fixed at FPC, and wait and see if this issue is still actually an issue. Then go through the steps. Durova admits to this being an issue with me and my opinions specifically, so I see this as a tainted process from the beginning. But, have fun anyway, and best of luck to all on this.  wadester 16  06:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if it does come to deletion, I would suggest keeping WP:Valued pictures as historical out of respect for the dedicated users who did nominate images, vote on them, and earn the template on those images. Damn, I broke my promise... okay now I won't edit this page again.  wadester 16  06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that this person believes this nomination is about him; that perception is mistaken. Other people also made similar assertions about shunting encyclopedic FPs over to VPC.  None of the others added an element of time in a contradictory manner, so there was no need to quote them.  Durova Charge! 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * &larr; Hmm, this discussion seems to have become quite heated. I think it's best for everyone to take a step back and have a cup o' tea. We're all working in good-faith here, so it'd be great if we could work together to come to a solution. Thanks all, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, may I ask why you brought up Titan? I don't recall any mentions of VPC there.  Zoo Fari  05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The topmost of the three quotes from Wadester occurred at the Titan nomination. Durova Charge! 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Could we please remain civil, no personal attacks, talk about the subject at hand, and leave the conflicts at FPC out unless they're strictly relevant here (which some are). I'm not saying this has happened here, but let's avoid it, please. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. My opposition to the project comes from a different area. As I see it, the parallel Featured Article/Good Article/A Class/B/etc. process is about aspiring to create the best work possible. The aim in creating a GA is to have this as a station towards FA status. There's the possibility of improvement (in the large majority of cases), as the work can be improved by the editors. That simply isn't there for most Valued Pictures, not without large amounts of work or creating a new version of the same image - it very rarely happens. Thus VP is seen as an end in itself. I don't think this is a good thing. I strongly believe that Wikipedia as a project should aspire to excellence, not merely what is good. If it should be highlighted and celebrated, as VP does, it should be because it is our best work. Otherwise, I have minor concerns about its impact on FPC - it houses a few items which I really think should have been featured pictures but which were rejected over trivial matters. And I note that it has not received the support of a community of editors. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi. I just wanted to say that the statement "the digital photographers who dominate featured picture candidates are embarking upon a drive to delist the most important scientific and historic photographs" is not true. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg, for example, was nominated for delisting because it no longer meets the Featured Picture Criteria. Numerous pictures taken by the so-called "digital photographers" have been nominated for delisting as well. Pictures are nominated for delisting all the time! It's nothing special. When someone feels a picture no longer meets FPC, they nominate it for delisting. Regardless of whether Valued Pictures exists, that picture doesn't meet FPC. Is VP worth keeping? Right now, I cannot say. But it's simply not true that anyone is using VP "to shunt important history and science off the main page". Makeemlighter (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Even if VPC didn't exist, I would definitely list many of these "high EV" images simply because of quality or lack of effort. Durova is desperate to create a backlog of POD with images that are "important", which is extremely not relevant to what FP is about. VPC is not shunting historic images, it is simply acknowledging high EV images that are low in quality for FP.  Zoo Fari  06:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See below: VP actually damages efforts to gain access to more and better source files. Durova Charge! 15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now at least. There are several shortcomings at VP, sure, but enough to delete..? I don't think so. The nom simply isn't persuasive, judging by citations of conflict, and I'm frankly surprised at the number of deletionists they appear to have attracted; the project is very young, has barely had a chance to establish its credentials as an image assessment process and has expressly avowed an avoidance of the sort of prejudice against historical noms that COM:VI might have been guilty of; finally, the timing of this proposal is spectacularly inappropriate given the current situation at FPC. --mikaultalk 06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The above few users make cogent and unbiased arguments - I don't feel the same about the nomination itself which, as regular at FPC, reads to me as a misrepresentation of the truth. Also, while I'm unclear about the typical process here, I'm also concerned that the nominator put the VP project up for deletion without so much as a comment at VPC Talk and/or FPC Talk. She is certainly aware that this is what would be expected by regulars at those projects, so this nomination strikes me as a bit underhanded (yes she did put a deletion template on the WP:VP mainpage itself). However, I for one only found this discussion through a link provided at FPC Talk by another regular. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The links provided in the nomination itself demonstrate that this proposal was far from hasty: it was discussed openly since the start of the year. The nomination was posted in the proper place, and the page's creator notified, as is standard procedure.  Please withdraw the unwarranted accusations.  Durova Charge! 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was discussed at the start of the year (Dec & Jan). The last discussion took place on 28 Jan, more than four months ago. Maybe you should have brought this up again before going straight to MFD. While you may have posted at WP:VP, you did not post at WP:VPC, which is where most users go. Few go to WP:VP when wanting to check out the noms. I'll assume good faith that was a legitimate mistake. Thanks to MER-C for tagging WP:VPC so people would actually know about this (that's how I find out).  wadester 16  00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Process cruft; redundant to FP.   Hi DrNick ! 12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Even after the launching of VP, many historic images have been featured. There is absolutely no conspiracy to keep historic images being featured. The delist nominations being considered have terribly poor quality and it is normal for images of low technical quality to be delisted, be it macro, landscape or historical. --Muhammad (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is unrealistic expectations by people who never work with historic images, and the harm that does to our negotiations to gain access to better material. Valued pictures has zero value for that purpose. By defeaturing the bombing of Nagasaki, we reduce the chances of getting better material. Durova Charge! 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Delete or mark as 'rejected' Images that are featured cannot be valued? Wtf? This all smacks of process and it seems this process has been wonked already. The whole idea that our second string of images should focus on encyclopedic value while our first string should focus on technical quality is not in keeping with us being an encyclopedia. We should focus on encyclopedic value first and technical quality better. The idea that the best image mankind has taken of Titan or an example of the only time in history humans used atomic weapons in anger should be relegated to second string because they are a little grainy is way out there for me. Chillum  15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Chillum, you don't seem to understand why a VP can't be a FP, which brings us down to why we should keep VP. FP already includes EV and quality, while VP is only EV that doesn't meet quality standards for FP. So there is no need to nominate a FP if it's EV is already acknowledged. If VP was to go away, we'd just throw out delisted high EV FPs without further acknowledgment.  