Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 31

Archive... not?
How'd this get missed Featured picture candidates/delist/Cosmic Microwave Background, I don't see it in the archives? Is this a common occurrence? — raeky  T  19:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist noms have a separate archive: Featured_picture_candidates/delist/2010.  Jujutacular  talk 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My bad.. ;-) — raeky  T  20:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what the blazes this is?
I don't bother reading the stuff at the top of the FPC page any more, thus miss random changes. But saw this when looking at the Glossary link Juju had added.

Firstly, as far as I can tell, it was added unilaterally by SMH - at least I don't remember any discussion about it and it doesn't reference one.

OK, but more importantly, I don't understand what it's meant to mean. All I can guess is that it was a hidden slap at VPC, which SMH strongly disliked, especially since his VP/VPC MfD nomination had failed just one or two days previously. I propose we remove it. --jjron (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it was added in because of the perceived canvasing for VPC back during the old MfDs... It can be removed imho because there really hasn't ever been or currently isn't an issue with people promoting things in FPC nominations... — raeky  T  15:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a classic SMH. Yes, please remove. --Dschwen 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that last week for the first time. I think the best part is that his previous edit summary reads "This sentence was added with no discussion, Get consensus for its addition first." It can probably go. I'd actually like to see the whole header reworked to make things simpler for newcomers - maybe make the criteria and the PPR link more prominent, and a few other things I can't remember right now. But that's a discussion for another time. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that too and thought the same thing. --jjron (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a contentious issue in its day, and jjron had his own views that contrasted with SMH's. Interestingly, after having canvassed for VPC on 9 August (previous diff) and shown awareness that this was controversial, jjron denied having seen any such canvassing in his comment at the MfD on 6 October (both 2009). It might have been more constructive if jjron had declared his previous involvement at the outset of this discussion (and, dare I say, at the MfD). I don't think the evidence points to unilateralism on SMH's part, and the diff being dug up and paraded around is a tell-tale sign of axe shavings on the floor. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shock, horror...another jjron cover-up! Gosh-dang you PLW and your superior sleuthing skills!! Who would have thought that the person who first proposed Valued Pictures, who created a working prototype User:Jjron/VP Trial, who sought wide input about the concept, who created a second fully functional prototype User:Jjron/VP Trial 2 based on feedback, who consulted with and advised the user who eventually launched VP, who was a significant contributor to seeing justice done in not just one but two misguided MfDs, who has made numerous contributions to the current discussion on the present state of the VP project, who has tentatively supported the proposal to retire/mark historical the VP project in that discussion, and who even has a section on his userpage linking to much of this stuff, would in any way, shape or form have an opinion on VP? Thank god you're here to set the record straight on my surreptitious underhanded actions!! For crying out loud, this isn't even a discussion about VP, it's a discussion about an irrelevant paragraph on the FPC page added without consultation by a single user. Now go away. You really are making yourself look silly. --jjron (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The long queue to POTD on the Main Page

 * This thread is a shared transclusion. CLICK HERE to edit.  (Click here to view page)

Help needed
Hey guys. I'm just leaving a quick message to ask for your participation in Valued picture candidates. This is where images which aren't featured quality, but instead, very valuable to the encylopedia go. It has low participation at the moment, so it would be really nice to see some of you there. It would be a shame to see it close, as I feel it is important to have one level below this. -- bydand • talk  02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the vast majority of the regulars here are regulars there. ;-) It's just FPC gets a lot more "drive by" votes and temporary people... — raeky  T  02:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, every little helps :) If we get 1 or 10 more, it helps! -- bydand • talk  02:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also..
Since I'm keen to start successfully nominating FPs, how do you think File:Justus Sustermans - Portrait of Galileo Galilei, 1636.jpg would fare? -- bydand • talk  02:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats what WP:PPR is for, but I think the lighting emphasizes the cracks more than is necessary to the point it's almost distracting to the overall artwork. — raeky  T  04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Aurora
Just FYI, due to a coronal mass ejection, an aurora will be visible throughout much of the world on August 4-5. It is expected to be visible in latitudes greater than 45-50 degrees (according to our article), for any photographers that have a chance.  Jujutacular  talk 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked. Twice. Nothing but light pollution and stars. But others saw it. See CNN: Northern lights paint skies across the world. Greg L (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was overcast here I'm afraid. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this really featured?


I can't find a nomination page, but it has the assessment tag. --I'ḏ ♥ One 09:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try asking Dysmorodrepanis . It may have simply been copied over from one of the other Haeckel images in the belief that they were all promoted. That would be a very easy mistake to make. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left him a note on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He replied and I removed the tag. I don't think we really need a delist nom for this... J Milburn (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was never promoted, then no. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that's that. Wasn't sure, thanks. --I'ḏ ♥ One 08:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Motorbike rider mono.jpg
According to the caption on the FP page, this has EV for its usage in motion blur, but it is only used in a gallery, and is hardly representative. Other than that, it's only used in lists. Does anyone have any idea of how to use it? The quality's clearly there, it would be a shame to have to delist it. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was also promoted for inclusion in Motocross (where it stuck) and Yamaha Motor Company (where it didn't). On Motocross, it does compete with another FP. Since you were asking, I've added it to Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit. FWIW, the model of motorbike does not seem to have been identified, and the motorbike may not be in sufficiently sharp focus to illustrate the model at FP level. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though it makes a pretty addition to the circuit article, there's still little EV there... J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I really think that if you're bent on delisting it, you should come right out and say so. It looks to me like you're pussyfooting around just so you can say, "oh and I tried and I tried, but in the end it was unavoidable". If you really want to keep this image, grow some creativity yourself and don't burden others with your inaction. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought it would be silly to nominate it for delisting, only to have to close it after ten minutes because someone spotted a use for it I had completely missed. There are images I strongly feel should be delisted (for instance, I strongly felt the map of Philipenes I nominated should have been delisted), but this is not one of them; I think there's nothing inherently wrong with it, there just isn't really a solid EV reason to show it off right now. I did look for an alternative usage myself, but I don't know the first thing about the subject. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the article Yamaha YZ250F because that is what it is. I ♥ ♪  ♫  ( talk ) 04:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun - August 1
What do you think about that picture? It is used in Sun and Solar flare. Hive001  contact  09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've looked at that as a possible nomination a couple of times. It's already looking like it will pass on Commons, but there are a few issues with the picture. Although large, the quality's not enormous, and I could see people getting annoyed with the little Earth. It's not as good as plenty of NASA pictures we do have, but I certainly think it would have a strong chance of passing, if you want to nominate it. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like it. Greg L (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I really like the picture, but it's not flawless. I destroyed Earth :) on the far right and I will nominate it. Let's see how it goes Hive001   contact  13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking "Encyclopedic value" seriously
It seems to have become a standard procedure at FPC to spam Wikipedia articles with the image you are nominating even if you have no idea what it is an image of, just so you can pass the encyclopedic value criteria. More specifically, it seems that every time we have a photo of a fly, beetle, spider, fossil, etc. the nominator makes a random guess as to the ID and then populates all the taxon articles with their image, even if those articles already have one or several photos that are professionally IDed. This may increase the EV of the image in question, but it is lowering the EV of Wikipedia in general. I've been complaining about this tendency for years now, and was hoping that it would die out with Fir0002's retirement, but unfortunately, it seems to be just as prominent as ever. User:Stemonitis has made a full time job out of cleaning-up after our bio image spamming. It's embarrassing that he has to be distracted from writing articles to explain to FPC nominators why their images don't belong in the articles they've been added to.