Zoo Fari  15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that an image with great encyclopaedic value and a few technical faults is our best work if no better image exists. It should not be set aside into a special category that never sees the front page. It should be featured. VP only encourages the delisting of encyclopaedic images. Our front page should be an example of how encyclopaedic we are, not a demonstration of how technically perfect images can be. If anything we should have a page off to the side for very nice looking images that lack encyclopaedic value not the other way around. Encyclopaedia first, pretty pictures second. Chillum  16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason a VP can't be an FP is because most historic source files are held in institutional collections, and those institutions are under no obligation to release high quality digital scans of their material. If they perceive a chance of seeing a few items their collection on Wikipedia's main page, they may release large amounts of encyclopedic material to WMF. But if their material is likely to be shunted off into a corner--which is what VP is--then those institutions turn elsewhere. Within the last six months the University of Dresden and the Bundesarchive released hundreds of thousands of encyclopedic images to Commons. I don't know how to say this more plainly: valued pictures makes it harder to gain access to material from institutions of their caliber. Durova Charge! 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And may I beg how FP has the "better access" than VP? Just a day in our main page, that is all. Everything else is hidden just as much as VP is.  Zoo Fari  15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because FPs get a turn on Wikipedia's main page, which receives on average 7 million page views per day. That's the kind of exposure museum curators dream of, and it motivates them to release encyclopedic material.  Durova Charge! 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I understand your concern, but we just can't have the important pictures at our lead. If VP on the main page was a suggestion, people would just cry that it isn't our best work. So who can we understand?  Zoo Fari  16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This website is an encyclopedia; our actions have to be governed by the encyclopedia's best interests. VP actively harms those best interests by hampering our negotiations to gain important illustrative content.  That affects many thousands of pictures and thousands of articles, because the chance at one FP motivates large donations.  Durova Charge! 16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova is exactly right. Currently I am negotiating with two museums and one archive in The Netherlands that are now considering making large image donations to WMF.  They are very motivated by the chance at getting something selected for Wikipedia's main page, and the valued picture program is making these negotiations more difficult. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova, I think you and many others here who do not usually contribute to FPC and VPC misunderstand the purposes and the difference between the two projects. FP is reserved for high quality and encyclopedic images, while VP for lower technical quality but equally encyclopedic images. We have many historic images of great quality successfully featured even after the launch of VP. Some which lack the quality, such as the titan image currently being nominated for delist, can be valued pictures. This way their value is in no way undermined and it ensures that they get a favourable placement in their respective articles. If museums have high quality, high res images then these will, by default not be nominated in VPC and will be promoted as featured pictures. It is only the lower quality images that VPC is all about --Muhammad (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that statement a typographical error? I have contributed the most FPs of any Wikipedian and several VPs. Having also contributed multiple featured articles etc. it may be possible that experience brings a broader understanding of site mission: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. VP actively harms our efforts at gaining access to encyclopedic images. Processes that damage the overall encyclopedic mission need to go. Durova Charge! 16:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes a typo for your case. But my points still stand. Just look at the FPC page and see how well the two historic pictures are doing. --Muhammad (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Our two most prolific contributors of historic FPs both want to close VP, and GerardM who posts above is chairman of the Open Progress Foundation, a nonprofit organization that expands global access to free information. His statements about the harm VP does are very much worth taking to heart.  Durova Charge! 17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * breaking promise to make a needed comment I don't buy the claim that musuems and sources of images will not release images to WMF because en:wiki VP exists. More likely, these places have no idea that it does exist. And I kind of doubt that somebody sits down with them and explains all the picture programs across en:wiki, commons, and other wikis. Many of these images could fail at en:wiki FP, but become FPs at Commons, but not en:wiki, or VIs or QIs at Commons, or VPs here; does somebody explain that to the possible donors? Probably not. Then there's also the issue that WP:FPC is a community program. Does the WMF negotiator also sit down and explain that the community has every right to not promote their images? Or that it could take more than a year after promotion for the image to actually hit the main page? A skilled negotiatior for WMF will leave these caveats out and just argue based on "main page" possibility. It seems you want it to be a situation where you open a nom, make a statement like, "We really need this to gain access to the rest of their archives, so you better pass it." That's not how this community works. It seems there are many things that keep historical images from reaching the main page (the voting process, the POTD backlog, etc), last of which is VPC. With the Nagasaki image, that could have sat at VP until somebody restored it; call it a proving ground similar to this. But you won't give it a chance.  wadester 16  17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) What matters is that we show them featured images that relate to the content of their collections. This is one of the reasons I've submitted a steady trickle of historic Dutch subjects for consideration at FPC: Gerard is talking to archives in The Netherlands.  He can then explain POTD.  For images that became POTD within the right time frame our volunteers can pull up the stats.grok.se stats for Wikipedia's main page on the day an image ran.  Our network of volunteer negotiators covers five continents (not a lot of people, but spread out).  Now I'm not at liberty to disclose all their names or locations, but it happens that the POTD from April 20 is very useful to one of them.  That received 6.3 million page views, which may influence the decision of a historical society about whether to release their material.  Gerard and I have been talking about these efforts for months, and for unknown reasons most of the FPC regulars either haven't been reading those posts or don't take them seriously.  Don't know why that is; for months there's been a Dresden FP highlighted at my user page in thanks for the University of Dresden's donation.  This is quite serious.  Durova Charge! 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the actual image received 0.25% the views the main page got that day—still a sizeable 15,000 views, but less than half the count of this, this, or even this. Since then, the viewership has dropped back down to single digits.  wadester 16  19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We discuss clickthroughs of course, but that's a different conversation. It's surprising to see you challenge the basic veracity, though.  Yes, we are talking to archives.  Yes, these factors do matter.  