If you're not sure about an image's ID, you should not be adding it to articles without getting feedback from those article's authors (or an outside expert). And even if you are sure about an image's ID, you don't have to make it the first image of every single article it potentially belongs to. In other words, don't spam Wikipedia with your nomination. If you have to continually defend the placement of your images in various articles, it probably doesn't belong in them. Encyclopedic value should be a stable, long-lasting quality, not something that you artificially inflate immediately before the nomination. Kaldari (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are probably referring to the Tachinidae article and Tachinidae.jpg, let me first say that the image was in no way spammed into the article. It was a part of the article for more than a year and half and I doubt something spammed in would last as long. For the sake of neutrality, I advice those interested to see Talk:Tachinidae. --Muhammad (talk)  22:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Muhammad, I believe the user is talking about me adding image in lobster article today. What a silly accusation of spamming, what an assuming of bad faith it is! I am not a specialist in lobsters. I thought it will be nice to have a high quality image of fossil lobster in the article. I've done absolutely nothing wrong. It was a good faith edit. IMO the user, who reverted it, should have explained what family the lobster from my image belongs to versus simply removing it. It is what I would have done in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Making edits in good faith is nice, but what Kaldari says is perfectly valid- "If you're not sure about an image's ID, you should not be adding it to articles without getting feedback from those article's authors (or an outside expert)". J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, except it is not easy to know who is an article's author, and not easy to find outside experts. I added the image because I thought it was good for the article after comment by IP, and not because I wanted the image to get promoted. It is an image of a fossil of a lobster, that died 95 millions years ago. The image was removed. Nothing bad happened, and now I am outtahere.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mbz1, I think it might be wise to keep AGF for those occasions where it's really needed. As for asking on an article's talk page, the problem I see is that there's no guarantee of getting a reply within a reasonable time - some pages just aren't being watched at all, sadly, so while I agree that we should make sure that we know what we're doing, I don't see it as an obligation to always wait for talk page responses. We have WP:BB as a central tenet for a reason. That said, I've never judged a single FPC nom on the basis of how many articles an image was included in. As long as it meets the EV bar in a single article, it's good for me. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have no idea if this means a current or recent nomination, but that is not the oint anyways. Kaldari made a fairly general observation and I am very inclined to believe him. Picking one single image and try making the discussion about it is not helpful. --Dschwen 23:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is about this nomination. The image has been used in fossils for a long time, then a few days ago I wrote the article Lebanese fossils, and used it there. The article was moved to Paleontological sites of Lebanon. Then during the FP nomination I added the image to Cretaceous because IMO it is the best image to show different fossils of that period, and to Nematonotus because there was no image in the article at all, and I could not find anything at Commons. Then today after a comment by IP I added it to Lobster. It was removed, and I was accused in spamming. After that Kaldari started the thread. End of the story.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hadn't seen either your or Mohammad's FPC nominations when I got the idea to write this post. The idea was spawned by seeing User:Stemonitis's talk page. So yes, you and Mohammad triggered the idea, but I'm not trying to pick on either of you specifically. I think Fir0002 was actually the worst offender in this regard, but I still see the issue crop up on occasion. Anyway, maybe I should have postponed writing about the issue so that it wouldn't have seem so targeted. Sorry if I caused any offense. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Limited opportunity to import hard-to-access PD images from Flickr


Trialsanderrors, a user who used to be very active at FPC but hasn't been highly active here or on Commons for a while, has been using Flickr for the last few years to post high resolution public domain files from the Library of Congress: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trialsanderrors/

Many of these images are only accessible from the Library of Congress premises, not online. The pro account is going to expire on August 14, meaning that after that these images will no longer be accessible in full resolution. For some images, there are lower quality versions on Commons already. For some, they aren't on Commons yet at all. Basically every one is a great images that should be on Commons, and a number of them might make good FPC candidates if they get imported before the full resolution files are inaccessible. Some have already been cleaned up, others not.--ragesoss (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone got a bot that could be configured to mass download and upload these images? here before the expire date? I know of programs that will mass download, but the one I've used before doesn't preserve the description and other info so it's not easy to match back up to get source... — raeky  T  01:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, every TIF that appears grayed out on LoC is accessible, you just have to figure out the filing system. For example, the full res tif of the image linked at the right is located at: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3g00000/3g03000/3g03600/3g03656u.tif (77.5 MB). The trick is look at the filing system used for other similar pictures. Just make certain that the image is public domain before you use this trick, because when they don't link the TIF it's an indication that either it is not PD, or they haven't evaluated its rights status.  Jujutacular  talk 01:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting... useful bit if knowledge to file away. ;-) — raeky  T  01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed! The ones on Flickr have already had varying amounts of cleanup done (cropping at least, and often detail work too), so I guess the ones with a lot of value added from the tiff are what we should focus on before the Flickr account goes dark.--ragesoss (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone does mass import them, be sure to correct the licensing info (since Flickr doesn't allow normal users to tag images as PD). Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this won't be too late, but http://toolserver.org/~bryan/flickr/upload is pretty decent. It's one-at-a-time upload but it's pretty quick.  howcheng  {chat} 08:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See Commons:Village_pump. The files got uploaded, but they need cleanup and renaming.--ragesoss (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nick Hobgood
I think it would be possible to promote quite a few of Nick's pictures in a block without too much "air" in between. It's not like we don't have other things to be getting on with, and I haven't heard anybody say that his pictures are anything short of stellar. My only other suggestion would be to make two groups, starting with the material that's just above the bar - perhaps at the level of this and this, and then move onto the eyepoppers (thinking this, this, and this). Mind you, those are just examples, there are plenty of other nudibranchs, corals, starfishes, tunicates, etc. I could have equally well used as examples. Comments? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Moved from Featured picture candidates/Australian blenny.
 * Agreed, I had every intention of trawling through his work in the coming days. While the quality is supreme on many, the EV is less so on some- species not identified, lack of usage, etc. Are you wanting to do a kind of "nomination spree" or something? J Milburn (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't see the point of artificially reducing it to a trickle, and it's true that all of this material is hugely under-represented. It just requires a bit of cooperation on the part of reviewers so they review the nominations relative to the criteria and not comparatively. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a short list of images I think are good nominations already, but I'm gonna need to find/write articles for some of them. Do you want to start immediately? I strongly agree with this idea, but I worry some people won't like the nomination page being flooded. J Milburn (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mr. J Milburn, that's the whole point of having this discussion beforehand. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured image contributor
On the previous suggestion, do/should we have anything like a "featured image contributor"?--RDBury (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Moved from Featured picture candidates/Australian blenny
 * There are some of Nhobgood's that don't meet the criteria, if that answers the question, mostly for image size reasons. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnail changes
A few days ago, ImageMagick was finally upgraded on the thumbnailing servers (after becoming quite out of date). The immediate effect of this is that images will now have their color profiles preserved within newly generated thumbnails. (Existing thumbnails will remain cached for quite a while.) In other words, thumbnails will no longer have slightly different colors than the original images. It also seems to me that thumbnails are now softer than they were before. I'm wondering if the sharpening option has been turned off as part of the upgrade. Can any of you confirm whether or not this seems to be the case? Do new thumbnails seem to be softer than ones generated a week ago? Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They DO seem very soft. Also, if you have your preferences set to show the largest images (1280x1024, I think?) on File description pages, they've put a hard limit of about 1 megapixel in place that breaks that completely. I've bugrepped the latter. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you give a link for that? Kaldari (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * . Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think these are worth grabbing? If you keep hitting the "+" button, you can get very large copies, but they're mostly based on classic art - the first is the most famous part of the Sistine Chapel, for instance. Thoughts? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They seem to be of accomplished craftsmanship. You're no doubt a better judge of whether the artist is notable. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is irrelevant for media on Commons. So yes I think it's worth grabbing. As for the artist, I don't know enough Portuguese to be able to figure out his name? — raeky  T  15:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the images themselves: On the left you get something like Michaelangelo pinxit - that (roughly) means "painted it".  On the right you see something like Franc. Loving sculpit - that means "engraved it".  Now, you'll see delin instead of pinxit sometimes; that means "drew it" (lit. delineated). All of these are late 18th, early 19th century, which shouldn't surprise anyone who knows engravings - the style of that period is very distinct.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

added to it. Thanks. <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 08:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done  Jujutacular  talk 08:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, :) <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 08:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding comments
Note to everyone: I'm going to be adding placeholder comments in some of the code for a few FP pages. They will be used for a script I'm writing for the FPC closure process. If you're curious, the current test code is located at User:Public Juju/test script.js. Regards,  Public Juju  Talk 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure it's flexible enough because I think our redesign should be geared primarily towards voters, so if scripts need to be broken to achieve that, I think they should (be broken). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Elephant
shouldn't this have been closed already? --Muhammad (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the situation is obvious, but I replied again anyway. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Three noms need closing

 * Featured picture candidates/Incahuasi Island
 * Featured picture candidates/Io moon
 * Featured picture candidates/Carambola cross section

I voted on all three, they all look like promotes to me (edit 3 for Carambola) except Io, which is a replace. Maybe someone can close these or give permission for somebody else to do so. It seems (at least?) two other regular closers also voted on some of them, which could explain the hold-up. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. My apologies. I was out of town. The wireless connection I expected to have was unavailable. FPC withdrawal! Makeemlighter (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

New FP category Animals/Cnidaria
Since we already have five of these and may have as many as nine by the end of the current nomination period, I thought it wise to give these their own category. It also looks like we'll have plenty of coral photographs in the future, many of them via Nick Hobgood, so there's another reason for having this category. While reviewing the "Other" category, I noticed we don't yet have any Porifera (sponges) featured - room for improvement, I think. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like having such an unusual name for a section, but from a technical point of view it makes sense. Nergaal (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

When?
was the last time there were 30 noms at the same time? Nergaal (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that long ago, maybe 12 months. It used to be much more active here before Durova, Shoemaker and Fir left. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We had over 40 noms at once as recently as August: .  Jujutacular  talk 00:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has Durova officially left? I know she hasn't been here in months but I didn't know if it was because of RL obligations or a decision to leave. Do you know what made her leave? Matthewedwards : Chat  07:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * & . Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FPC urgents rules?
Have we developed rules for when nominations may be listed at Template:FPC urgents? I just added a placeholder blurb on the template and suggest we decide on rules if they haven't been decided before.  Jujutacular  talk 20:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that if after 6 or 7 days a nom is neither obviously going to pass (i.e. consensus + more than 5 sup votes) nor obviously going to fail (i.e. at least 2 oppose votes and no supports) that it should go up on the urgents template. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Added that wording, with at least six days old.  Jujutacular  talk 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures (3d nomination)
Seeing as the project has historically been close to this one in various ways, input is appreciated on the latest deletion nomination of valued pictures. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:FeaturedPicture update
I have made a small change to that template, adding a undefined parameter for "video" or "animation" as files like File:Bombing of Hamburg.ogg are not "pictures". I hope this is OK. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it. I've set the parameter on the video you linked.  Jujutacular  talk 04:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please remove all my images from FP.
I gave Commons one more chance, when undealt with racism and attempts to harass those complaining about the racism got too much to deal with in silence.

It did nothing but put a target on my back.

I'd lik to ask that all my images lose their FP status; I regret having ever contributed anything to Wikipedia, and while I may not be able to delete my files, I'd prefer my presence be hidden.

I'd also request my user page, user talk, and all other pages relating to me be deleted.

A culture where racism is defended is not one I can be any part of. Ever. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop misusing the word "racism". Wikipedia has enough legitimate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. without you using it to cry wolf about run-of-the-mill harassment and incivility. German isn't a race. Kaldari (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're referring to the same person who harassed a Jew with anti-Israeli cartoons. If you don't like German as a race, I don't think you can argue with that one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is not the place for a discussion of who or what is racist. Short of a major copyright problem or something, I really don't think there is going to be a mass delisting of pictures; there's not really anything to discuss here. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with J Milburn about mass delisting. Listing an image as FP involves contributions, and sometimes significant work, from several people besides the uploader/creator/restorer/nominator, and in any case we all agree to irrevocably release our contributions when we post them. Regarding the rest of Adam's request, there is WP:DISAPPEAR, but this is not the place to request that. --Avenue (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