We've been posting about it for months, and if you had doubts it would have been far more productive to have shared them openly and provided timely opportunity to address the concerns, rather than either ignoring these priorities or mistaking them for misrepresentations and falsehoods.  Durova Charge! 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's great that you're trying to get archives to open up, and I'm sure main page time is a great selling point. I'm just not sold on the issue of VP being the iceberg that sinks FP. And just to point out: I very much agree that it is more productive to brings things up as they go along and not wait until it's too late (I just never saw this as a pressing issue in the past nor worth getting involved in since it didn't seem to hold much weight at the time). :-) < I assure that wasn't meant to be sarcastic. >  wadester 16  21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd way of approaching the matter. It's as if I'm having a conversation with someone who supposes that ignoring a problem makes the problem unimportant or untrue.  I don't know how to have a productive dialog with that, because the actual challenges don't disappear when an editor closes his eyes to them.  Durova Charge! 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My eyes are not closed; we just have differing opinions. As stated below, I request evidence.  wadester 16  22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The chairman of the Open Progress Foundation has affirmed that this is exactly true, page traffic stats have been provided, and a referral to the University of Dresden donation has been provided. That should be enough to satisfy any reasonable concerns (which ought to have been articulated much sooner than this).  The facts are that this dialog is taking place with someone who posted several unretracted personal attacks, who mistakenly asserted that this nomination was an act of vengeance upon himself, and who declared his departure from the page--only to return to it in less than a day.  These circumstances create legitimate doubts whether good faith dialog is actually occurring, or whether the other party to this conversation would be persuaded by anything.  Durova Charge! 23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova still ignores requests for legitimate evidence regarding her claims (that VP is killing FP). That's all I ever seem to need to say. She even argues against providing evidence.  wadester 16  23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we may as well point out the various calls of "wouldnt this be better as a VP" at several FP delist requests. It shows a clear lack of understanding of the purpose of FP and the fact that FP's do not have to be the highest quality if they are limited (prehaps just a single image) in existence and difficult (or impossible) to reproduce at a higher quality. I am on the board for Wikimedia UK and am working towards similar goals as gerard and if an archive were willing to provide us with copies of a one of a kind image that couldn't be easily reproduced, then surely such images deserve to be FP's if they were encyclopedic but prehaps not good quality images. Sedd&sigma;n talk 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well those calls came as legitimate opinions (interpretations of the FPC criteria) from respectable regulars here; you may be a board member, but this is still a community. But the argument here is that "this would be better as a VP" in FPC noms is what's "destroying" FPC, and supposedly has been for a while; I'm waiting for failed noms that clearly failed due to the VP suggestion, or VPs that should be FPs, but aren't due to quality concerns raised in an FP nom. Interestingly, some of the VPs that are historical (and meet FP size requirements), were nominated by the same people that are complaining here, which implies they believed they weren't up to FP quality. As for the Triton and Nagasaki examples, they are completely incidental (in fact, coincidental). I want to see evidence regarding the claim, not semi-off-topic additional claims that get us off track from the original complaint. See, this is what it's like to read comments with evidence.  wadester 16  00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to smite you with me being a WMUK director, nor undermine the community. I know how this works, I have been here for a while. I'm saying that those very interpretations of the FPC criteria are flawed and wrong. Sedd&sigma;n talk 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seddon is also the nominator of four featured pictures. He is a member of the community, and has a very solid understanding of FP standards.  Durova Charge! 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark as historical. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Mark as historical. NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - has a tendency to shunt high EV pictures to it. They are nearly impossible to restore without degrading the integrity of the original, and thus impede both the efforts of restorationists who can clean up other images, and those that find the images in the first place. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As a regular, I can safely say that no images have been shunned as yet. I wonder at how effective these deletions can be when unrelated and unconcerned parties make uninformed decisions. --Muhammad (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not confident of that assertion: have you done a survey of how many FPC noms went downhill after someone canvassed the nom for VPC? Durova Charge! 20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember there were two images (of some American massacre of Native Americans) and you may remember, I supported them and said VP was not for those images simply because they were of sufficiently high quality. I don't know of any other and even if there may be some few, then why not fix the system? Of the 70 or so valued images we have, all of them have astounding encyclopedic value but are they all truly worthy of being featured? VP has recognized images which would otherwise have gone noticed. Instead of seeing the cup half empty why don't we try to give more exposure to VP as well so that museums would be willing to release their images for that as well? --Muhammad (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reasons why not are:
 * 1. The boundary between VP and FP was never clearly defined. It was always vulnerable to misuse, as a ghetto project.  There's no clear way to prevent that other than ending the program.
 * 2. The purpose of the VP program was never well defined. "It's like good articles for images" was the slogan, but that doesn't have much meaning.
 * Wikipedia's best interests aren't served by setting up new image processes to ape text processes; our needs are different. And what we need foremost is access to more material: most libraries etc. don't provide ready access to images the way they do to their text collections.  So our priority needs to be opening doors.  And when slavish imitation of GA becomes an active hindrance to that goal, then we need to change course.  Durova Charge! 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to politely and respectfully request that the complainant provide two or three FPCs that definitely had a chance to pass, but that clearly failed due to the existence of VPC: it can be due to claims of "this would be better for VP", or questions of quality, etc. I don't really care about the reason, just so long as VPC is the clear reason for failure. The burden of proof is on the complainant and I'm not convinced by the given examples, both of which are delist noms, one of which was not nom'ed "just so it can go to VP" and I AGF that the other is the same case (correct me if I'm wrong, Muhammad). All I ask is that these be clear and notable examples.  wadester 16  21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor who offered assurance that "no images have been shunned as yet" has been invited to substantiate that claim. The ball's in his court.  Durova Charge! 21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is your MFD. The ball never left your court. I'm only asking for three.  