more than one?
hello,

can I add more than one nomination or should I wait until one nomination is over? Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as they don't become disruptive (e.g. mass nominations of poor quality images), multiple nominations are welcomed.  Jujutacular  talk 20:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that a few people have had 25 or so (quality) nominations at one time. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Closure script
A working version of the closure script is now available. See User:Jujutacular/closeFPC for documentation/instructions. A few tasks are not yet supported. I would appreciate any testers that can give me feedback on how well it works. I used the script on Featured picture candidates/Incahuasi Island, and it seemed to behave correctly.  Jujutacular  talk 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I will check this out in the next few days. Looks good so far. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just used it to close a nomination. Here are my initial thoughts. First off, it's cool. It seems to work pretty well. The script completes most of the normal procedures. There are a few that it doesn't do that you didn't mention that I'm guessing it doesn't do: replacing an image in an article with an alternate that was promoted and removing the nomination from FPCurgents. I found the little form a bit confusing. It asks for "Creator (If Wikipedian, not nominator)" which led me to believe I only filled that in if the creator was different from the nominator. I left it blank, and Mbz1 ended up with the nominator credit on his user page rather than the uploader credit. Either there's an error in the script or the instruction needs to be more explicit. I discovered something a bit strange. It looks like all the pages the script works with were removed from my watchlist after using it. That's the biggest problem, as far as I can see. I don't want to add WP:FPC back to my watchlist every time I close a nomination!! Other than that, it looks pretty good. I didn't actually read through the code, so there might be something important I missed. I'll leave that to someone else. I'd also add that unless the other parts are added (Goings-on, sub-page, and FP tag), I'd probably prefer doing everything manually. This is certainly a good start, though. Thanks for doing this. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, very nice feedback. Indeed: I haven't included switching alternates in articles or removing from FPCurgents, and I forgot to document that. Regarding giving credit: I always use the nominator credit first, and only use upload credit if different from the nominator. Do you think it should be upload credit by default? About the watchlist: I have no idea why it would do that, I've never encountered that in my testing. What OS / Browser are you on?  Jujutacular  talk 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firefox 3.6.12 and Windows 7. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, the non-promote I just did also removed two pages from my watchlist. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... well I'm stumped. I'll work on seeing what is causing this. Thanks again.  Jujutacular  talk 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also just noticed the script didn't remove an old FP from the new featured content template for you: .  Jujutacular  talk 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I found out why this happened and fixed it.  Jujutacular  talk 01:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With the number of crops and edits flying around, it might be worth letting closers enter the credit manually. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't about that, just that we should decide which kind of credit should be given if one user is both nominator and creator, or both nominator and editor.  Jujutacular  talk 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always considered that creation/editing/uploading "trumps" nominating and use the creation template in preference to the nominator template. It seems illogical to me to do it otherwise—it's perhaps like giving credit to someone for "wikifying" an article but not for writing all of the content, too.  I agree that it might be better for credit to be taken care of manually (we don't want to have the mess that Commons does, thanks to their closing bot).  But I haven't tried Juju's script yet and it could be written to encourage appropriate and inclusive crediting.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I always give the uploader credit to anyone who creates/edits/restores an image. I only give the nominator credit to a nominator who did nothing other than nominate an image. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that is the norm, I'll most likely alter the script to do that instead.  Jujutacular  talk 01:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thirded. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another comment/question: does the "Name of nomination" field support Wiki markup? I'm mostly wondering if I can use name to italicize a species name or something similar. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ran a test, and yes, it does.  Public Juju  Talk 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Just amended the script to default to give credit as UploadedFP instead of nominator credit if applicable. Still working on the watchlist issue.  Jujutacular  talk 17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Fixed the issue with pages being removed watchlist. Cache will need to be cleared for these changes to go into effect.  Jujutacular  talk 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You did! Great! Thanks so much. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I finally broke it! Closing Featured picture candidates/Bite marks from Great White Sharks: it was moved on the FPC page and archived properly, but the whole Not promoted stuff wasn't added to the nomination page. I had to add it myself. Just a few things to note that may be important: I added a closing rationale ("Withdrawn by nominator") even though I clicked "no promote". I'm not sure if that's supported or not, but it should be. Also, the nomination page was missing the and the  . I think that's probably what caused the script to fail. Unfortunately, I don't recall what it said after it finished. I thought it looked fine (and I'm fairly sure it did), so I clicked reload page. So what do you think broke it? Makeemlighter (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if that comment was not on the page, it won't make an edit. The script looks for that comment and adds the "Not promoted" template after it, then any additional rationale (which is supported). The script won't throw any big IT DIDN'T WORK signs, but it will not include "Saved [Nom page]" - which it will include if the edit is successful.  Jujutacular  talk 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I suppose we just need to figure out how to make sure nobody deletes . It happens maybe 5% of the time. Not a big problem, though, as long as everybody checks to make sure it works. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bug - If there are parentheses in the title of the nomination page, it will not be removed from the 'current nominations' list at WP:FPC (but it will add a transclusion to 'recently closed'), as seen in this recent closure: . Working on fixing this.  Jujutacular  talk 17:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - added code for editing the file description page during promotion.  Jujutacular  talk 04:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - added code for editing WP:GO.  Jujutacular  talk 07:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture Candidate time extension
The voting is over for my ACOG M16 photo on the FPC page. There were only two comments. No votes.

Could I get a time extension or do I need to re-nominate it?

AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a time extension would help. A lack of comments is sometimes taken as an indication that people do not feel strongly about it- a renomination in a month or two may be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Thanks AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured Picture Challenges
I feel that featured picture challenges such as the Christmas tree challenge and the gasoline challenge need a more structured and consistent approach. Putting them together with other candidates can confuse voters, and I suggest a different approach. For the Christmas one, I did what I can by adding two entries and making a gallery section. But so far, the dearth of entries for such challenges (e.g. the Gasoline one only received one entry before it was closed) makes them quite useless in general. Purpy Pupple (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure they need a different kind of nomination- I don't think they're really something we should be encouraging :P J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we be encouraging them though? If you mean that FPC nominations aren't the best place to encourage them, then yes I guess I'd agree, but any time we encourage new photos to be taken, it's a good thing, surely? <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  11:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I meant the nominations- the last thing we need is another type of nomination confusing everyone. Let's get delists sorted first! J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should just consider challenges experimental at this point and not worry about process any further - I don't think they have gotten enough interest to really bother continuing them. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO the gasoline challenge was a good way of bringing up the need for an image. I was planning to take some pictures but my flash is giving me some problems, hopefully after Christmas --Muhammad (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with NS that the exercise doesn't seem to have been particularly successful; it's also recreating the graphics lab, which I oppose. If you need graphics work done, go there or to WikiProject Images and Media/Free, or use Category:Wikipedia requested photographs. Further to that, you have the work already done by some wikiprojects specifically for FP, e.g. WikiProject Elements/Pictures. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential delist nomination
To whom it may concern: I stumbled upon File:Polar bears near north pole.jpg at Commons and happened to notice the quality a bit lower than the quality bar when I participated in the project in the past. I'm not sure if the standards are the same but just thought I'd let you know in case anyone wants to file a delist nomination if the bar has risen. Happy holidays, -- Zoo Fari  00:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, nominated: Featured picture candidates/delist/Polar Bears approaching the USS Honolulu submarine.  Jujutacular  talk 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - delist nominations
Hi all. It's time to talk about everyone's favorite subject: delist nominations. These noms have always been problematic, mostly due to a lack of participation. With the requirement of 5 votes in favor of delisting, it's often hard for an image to be delisted. In the case of this nomination, it was Kept despite the current FP not being used in any articles. A similar result came out of ; the result was eventually changed due to this discussion. for delisting of an unused image fell short of the required 5 votes but was delisted anyway due to my mistake and then support for the result despite the mistake. Finally, here are two nominations where the logical result would seem to be delisting (4-0 and 4-1, respectively), but the requirement for 5 votes held them back. These last two images were at least used in articles, so they aren't as big of a problem. But the unused ones really should be delisted regardless of how many votes they get. So what's there to do about it? Here are some ideas I've had: I think those were the only options I came up with, but someone else might have others. Of the options, I don't really favor any one, although I think auto-delisting would not work well. The nomination process gives people a chance to find a use for the image elsewhere or put it back in the article if it was mistakenly or strangely removed. Doing nothing is an okay idea, since this isn't a huge problem, but I don't like to subvert the process like I accidentally did in the kiwi nom. Maybe there's an easier solution that I'm missing...any thoughts? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Nothing
 * 2) Auto-delisting of unused images
 * 3) Change nomination period to the longer of 2 weeks or 5 votes minimum
 * 4) Delist images when there are no Keep votes at the end of the nomination period
 * Ok, a few quick thoughts. I am of the opinion that this urgently needs fixing. I think, first of all, delist nominations could be listed with other noms; that may make problems worse, though. While I agree "auto-delisting" could result in problems, surely any image that is not in use at the start and end of a delist nom should be "auto-delisted"? Your fourth suggestion is also sound, though I don't think a longer voting period would help anything. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like maybe we need a slightly different process for delist noms in which the image is not used. I'm not proposing a completely different process on the page - it's just that really we're not arguing about whether it's good enough anymore as we would for normal delists, but whether a home can be found for it. As such delist and keep votes are irrelevant. The process should really be used to highlight the image's homelessness, buy us some time while we(hopefully) trigger some discussion on whether it could still be used. In summary, an auto-delist nomination with a delay on processing to allow for it to be rescued. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with most points raised here. I think making the delist period longer would be ok, and consensous nominations (i.e. 4-1 or 4-0) may be allowed even further. I was thinking of lowering the threshold to 3 supports and consensus, but then 3 supports are a bit easy to obtain. Nergaal (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If an image is unused at the start of the nomination, and still unused at the end (after two weeks), I think auto-delisting should be in order. That would solve the majority of the problems IMO.  Jujutacular  talk 18:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, seems clear and uncontroversial. I've boldly updated our instructions (1, 2) with the idea of "auto-delisting". Anyone got an objection to retrospectively applying that to our (still) orphaned FPs? We seem to be clinging onto them for bureaucracy's sake. J Milburn (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

To me, this sounds very open to being gamed. If a reasonable home has been identified, with moderate support, but someone for some reason opposes this strongly, all they have to do is obstruct its placement until the clock runs out. --Avenue (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If an image is not stable in an article, that seems a pretty strong argument against it being a featured picture. J Milburn (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer just to drop the number of required supports by one and avoid rule creep. Raise it at FPC talk before the delist ends if something isn't going to get enough votes. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer option 4. One support could be abused if in the wrong hands. – SMasters (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've undone Milburn's changes, agree with Avenue that it's open to being gamed and there's no consensus to accept that proposal. <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but I'm not sure how relevant it is. The problem images (the ones I'm mostly concerned with, at least) have been ones that were removed from an article before the nomination and didn't find a home even during the nomination period. I'm really just interested in the procedural problem of a nomination which does not receive enough delist votes despite the image not being used. There's a separate issue here related to arguments over image placement - I don't care to offer an opinion on it. I think that NS's suggestion might be best: a 4-vote minimum for delisting would solve some problems while avoiding excess rules. And his other suggestion - saying "check out this delist nom" on this talk page - might work even better than that. I don't have a strong opinion, though; I'm just interested in fixing the loophole that allows unused images to remain FPs. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maedin, what do you propose as an alternative? Surely you agree that the fact we have images remaining FPs despite the fact they are unused is a problem? J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think delist nominations should be allowed to go longer. Nergaal (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We tried that- they already go on for a longgg time. J Milburn (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think that the potential gaming is a significant enough problem. I recognise that the potential exists, but I think that we could probably find consensus in the article despite opposition from one 'man on a mission'. Besides, there's always the three revert rule to keep gaming in check. And if it truly becomes a problem where we can't agree on whether it has a legitimate home or not, there's always the ability to suspend the nom while discussion goes on in the article talk page. I don't see why we can't implement a rule that will work 95% of the time just because it might struggle 5% of the time... <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and, worst comes to the worst, we could revoke the rule later anyway. It's worth a try, surely? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But we already have a problem which is only a problem 5% of the time. Why would we want to implement a "rule" that has the same rate of failure, only the difficulties and consequences much worse?  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's a little flaw in the logic... If the current problem (image no longer used in articles) is only a problem 5% of of the time (I'd say it's probably a lot more than 5% of delists though), then the solution that only applies to that 5%. And if the solution has problems with gaming 5% of the time, then in reality, you have to multiply 5% by 5% (or in decimals: 0.05 * 0.05) to get the probability of any given delist (with 5% chance of it being unused, and then a further 5% chance of that nom being gamed). In other words, it's pretty unlikely. Or  we could use a slightly more realistic figure which is maybe 20% of delists involve an image no longer used in articles. Then you are comparing a 20% problem rate if the above is not implemented, with 1% (.2 * 0.05) problem rate if it is. And I know it's kind of silly to use this sort of mathematics for what is a procedural problem, but it makes a big difference to whether it's an improvement if you look at it that way. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff    <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  18:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The nomination period for delists is already 14 days instead of 9, and that shouldn't be extended. I think the best and simplest solution at this stage is to mix the delist noms with all of the rest, reduce the length of nomination to 9 days to match, and to use the talk page and Urgents template as required.  I oppose the idea of reducing the number of votes needed from 5 to 4, if only because that's given us 2/3 supermajority difficulties in the past and probably would again.  This first step solution may not solve our problems, so, on to another stage that's a little more involved: I think it was Papa who first proposed a PROD-like mechanism for orphaned FPs (similar to what Diliff suggested in his first comment, on the 14th).  iirc, his original suggestion for orphaned FPs was that they would default to delist if no home was found at the end of the nomination period, but that it would default to keep once it or an edit, svg, better resolution, etc had been placed in an article.  We need to have something other than "delist" noms for these, though—both delist & replace noms and orphaned FP noms are unsuited to the delist template as is, and delist and keep votes often don't apply to them.  I or anyone else could knock up a variation of the nomination template that runs in a slightly different way.  That's obviously something that will need further talking about and some draft templates, but, to recap, I think our first step should be to run delists with the rest for the same period of time, and make efficient use of the talk page.  If the need comes up, I think we could easily keep noms for orphans open past their closing date, and in the meantime work on drafting an alternative nomination type that better addresses orphans and replacements.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 17:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Option 1: do nothing. I've always considered delisting pictures a loss of time. Either we have some kind of automatic process which removes the FP status when a picture is no longer used or we recognize that the FP gallery represents both the best we have to offer today and the evolution of our quality standards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maedin that mixing the delist noms with the other noms is probably a good idea. I completely disagree with Alvesgaspar- deliberately keeping pictures that simply do not meet current standards completely defeats the point of FPC. If something isn't good enough, we shouldn't be keeping it "for old time's sake", even if it is still used in an article somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The delist nom mixing has been brought up lots of times in the past, and I've never seen any objection to it. It would be non-disruptive to implement and it could easily fix delist participation issues, without rule creep or anything untoward as a consequence.  I say we make it Option 5 and see how it goes for a while, and review it in a few months if necessary.  We can always do something more drastic later if it fails to do the job.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 10:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Option 5: List delist nominations together with the rest of the nominations, to run for the same period of time, and to also utilise FPC urgents.