wadester 16  21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The onus is on the accuser to substantiate her claims. I made this point earlier and it has not been answered. This page has a number of very poorly-informed statements in support of deletion and the original complaint has not been developed, merely restated with increasing amounts of hyperbole. Crucially, we have not been shown any "active hindrance" to the process of attracting new collections to the encyclopedia. --mikaultalk 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I believe this process is flawed and should have just been brought up at WT:VPC as a possibility in the future. No deletion suggestions seemed to have been made in the discussions given, and all the discussions are from January or earlier. The arguments here boil down to hypotheticals, theoreticals, and evidence-less statements. I'm not at all confident in this process.  wadester 16  22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) The outcome of that exercise is easy to summarize: a rather aggressive recruitment campaign has been going on for months, among certain FPC regulars, to 'remind' nominators that 'VP exists'. These reminders were often left on the FPC pages themselves while the discussion was open and the outcome was by no means certain. Occasionally that's a fair response when a nominator was genuinely new to FPC and unfamiliar with standards, but it went quite a bit beyond that and 'reminded' existing regulars who knew about both programs perfectly well, and gave the appearance of an attempt to shunt material away from FP. This occurred despite the fact that the site already has plenty of other material that would have made perfectly good VPs. It's debatable whether any FPCs were actually sunk that way, but it certainly was off-putting. Durova Charge! 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean these two posts. Your conspiracy theory is very wrong. We don't do it to shunt anything. We are avid members of the project and want to see it continue. Your argument has yet to grow from basic hypotheticals and (linkless) "I remember when..." examples. Therefore there's no proof that VP is actually a negative.  wadester 16  22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Durova has yet to provide evidence. I don't recall any "shunting", and Wadester's links were not placed there to shunt anything away. It is a simple form of advising newcomers about the project.  Zoo Fari  22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Took a while to assemble. This is a response to the assertion "As a regular, I can safely say that no images have been shunned as yet." (posted by Muhammad above) to which I responded "Not confident of that assertion: have you done a survey of how many FPC noms went downhill after someone canvassed the nom for VPC?"  No FPC regular has asked him to verify his assertion, but several have demanded that I substantiate why I am not confident of it.  Well here's the reason: 43 featured picture candates have been referred to VPC while their candidacies were underway.  Wikipedia has only 70 VPs, which suggests that active FPCs have been the principal recruitment ground for the VP process.  Bear in mind a quote from the very earliest of these:
 * ''I am not sure in what format to respond all the points you've made, but I'll try to respond at least some. IMO VP project should not have even been introduced here at all, if FPC had encyclopedic value of the image in the first place and quality in the last, if at all. Wikipedia is encyclopedia and IMO the value of the image should have been the most important criteria of images selection for FP status. I do not take personally your opposing of my images.  Of course it does not matter, if images have been published elsewhere. I am sure that more than half of National Geographic Magazine images would have been rejected by FP reviewers. Does it mean there's something wrong with the National Geographic Magazine images ? No, IMO it is rather something wrong with FPC process here on Wikipedia.
 * Fair disclosure: very early on, while I was trying to give the VP program a fair chance, I made three of these referrals myself. A wikicookie for the first person who reads this list closely enough to tell which those were.  Bottom line: I certainly cannot safely say that no FPC nominations have failed because of VP.  Nor, IMO, can anyone else make that blanket assertion responsibly.  Please post responses to the MfD talk page.  Durova Charge! 00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Featured_picture_candidates/Homeless_man_in_Tokyo
 * 2) Featured picture candidates/Swine Flu Masked Train Passengers in Mexico City
 * 3) Featured_picture_candidates/Aphids_on_Christmas_Rose
 * 4) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:NottMemorialPano.jpg
 * 5) Featured_picture_candidates/Edward_VIII_abdication_papers
 * 6) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hoverfly_September_2007-7.jpg
 * 7) Featured_picture_candidates/Sky_lanterns
 * 8) Featured_picture_candidates/Lilium_longiflorum_(Easter_Lily).JPG
 * 9) Featured_picture_candidates/Western_tent_caterpillars_and_their_tent
 * 10) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:ShimadaK2007Sept09-MentosGeyser_DSC_3294%2B%2B.JPG
 * 11) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:US100000dollarsbillobverse.jpg
 * 12) Featured picture candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion II
 * 13) Featured_picture_candidates/Car_crash
 * 14) Featured_picture_candidates/CalnePigs
 * 15) Featured_picture_candidates/Dried_mushrooms
 * 16) Featured_picture_candidates/Anne_Frank_House
 * 17) Featured_picture_candidates/Renal_Corpuscle
 * 18) Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Rembrandt The Hundred Guilder Print.jpg
 * 19) Featured_picture_candidates/Wounded_Knee_aftermath
 * 20) Featured_picture_candidates/Fox_Tor_on_Dartmoor
 * 21) Featured_picture_candidates/Ryan_Cisterna_Home_Run
 * 22) Featured_picture_candidates/Ellis_Island_video
 * 23) Featured_picture_candidates/_Punaluu_Beach
 * 24) Featured_picture_candidates/Moringa_oleifera_flower
 * 25) Featured_picture_candidates/Film_audio
 * 26) Featured_picture_candidates/Wallowing_Behavior_of_American_Bisons
 * 27) Featured_picture_candidates/Pachypodium_lealii
 * 28) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:White-faced_Heron.jpg
 * 29) Featured_picture_candidates/Beck's_Mill
 * 30) Featured_picture_candidates/Erythrism_in_a_katydid
 * 31) Featured_picture_candidates/Mantis_shrimp_from_front
 * 32) Featured_picture_candidates/Paul_Oglesby
 * 33) Featured_picture_candidates/Obama_official_portrait
 * 34) Featured_picture_candidates/Invitation_to_the_Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama
 * 35) Featured_picture_candidates/Willy_Brandt
 * 36) Featured_picture_candidates/Surviving_Herero
 * 37) Featured_picture_candidates/Map_of_Idaho_counties
 * 38) Featured_picture_candidates/Paul_Oglesby
 * 39) Featured_picture_candidates/Boyd's_Forest_Dragon
 * 40) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Brown_Treecreeper.jpg
 * 41) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Bonasa-umbellus-001.jpg
 * 42) Featured_picture_candidates/Emma_Goldman
 * 43) Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Komodo_dragons_video.wmv.OGG
 * These are not valid to what I was looking for. You seem to have pulled random noms that involve mentioning of VPC. As you can see, many of these images are very poor in quality but high EV, which brings us back to why VP exists. If you can't pull out any evidence of shunting, then it can't be claimed as dangerous to FP.  Zoo Fari  01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I specifically culled the ones that merely mentioned VP randomly. The list would be considerably longer if I had done as you assert.  Although it remains possible that a small number might have been screened better.  Bear in mind, several FP regulars were accusing me of falsehood and demanding prompt response.  "Fast, cheap, or good: pick any two" as they say in business.  My labor is volunteered, so you toggle the two remaining options.  Submitted in good faith.  Durova Charge! 01:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't expect so many. These are all FPCs that mention "VPC" or "valued picture". I'm coming to realize that one will most likely not be able to prove that VPC is negatively affecting FPC, unless noms that clearly show such a case exist. Almost every oppose that includes "Try VPC" does so as encouragement to keep up with the -picture process (be it featured or valued). If VPC didn't exist, then a typical oppose (random example) would be "Oppose per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug," rather than "Oppose per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug. I'd nominate it at WP:VPC though," which offers encouragement to keep trying, especially for new contributors. These examples offer little to convince me. I don't believe VPC is sinking FPC; I believe FPC has its own inherent problems.  