 * If Option 5 is the way to go, I'd like to request that we make it obvious that they are delist nominations. Otherwise this could be confusing to casual voters / newcomers.  Jujutacular  talk 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's go for it. Someone willing to do the legwork? J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to do it, but we should probably give time for others to comment. Juju, I was thinking of adding a small banner where Urgents normally resides, just mentioning the change, probably leave it up for a week or so.  After that, I think the first vote being an emboldened "delist" or "replace" would be sufficient.  Did you have anything else in mind?  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, maybe that will be enough. I couldn't think of anything better. Agree we should wait at least a week or so to implement this (especially with the holiday season).  Jujutacular  talk 22:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the approach now being suggested is workable. Nine days for delists with additional exposure per option 5. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The next FPC Challenge
Since Noodle Snack's Christmas tree challenge was such fun, I was trying to figure out what the next one should be. One article I was surprised didn't have a good picture was breakfast. I looked around on Commons and couldn't find any good breakfast pictures there either. Does that sound like a good suggestion or are there other prominent articles in more dire need? Kaldari (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I always thought the picture at Peanut butter and jelly sandwich was particularly bad.  Jujutacular  talk 03:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a need for the winner(s) to be mutually exclusive here. I think that File:Breakfast at Tamahan Ryokan, Kyoto.jpg could quite possibly pass for example, though it isn't a typical western breakfast. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would second that replacement as lede image of the article. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The floating PB&J sandwich is hilarious! Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That plastic looking fried egg with the slightly burnt toast really should not be used as the main lead pic – It looks so sad. It's completely unappetizing and I'm not sure who would want to eat that (unless they were famished). – SMasters (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Jó Kritika
I didn't want to make comment on every vote, but just note that the user created an account on 12/28, and of the 13 consequent edits since then, 11 of these have been to FPC (the other 2 are to userpage). In addition, every single FPC edit is an oppose.  Spencer T♦ C 04:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely concerning, but I'm not sure anything can be done at this time. All of their opposes seem to be accompanied with a legitimate rationale, with this oppose seeming to be the weakest, but still legitimate.  Jujutacular  talk 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the basis on which this is being raised? As Jujutacular said, the opposes are legitimate, and we are not generally in short supply of supports.  The user started here as an IP, which doesn't seem suspicious to me, until our abysmal welcome (read: non-welcome) and disregard for his/her comments made creating an account necessary.  I don't consider there to be any cause for suspicion, nor reason to be concerned.  Let's hope our continuing inhospitality doesn't drive a new contributor away.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 09:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At Commons we had recently a flood of new accounts/socks created with the purpose of participating in FPC. Our solution was to establish a minimum account age and minimum number of edits for voting. That is the usual measure in other type of decision processes in Wikipedia and I doubt it will drive away any good faith contributor. Anyway, it is weird that the very first (and only) contributions of a user to Wikipedia is voting at FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't think we have a flood of socks (interesting image!) yet. I'm willing to give Jó Kritika the benefit of the doubt (though that swallow image isn't blown :) ). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * . Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't anything personal; I was just having deja vu with the particular editing habits (only edits to fpc). It's happened before: 1, then 2.  Spencer T♦ C 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh. Sorry for any disturbance I caused. I actually come from another wiki but I'd thought I'd give the program here a shot. Jó Kritika (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to FPC then ;-) --Muhammad (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Large number of orphaned FPs
I suggest going through these 86 files and trying to find homes for them. In doing so, I believe we should take care not to overrule decisions made for good reasons by article editors. Any that we can't find homes for could then be nominated for delisting. Shall we give ourselves 10 days for this? <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like a number of these got hit with the recent thumbnailer bugs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but we shouldn't assume that editors will put them back when the thumbnailer sorts itself out. (I was still seeing some (different) problems earlier today, has the dust now settled?) <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Don't think it has completely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Wasp_mimicking_hoverfly.jpg
 * Replaced with File:Hoverfly August 2007-1.jpg, which is identified to species level. Article too short for both. (Also apparently replaced with File:Wasp mimicry.jpg in another article.) <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Monarch_Butterfly_Danaus_plexippus_on_Milkweed_Hybrid_2800px.jpg
 * Replaced with File:Monarch In May.jpg which has twice the effective resolution in each dimension. Whether it's as sharp and detailed is a matter of possible debate; it's possible though that it's just less damaged. Delist? <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Eryphanis_sp.jpg
 * Replaced with a stronger shot from the same author. D&R? J Milburn (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another incorrect ID. Eryphanis has a small wing eye where Caligo has a bigger one. If we make an article for the Eryphanis genus, we can keep the image. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Raven_Manet_C2.jpg
 * File:Raven_Manet_B2.jpg - think this is a better illustration.
 * File:Raven Manet E2 corrected.jpg (added) - frankly, this should've been dropped long before the other Manet images. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article currently has two Dore, one Tenniel, and only one Manet illustration, and that's about as much as it needs, in terms of quantity. I'm guessing the intention was to show more diversity, and there is evidence on the talk page that Dore illustrations are preferred, so I won't be putting these back - they're up for grabs or delisting. (For the uninitiated: they were originally promoted as a set.) <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we need to have the Manet included be the one with the messed-up top paper, and which is much less detailed than the others, though? I'd lose E2 and put in any of the other 3 - other 5 if we go back and get the illustrations missed out in the set nomination. Why not File:Raven_Manet_D2.jpg, which could replace the bust of Pallas Athena which is something only mentioned in the text, not an illustration of the text.  Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:American_buffalo_proof_vertical_edit.jpg
 * We actually use File:2006_American_Buffalo_Proof_Obverse.jpg and File:2006_American_Buffalo_Proof_Reverse.jpg, basically, the top and bottom halves of that image. Think this is from the period when we were scared of sets. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure we need to run a D&R for this. From what you say, the images are entirely unchanged compared to what was promoted. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Checking, it looks like the FP has been blurred slightly, which... isn't very realistic, honestly, given how much it's zoomed in: I'd expect some crystal structure at that size. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Star transferred per no objection. Solved. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:GoldenSpikev3.jpg
 * Fairly consistently replaced with File:1869-Golden_Spike.jpg. D&R after some restoration? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mammatus_cloud_panorama.jpg
 * We have about a dozen images of this phenomenon, any of which do the job. The current lede image, File:Middleeastmamatus.JPG, isn't really any better than File:Mammatussquawvalley.jpg, File:Mammatus-storm-clouds San-Antonio.jpg or a bunch of three or four others, including the alternative nominee from that FPC nom. I would tend to delist because it doesn't stand out in any way. Yes, it's a panorama, but it's been overtaken in terms of resolution by most of the other images in the article, and it doesn't offer anything else extra that I can see. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Beethoven_bust_statue_by_Hagen.jpg
 * Was renamed, usages linked to redirect, which doesn't show up. I've thrown Commons Delinker onto the task Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Frederic_Chopin_photo.jpeg
 * Seems to be replaced by File:Frederic Chopin photo sepia.jpeg, which, while lower-resolution, is much higher quality. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:George_Washington_Carver2.jpg
 * File:George Washington Carver-crop.jpg used instead. I can rather see why, to be honest: It improves the composition a lot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Lugano_prokudin.jpg
 * File:Lugano.jpeg by the same creator has replaced it - compositionally nicer and less hazy, although showing a smaller part of the town and bay. Could be D&R. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Puu_oo.jpg
 * A cropped version is used in Puʻu ʻŌʻō and a few other articles, because it was felt this looked better in thumbnails. This choice dates back to its nom in Jan 2005, and seems sensible to me. The cropped version is too small to be an FP itself. Should we delist the larger one? --Avenue (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a very nice image, but... we've raised the bar a bit too often to keep this one, I think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Zabriskie_Point,_Death_Valley,_California,_panorama.jpg
 * No FP star, not linked from any nomination; in fact, it's marked as not linked from any page, and yet it's linked from Featured_pictures/Places/Panorama. I checked Zabriskie Point and Death Valley and did not find it used. File:Zabriskie Point-Panarama-edit2.jpg seems to fairly thoroughly replace it in therms of EV, although it is a different view of that landscape. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This guy used to be at File:DSCN2857pano.small.jpg and was renamed. The nomination is at Featured picture candidates/Zabriskie Point.  howcheng  {chat} 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Yarra_Night_Panorama,_Melbourne_-_Feb_2005.jpg
 * Unsure what the chances are, with Melbourne having two FP panoramas and two non-FP panoramas in the infobox, but hey, I've notified creator and a few relevant WikiProjects (Melbourne, Australia and Cities). <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Melburnian explained why it's difficult to use this image . <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Papaver_April_2010-13_crop.jpg
 * File:Papaver_April_2010-8a.jpg
 * File:Papaver_April_2010-9.jpg
 * The above two three images have apparently been replaced with an illustration, File:Illustration Papaver somniferum0.jpg, which doesn't look too shabby, actually. Will see if there's space to keep them anyway. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was a newly registered user that claimed the species shown was setigerum, not somniferum, and prevailed - setigerum is waiting to have its article created... and oddly enough, another image from the same set was retained in the somniferum article... <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Englishtitles2-1.jpg
 * Superseded by SVG version File:Sarracenia flower notitles.svg. D&R indicated. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mira_the_star-by_Nasa_alt_crop.jpg
 * File:Mira-uv-bow-shock-tail-vertical.jpg is now used on the Mira article. I agree with the crop that was made on the original nom, but the orientation doesn't really matter when talking about stars, so we could just create a version of the promoted image that is rotated to a vertical orientation, give it the star, and place it on the article. I seem to recall that there is a way to losslessly rotate jpegs. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's the Rotate template on commons, there is a rotatebot that does the rotations in a lossless way. I have no problem with producing a rotated alt that is also given the star if that version is preferred in the article, rotation makes little difference for astronomical objects. — raeky  T  15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_edit.gif
 * Universally replaced by File:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_Complete.gif, which also appears to be the one that was promoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, the one that has the star is the one that was promoted: Featured picture candidates/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I suppose we need to check, then, why the change back. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Apollo_17_The_Last_Moon_Shot_Edit1.jpg
 * File:Apollo 17 atop crawler-transporter.jpg and File:Apollo 17 liftoff.jpg are used in the article now. Messages left on article talk and one relevant WikiProject that looked like it was active. I believe raeky has expertise. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's used in Apollo 17 now, marking it as resolved. — raeky  T  15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Whole_world_-_land_and_oceans_12000.jpg
 * Added to Earth observation satellite, as an example of the maps created by satellites. We tend to use crops... Actually, THIS IMAGE is a crop, because of upload limits at the time. Heh. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Used in Earth observation satellite, marking as resolved. — raeky  T  15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Saturn_from_Cassini_Orbiter_(2004-10-06).jpg
 * Looks as though it's been replaced with File:Saturn during Equinox.jpg, which has twofold lower resolution (fourfold in MP), and shows the planet more completely and the rings less satisfactorily. The rings get a second outing in File:Saturn, Earth size comparison.jpg, but at even worse resolution. Note left on article talk. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been placed in the infobox on Saturn again, marking as resolved. — raeky  T  15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg
 * Has been replaced with a crop, File:M3grantmini.jpg. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded a higher resolution crop as an interim solution. May be a case for re-restoration as the version used on articles was a bit brighter and looked sharpened. <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've striked quite a few false positives, I'm sure there would be more. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Everybody else seems to hit these except me. :) I promise this was not designed as an easter egg hunt. :p <font color="#cc2200">Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