wadester 16  01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet if it were really intended as encouragement, it would have been much more encouraging to have culled through five years of FPC archives, and to have surprised the nominees of those closed nominations with the compliment of a third party nomination to the new program. Or to at least to have waited until a current FPC had completed and then posted an invitation to VPC at the nominator's user talk.  Or to have browsed articles for existing high quality images that had never been nominated--what a delightful surprise that would have been for editors who never suspected their work was worthy of notice.  Any of those alternatives would have guaranteed that FPC was not affected; yet the most aggressive route was pursued.  Durova Charge! 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're faulting an entire community for being human. Nicely done.  wadester 16  01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wadester, I think that Durova has a valid point here. If I got an "oppose, try WP:VPC" at their FPC, I too would be somewhat disappointed and annoyed that I was feeling somewhat belittled. This is somewhat akin to a senior high school class sitting down some time around January, after all the admissions are in. One relatively bright senior says he had applied to Columbia University. Rather than wish him luck with his application, the honors student turns around and says, "Dude, Ivy League? With your grades? Have you thought about say, a state school, instead?" While state schools are not bad at all, there are a number of private colleges that most students would choose to attend over them. This is somewhat akin to that. Let us readapt the metaphor. Pretend our relatively bright student only applied to Columbia. Say after the declination to Columbia is received, the honors student offers to write him an application to say, a second-tier college. (For those who understand the American college application process, just play along; I know there are impossibilities being stated here) Do you see the difference? Also, "have you run out of arguments?" was rather unnecessary, can I ask you to please not do something like that again? Thanks. NW ( Talk ) (How am I doing?) 01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree and would argue that it is not like that. In fact, it's like the kid that tries out for varsity and doesn't make it, but is offered a spot on JV instead. The kid deserves a spot on JV, but tried for varsity hoping he'd make it (unrealistic dream). He didn't. Life is tough. But at least in this case, there is a backup, which can still offer him some semblance of what was originally desired. For your example, we're most likely speaking of a newbie. Most likely, their suggestion won't pass. But many times, a failed FPC will pass at VPC, which will offer a less harsh learning experience (indeed, praise) and a way to work one's way up to FP quality (or at least keep a potential nominator interested in the process). It's not nearly as negative as you seem to think.  wadester 16  08:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be more civil with your edit summaries. It isnt a case of burning out your opponent until they dont argue back anymore. And we arnt discussing the entire community here, it is a select few. Everyone accepts everyone is human, it is for that very reason that we are having this discussion. Those sorts of statements dont move this discussion forward.
 * This seems more like an issue towards Wadester, which isn't relevant to this proposal. Please keep it off the proposal page (or discuss at his talk page instead) because claims like these flood the page as done at many FPC pages. I'm quite tired of them.  Zoo Fari  03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is an issue with high EV images being nudged towards VP simply because of poor quality, when their EV is clearly great enough to grant it leniencey in terms of quality. However this leniency is simply not being granted despite it being clearly mentioned in the FP requirements. It is this misunderstanding that is causing the problems. Until that misunderstanding is sorted, VP should not be used as a dustbin for the sort of FPC's discussed and the process halted. Sedd&sigma;n talk 01:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The push towards VP isn't to go around FP, but to house an image until it is upgraded or restored (i.e. to continue to recognize it until it can be fully recognized). In reading over WP:FP?, I find that Criteria 1 and 5 add to my case:
 * Under #1: (is of high technical standard): "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." ←This essentially implies that restoration is expected. A technically superior image is one that corrects issues with an original version in a way that does not destruct the original and preserves the original character of the image.
 * Under #5: "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." ←As it stands, artistic value ≠ image quality. If that is what is requested, then a consensus needs to be gained regarding a change to WP:FP?. That is not my problem and I don't believe that the standards are being misinterpreted on my end.
 * I would concur that there may be an issue with WP:FP?, especially since there are more details to the caption (which is, unfortunately, typically ignored to much of an extant) than there is to EV. But like I said, this requires a change to the system. As of now, the criteria are quite clear and "interpretation" can be kept to a minimum. My points above follow with the criteria and as of now, meet the expectations of the community that set them up.  wadester 16  08:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It should also be patently obvious by now that the key issues in this deletion proposal are ones which need to be resloved at FPC, and not problems arising as a result of the presence of VPC. They are issues that would certainly exist even if VPC did not. FPC is in the process of some protracted navel-gazing which might actually produce something positive and (even) address the historical image "quality vs EV" bugbear. VPC simply hasn't had the chance to garner the legitimacy necessary to sway issues of such fundamental importance to the project, so this definitely isn't a sensible way to address them. Let's end this now and concentrate efforts where they are most needed. --mikaultalk 09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the potential for misuse is inherent in the valued pictures program. It was initiated with minimal support and serves no useful function.  It is bureaucracy.  Durova Charge! 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the potential for misuse is inherent in any wiki. However, any potential for misuse of FP lies wholly within the FPC project, and always has. No amount of restating this is going to make a project which, by your own assessment has next to no support, somehow powerfully nefarious. Re your second point: the initiation of wiki projects requires no more support than the energy of a handful of motivated volunteers; it has clearly has that much and looks to me to have set about things with the very best intentions. In any case, as SmokeyJoe points out immediately below, lack of broad consensus and defined purpose in the project, should that be the case, is simply not a reason for deletion. --mikaultalk 14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
I won't be going thru all the noms but many of them have little EV hence their failure. The aphids has poor quality and as a macro photographer, I know better quality can be produced. BAsically what I am trying to point out is VP offers encouragement and recognizes images which would have failed anyway. For what its worth, many of the nominations that Durova linked above, she was also one of the opposers. --Muhammad (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. Keep, reform, archive, as per talk page (where are the discussions?), but we don't delete project organisational efforts.  "program was instituted without broad consensus and its purpose was never clearly defined" is definitely not a reason for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Homeless_man_in_Tokyo has questionable EV, which is why it is failing.
 * Swine Flu Masked Train Passengers in Mexico City also questionable EV and quality problems.
 * Aphids on Christmas Rose good EV but poor quality.
 * Strong keep. At first I didn't have a strong opinion about this proposal as I haven't been heavily involved in VPC in the past but the more I read, the more I realise that this is not really about VPC - It's about a couple of individuals in FPC that have felt marginalised by the 'system' there and are looking for something to blame. As many people have already said, this is not the fault of VPC at all. If VPC is going to fail, let it fail by failing to get the community participation. Besides, most of the votes of 'delete' have come from those who have not participated in either FPC or VPC and seem to be taking the nominator's word for it all, and I'd take it with a grain of salt. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Amen to your last sentence. I was wondering what woodwork all these users came out of.  wadester 16  18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Procedural speedy keep MfD is for deletion debates. The core issue here seems to be the continuance of this program, not the deletion of whatever results it has produced and the entire record of its existence. I take no position on the substantive issue, but debates should take place in the proper venue. If deletion is not a possible outcome, then the discussion is misplaced. deranged bulbasaur 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deranged bulbasaur. Also, as mentioned, a lot of the issues raised here seem to be more about FP than VP. VP may be floundering, but it's young and deserves a chance to succeed (or fail). And it should do so based on its merits, not because of problems with FP. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'know... we have different levels of quality assessment for articles, with FA being the highest. Why shouldn't we have multiple levels of quality assessment for images as well? "Valued"... meh. DS (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this lower level is being used for encyclopedic value and the higher is being used for technical quality. While that is great for a photography studio, we are an encyclopedia. Perhaps a tiered system is a good idea, but this particular incarnation has its priorities backwards. Chillum  19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A tiered system works for articles because, technically, any article should be able to be improved up to FA status with enough work. With photos, that's not the case. There's only so much processing one can do to improve the quality of a picture. Also, GA and FA are both quality standards. Any article can become a GA or an FA, regardless of how encyclopedic it is. VP isn't especially concerned with quality, only usage. Even GA requires that the article be well-written. Mr.Z-man 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * More than that, VP harms volunteer efforts to gain access to more images. Think of the Nagasaki nuclear cloud image: if you're negotiating with a Japanese museum, it's very persuasive to tell the curators that one of their images could get selected as a featured picture and get millions of views on Wikipedia's main page.  They want their side of the history to be seen too.  When a museum says yes, WMF gains thousands of highly valuable images.  It makes no sense to hinder that just to have a bureaucratic wiki-program.  Durova Charge! 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or mark historical/rejected per nom. I have to agree with the instituted without broad consensus part - I didn't even know this existed until now. The criteria seem to be very poorly defined, particularly the "most educational work" one. From reading it, it sounds like the picture has to be especially occasional, but then looking at the actual valued pictures, the only real criteria seem to be: its the main or one of the main images in the article and it isn't crap. If it is kept, it really needs some better defined, less subjective criteria to determine educational value, as that's really the only criterion it has that isn't just a technicality. Mr.Z-man 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfamiliarity isn't from lack of trying.  wadester 16  20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there was never much support in the first place then maybe it wasn't such a good idea. Durova Charge! 21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything except the Signpost article (I don't read the Signpost) was just a minor mention. Did you ever consider actually proposing it somewhere before starting it? Mr.Z-man 22:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't start it and had no part of the initiation. I jumped on the bandwagon after it began, and liked being part of the project.  wadester 16  23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, on the provision that it be turned into maybe "Good images" instead, a way to classify images that aren't "as good" as FP, but still are quite good. ViperSnake151  Talk 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, I really don't understand what the fuss is about here... why can't FPC and VPC exist? Is it not the closest images and their usage have to the article system of GA and FA? Obviously not the exact same and that isn't necessarily the best way to try to explain it but is this being deleted because it is causing insurmountable grief at FPC or because it has suffered from very little contributions? If it is the latter I fear greatly for WP:ITN/C... VPC may not be a perfect system but it has basic ideals which can be improved, particularly through a discussion such as this. I am left with the impression that FPC is getting into a bit of a sulk because it senses it has a dangerous rival from a relatively new and much smaller project which FPC wishes to wipe out instead of both VPC and FPC working together to sort out their differences... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because VP is actively harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material. The chairman of the Open Progress Foundation and a board member of Wikimedia UK both support this deletion nom.  Durova Charge! 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it "harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material"? And I'd like to see sources for your dubious claim of the OPF. Apparently you refused to respond to Wadester above.  Zoo  Fari  22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the information you seek is posted above. GerardM is Gerard Meijssen, chairman of Open Progress.  His name and organization are easy to Google.  Open Progress is currently negotiating with three institutions.  The results could exceed the size of last winter's 800,000 image donation from Germany's Bundesarchiv.  We've been talking about this work for months.  If you have further questions, ask him.  Durova Charge! 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Because VP is actively harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material"... can this be clarified? I find it difficult to believe that one section within Wikipedia could do such harm... what does this mean and can it be explained concisely? Are the archives and museums holding Wikipedia to ransom? And why does it matter to them if Wikipedia categorises them under "featured" or "valued"? My understanding of "featured" is that it is based on several technicalities such as visual beauty. My understanding of "valued" is that it refers to how these images are used and that an image does not have to be visually stunning. Perhaps I am incorrect or may not have explained that in the best way but I still don't understand why VP is so venomous to FP and why it must be reduced to extinction. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The answers to your questions are already posted in great detail above. This discussion is already long and hard to read; repetitions here would only worsen that problem.  Would gladly discuss this on the talk page, and if something arises that has not already been expressed then will cross post.  Durova Charge! 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Meijssen GerardM took the time to post on my wall a while back regarding an FPC, which I "censored" to be safe for work and family. I wonder if he knows that POTD does skip over certain images. While Wikipedia isn't censored in general, the main page does not post (for lack of a better word) filth for the 7 million viewers per day to see. I invite him to explain why he expected the head of a penis to end up on the main page for a full day. I assume good faith that he knows exactly what he's talking about and is extremely familiar with FPC guidelines, but this example does lead to a question or two.  wadester 16  00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr. Meijssen has European sensibilities about the human body. Such subjects are discussed without embarrassment in his culture.  Standards at FPC and POTD are slightly different.  Two of my nominations have been featured, although they will not be selected for POTD.  Mr. Meijssen had legitimate questions, and an editor who fears to expose his work and family to that type of topic perhaps ought not to be commenting to it and risking questions.  At any rate, that is irrelevant to this MfD.  If there was any reason to mention it other than to cast unwarranted doubts upon Mr. Meijssen's professionalism, you are welcome to discuss it further at user talk.  Durova Charge! 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input, but I asked for his response. Mr. Meijssen GerardM?  wadester 16  06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI I am GerardM, in my culture being only called by the surname is considered insulting. Given the way you bring something that is completely unrelated to this subject can be considered a personal attack. As you may not know, there are good reasons why people should know what a healthy penis looks like. This picture of a penis is special because I would not have recognised it as such and as such it has an extremely high encyclopaedic value. I think I made that argument at the time. The notion that a detailed picture of a penis automatically makes it pornography is foreign to me. Having pictures like this particular one is extremely educational.
 * There are also good arguments why historical pictures and particular restored high quality pictures should be featured. The "valued picture" thing is a misnomer because it provides no material benefit. As the existence of the "valued picture" category is used as an argument not to feature, this argument is best put aside by removing this category. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I (or Durova, for that matter) offended you by using your last name, my apologies; though the English Wikipedia is dominated by Western-raised users, where using your surname is considered more respectful. Though I would point out that if you didn't notice the difference between the penis mentioned and, say, your own (as a Western-raised individual, I assume you're male), I wonder what your review process is at FPC (that, or I wonder if you should visit your doctor)—I'll also point out that the image is not that of healthy penis, even though you claim it as such. But no matter what, a penis on the main page still wouldn't fly. Also, starting a sentence with "As you may not know..." is considered insulting in my culture, especially when one is just requesting your input and clarification on a situation (it negatively questions the intelligence of the one who the phrase is pointed at). I only bring you up because Durova has referenced you many times in her arguments, apparently equating you with the paragon of FPC reviewers. You're welcome,  wadester 16  07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the penis image you brought up, that is also something we must consider. I agree, we should not have that kind of pornography. Wikipedia is one of the largest sources of information for schools in which is innapropriate for 18-. As for Durova, it isn't a single person's decision though, so a better place would be FPC talk.  Zoo Fari  00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Let's keep this on topic please.  Durova Charge! 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pornography is defined by a combination of content (explicit sexual subject matter) and context (intent to sexually excite the recipient of the stimulus). Depiction of explicit sexual subject matter on its own is not automatically pornographic; consider, for example, medical textbooks. I agree, however, with you and Durova that this is a matter beyond the scope of this MFD. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How did my comment get turned into a debate about pornography and penises... -- can  dle &bull; wicke  22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Diliff and others. The principle of the valued pictures project is a good one (both as an incentive to restore very high EV images with limited technical quality and as an incentive for photographers who aren't quite at FP level in terms of skill and/or equipment), and I don't think the 'works against efforts to free up historical source images' argument holds much water.--ragesoss (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark historical per Mostlyharmless; if kept, rename to Good pictures to avoid such a selective use of the term "valued". Any image on the English Wikipedia that contributes positively to the articles in which it is used should be valued. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, these processes seem like they could exist in parallel. Second choice would be to mark historical. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly mark historical. The reason for the existence of the idea is not a bad one. Having said that, I can see how it would seem to discriminate against older, historical images. It is a valid criticism that any sort of "recognition" of this type which does seemingly discriminate against older images has serious flaws. If those flaws cannot be addressed, then it would be not unreasonable to tag it as historical. John Carter (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And may I ask what you mean by "older images"?  Zoo  Fari  16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He probably means historical images. Like the one of the Nagasaki bombing. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment A lot of the argument seems to come from mentions of VP or VPC in active FPC or delist noms. How about we just make that illegal? The motive behind the move wasn't meant to be evil, but if it fixes things...  wadester 16  14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Durova's well-reasoned nomination. This process serves no good purpose. --B (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and reform I know ideas along these lines have been floating around for a while. FPC has it's flaws, and it would be nice to have something for good pictures that aren't quite FPs. I would support renaming it to Good pictures or some other name as well, but I don't feel strongly about that. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rationale essentially seems to be "I prefer featured pictures to valued pictures, therefore valued pictures has no value". I disagree.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep, It is encouragement to photograph difficult, but enc subjects. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am of the opinion that no Featured Picture candidate should ever be failed just because the Valued Pictures process is available.  Ever.  If that is happening, then there is something wrong with the Featured Picture process.  But sometimes there are images which cannot be Featured, and would never be Featured, but still have high encyclopedic value.  I do not see the harm in having an alternative process whereby these sorts of images can be highlighted, along with other images that perhaps may someday be Featured but are not yet. The argument regarding image archives being dissuaded from releasing their images to the Wikimedia Foundation is confusing to me.  If the Featured Pictures process does not change as a result of the Valued Pictures process being available&mdash;as I said above that it should not&mdash;then I don't see why Valued Pictures should have any effect on the willingness of an archive to release their images to us.  Their images would still have exactly the same chance of being Featured on the Main Page, would they not?  Powers T 12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me just note that even though I have virtually no involvement with Featured or Valued Pictures, even I knew that historical and technically difficult images must have those factors taken into account when it comes to judging quality at Featured Pictures. The presence or absence of a Valued Pictures process should have no effect on that longstanding rule.  Powers T 12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The VP and FP criteria are very similar: the only difference is that FPs must be better quality and more attractive than VPs, and FP is a way of recognising that.  Since FPs are by definition better quality and attractive than VPs, they are put on the main page.  I realise that some historical/scientific images are both irreplacable and low quality; that doesn't mean they can't be featured, as the FP criteria make allowances for that. On the other hand, obvious improvements which can be made should be made before an image becomes an FP, or else it clearly fails the is among Wikipedia's best work criterion.  I have to admit that I am thinking specifically of File:Nagasakibomb.jpg here - in my opinion, it fails this because of the dust, scratches etc.  The window reflections are obviously not removable, so they are tolerable in an FP. Specifics aside, an image should not fail FP because VP exists - the criteria have not changed.  What I think is needed is for more images to be put through WP:PPR before they are nominated for FP - that way a consensus can emerge as to which they should become, and improvements can be made before they reach the full-blown FP nom, when there is often no chance to edit images before so many votes have been cast that it makes it unlikely that the edit will become an FP (regardless of whether the edit is an improvement or not).  Perhaps greater integration with the Graphics Lab would help achieve that.  Time3000 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark as historical, upgrade all VP to FP. Basically agree with those who say that Good articles are meant as both a waypoint to Featured Articles as well as a convenient stopping place for topics of narrow subject matter.  That doesn't apply to images - very few images are "improved" in the way articles can be, and the narrow subject matter issue that articles have doesn't apply.  If a picture has great encyclopedic value, that should be enough for FP; FP should not be a beauty contest about resolutions and imperfections.  SnowFire (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be a significant change in the scope of the Feature Picture process. Powers T 22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my remark is mostly applicable to historic images which are far more likely to have the "extremely hard to improve upon" attribute. That is, the existing criterion 1 of WP:WIAFP, except I'd probably prefer it to say "very difficult" rather than "impossible." (Relevant text:  "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed."  Actually, I'd strike the "sometimes" as well, it's redundant with "may.")  I don't think that it's that major a change. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a laudable sentiment but that particular criterion is one of several which have to apply in order to qualify an image as having exceptional EV. We probably have tens of thousands of irreplaceable images, many of them historical, many of which lack anything sufficiently compelling or arresting, or that are informative and descriptive enough to mark them out as "special". A very long-standing consensus for FPs is that we narrow this down further by requiring a certain level of detail and refinement which may be mitigated in exceptional circumstances. This is purely to keep the bar high, ensuring that featured pictures actually are the very best we have to offer; it has to be this way for "featured" to have any meaning. Where has this odd idea come from that there's some kind of trend against EV at FPC? EV is the whole point of it, more so now than ever. --mikaultalk 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, the 'odd idea' that we're trending against EV comes directly from Durova. She lit the fire and then fanned the flames with discussions such as this. As you are probably aware, I've brought up a similar issue with her as you have mentioned here ("EV + IMAGE QUALITY = FP" is the basic formula for featured pictures, and EV alone does not necessarily justify FP) and she has twice deigned no response to me even when prompted... Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Take File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg, it has high enc (tail length and juvinile riding on back), but is definately not a FP for lighting reasons. File:Magpie chasing Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg, also has high enc (and is a pretty rare shot imo), but again, doesn't have the required image quality for a FP. I'd be opposed to upgrading all VP to FP. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. VP and FP serve different goals. I would like to see some proof that the VP process is hindering the obtaining of museum archives (for example, communication from a museum representative voicing his/her concerns that material may not make the Main Page because it might get shunted into VP instead).  howcheng  {chat} 05:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename if kept. Calling it "valued images" causes confusion with what that means on Commons. VP here is nothing like Commons' Valued images, which this stoled that name of. Obviously, VP here is more of a "Good Image", almost-but-not-quite-FP program. And being that's what it is, why not combine the two? Personally, I don't understand why each project feels the need to create all these redundant processes. Anything to avoid working on the articles, I guess... 71.155.237.68 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you forgot to log in; you only have 8 edits total, meaning unless you log in, this comment will most likely be disregarded in the final decision-making process.  wadester 16  13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, and why would that be? This is not RFA. Garion96 (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a general rule everywhere? We don't allow IPs to vote in FPCs...  wadester 16  20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You kidding me? RFA is (or should be) the only exception. Besides cases of sock puppetry there should be no reason to disregard comments/votes of IPs. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then suggest the change. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.  wadester 16  23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I thought so too, and certainly agree they should be disregarded. Not only they are the least to expose experience, it can also be dangerous to the project. I could simply vote here with my signature, log out and vote, go to another computer and vote, and perhaps use my cell phone to vote. But that discussion should take place else. Let's be on topic here...  Zoo Fari  00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

 * Mark as Historical: The entire point of assessment is to improve our content, the prize for the highest levels of improvement being wiki-wide recognition and a shot at a spot on the main page. Therefore, any image that can be a VP can be an FP too. Thus this entire avenue is unneeded. Why should those who look for quality images worthy of recognition settle for less than featured status? I challenge anyone told to take their image to VP to return with the image to FPC and push to get picture to FP status. Anything worth having is worth working and fighting for. As General Eisenhower observed on D-Day, the thrust should be towards "full victory, nothing else." TomStar81 (Talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete—I disagree with the nominator on one point: I believe that Wikipedia does need a visual equivalent to GAs. However, as it stands now, VP is a complete farce and it would need a complete reboot to make it better. I have been around VP noms here and there just to see what it was about, but came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no set criteria and many very bad pictures get nominated and approved, while many not so good pictures are not. It all depends on what people comment on the particular nomination, as there are absolutely no guidelines. Yes, the guidelines could be created and fixed, but that wouldn't help the many many images already approved or rejected at VPC, so I believe we need to delete this and if someone can formulate ideas to improve it, more power to them. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree there have been nominations that I agree they shouldn't have been promoted. I've already made my evaluation criteria myself, actually. The criteria itself needs some changes. If kept, I would certainly start a discussion about it.  Zoo Fari  23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The idea is sound. If it is being used to pull certain images out of the FPC process, then that is a bad thing, but we don't delete the speedy deletion criteria just because they are sometimes misapplied. J Milburn (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * mark as historical Purpose is less than clear and seems to be interfering with FPC. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence. I'm sick of hearing this, and yet I see nobody provide diffs to verify "interfering". I don't see you participate (or atleast not that much) in FPC, so how do you know it is interfering FPC? Maybe you just look above and agree?  Zoo Fari  00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – belt-and-braces idea, not well-considered. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.