New Year
Happy (belated) New Year everyone. In celebration of this momentous occasion, I present this chart showing the number of nominations per month over the past four years. The data table can be found here. 2010 seemed to be a year of extremes, with the two least active months occurring: January and April with 64 and 60 nominations, respectively. However, we also saw the fourth most active month of the past four years in August, with 156 nominations. Here's to many more amazing pictures to come. Cheers.  Jujutacular  talk 07:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of a net decline though particularly as some previously active contributors are no longer so. I'd encourage people that mostly spend time reviewing to spend a little either producing or finding images and placing them in articles.  A good number of interesting nominations is important for the long term health of the project in my view (it gives people something to come back for). Noodle snacks (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot cat removal
Why did the bot remove all the links ? Is this correct? SMasters (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I checked a few of them, and they were correct to remove. For example, the French link was: (looks defunct), here is one that just seems to be a POTD process, not FPC.  Jujutacular  talk 01:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Call for basic reforms at featured sound candidates
Dear colleagues, User:Sven Manguard has proposed two reforms, concerning the minimum number of votes required (3 -> 4, still must be two-thirds majority support), and avoiding the appearance or actual conflict of interest. Your contributions would be welcome.

I do urge FPC people who have sound-file or musical experience to consider watchlisting the candidate page and participating as reviewers. It is important that we revamp this aspect of featured content, IMO. LINK Tony   (talk)  11:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please help a humble newbie (Wilmer W. Tanner)
See Wilmer W. Tanner candidate. I tried getting the caption and alt text to work (can see in edit mode), but it is not displaying right. Will someone please help me? Don't want my cool image hated because I was too ignorant on how to do the file code.TCO (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You had a pipe, |, infront of the link name on a link in the description, this malformed link broke the image tag... and welcome to FPC! — raeky  T  01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fix and explaining. Gaining all sorts of experience.  Hope it is not too trying for others as I rush around like a bull in the dish shop "being bold".  ;-)  TCO (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being bold is hugely important, don't apologize for that. ;-) — raeky  T  01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Waiting period in FP criteria
I've noticed that some images are being nominated, usually by their creators, within a day of their being uploaded. I'd like to propose changing "The image is used in one or more articles." to "The image has been used in one or more articles for at least 30 days." in order to counter this. My thinking is this will help ensure that FP nominations are supported by the community as a whole rather than just the person who created the image. (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured picture criteria.)--RDBury (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be fine with me. I didn't know the rules and worried it would be like DYK, where you have to get it in ASAP.TCO (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with a delay period. It was proposed for VP and I don't know it helped in any ways. Other review processes don't tell users do your work and then wait for 30 days for others not to undo your edits. FP reviewers can judge if the image is used properly without waiting random editors. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mh, I complained about that years ago already. We has some prolific contributors who specialized in the upload-nominate routine, minimizing the time in between. The result were images that had to be removed from their articles during nomination and good images that were kicked out for encyclopedically inferior images (which takes time for article editors to notice). The practice of pushing freshly uploaded images into articles for nomination purposes is putting the cart in front of the oxen. --Dschwen 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing in my defense is I am not a photo stud and did it for the first time and even the photo was obtained, not taken by me. And I went and got the image for a very particular article purpose.  Just thought I would come here and try it out, learn something at least.  I'm not someone (yet, haha) racking up the FP count.TCO (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @TCO: No worries. You followed the normal procedures (as they currently exist). I would definitely support adding a requirement that the image be in use for at least a week or so on the article before being nominated. This would go a long way to reducing the problems outlined by Dschwen. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this can be an issue, but 30 days seems a little excessive. How about 7 days?  Jujutacular  talk 00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this been an issue at all lately? I think it's better to just judge images on a case-by-case basis. Thirty days in a low-traffic article means very little, and surviving one day in a high-traffic article probably means the image is good for the long haul. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thus I think 7-days would be a good all-around threshold. Even 1-day would be a good threshold. The point is that if there is a threshold at all, people will check it and the longevity of the image's use will be discussed. Right now, no one checks it and no one discusses it. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is done there should be an exception for articles that did not have an image at all, which is often the case with our nature images, portraits of less well-known figures, etc. The issue is not fast nomination, the issue is inserting an image into an article that may not need it for the purpose of nominating.  Chick Bowen 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why waiting one week to nominate the image would be problem, even in those cases. Kaldari (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a week isn't a big deal, but on the other hand, is there currently a problem either? I don't think the occasional issue with images being removed necessarily warrants a rule for it. Other discussions seem to have concluded that we can't legislate for every possibility. Better to keep the rules as simple as possible and use common sense to deal with these things IMO. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  08:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Full ack Diliff! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree somewhat. I would see this rule not as legislate for some small possibility, but as a definition of the character or "philosophy" of FPC. Insert my very strained ox-cart image here. --Dschwen 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is highlighted above. The 30 days rule at VP was rather long but had the effect (as last time I checked) that all images -although considered of inferior technical quality to FPs- were still in articles after two years. I supported before this idea for FP and I'll remain consistent with that. I think most relevant is to allow feedback time for editors which have an article on their watchlist to review new image addition, placement and accuracy of captions. I think 5 or 7 days should be sufficient for that. --Elekhh (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There are one or two orders of magnitude more FPs than there were VPs. Many of those featured pictures are much older too. It is hardly surprising that there are far more orphaned pictures. Just apply common sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Between 200+ and 2,000+ there is one order of magnitude only. Ideally one would compare the rate over the same time-frame, if anybody volunteers. My "common sense" understanding is that having over 5% of FPs orphaned over 7 years appears to be a higher rate than a 0% rate over 2 years. --Elekhh (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can draw any conclusions from these numbers, though. Sometimes FPs are removed from articles for legitimate reasons; sometimes they're removed for trivial reasons or no reason at all. For example, an editor removed this FP from an article with no reason given. I later reinserted the FP into the article (it was far better quality) and was thanked by another editor who didn't know a higher quality version existed. My point is that images get removed from articles regardless of quality, value, etc. A higher percentage of orphaned FPs than VPs doesn't tell us anything about the VP 30-day rule. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For now, I don't think I'd support instituting an x-day rule. I don't see the need for a rule, and I can't see how it would help the project. Reviewers should already be checking to make sure that images are used properly in articles. An image remained in an article for x days tells us a little, but no more than a good reviewer would. As I've said, if an article has 50 editors and it lasts 7 days, it's very likely going to stay indefinitely. But 7 days in a low-traffic article means little. That image may be removed as soon as an editor shows up, or it may remain for a long time. Anyway, I can't see how the rule would work. Speedy close a nomination for an image which hasn't been around long enough? Or suspend it? You'd have to put some banner up to make sure people know about it, and even then, only regulars will know about the rule. I just don't see it... Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In light of the above comments, I'd like to change the proposal to adding the sentence "Please only nominate images that have been included in an article for at least 7 days." I think this will satisfy the people who thought that 30 days is excessive and also make it more of guideline than a rule. My object is get people to think twice before making a nomination that will essentially be booed of stage; this doesn't happen often but when it does it's not good for anyone.--RDBury (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think 30 days limit is totally reasonable. I'm an article guy not a photo guy so am biased obviously. And we could make this thing totally disaccosiated from the encyclopedia and just run a set of awesome-looking pics. But I think the articles need better images and if we require stronger connection to EV, this may prompt y'all image-photo studs to take pics of stuff we need in the articles or to write articles or work with article writers or what have you. And really, lasting 30 days in an article is NOT that hard. The only inconvenience is having to wait to enter your stuff in FP (I agree that is a pain in the ass). Maybe some system to allow submission, but just not display for 30 days? I donno. But GregL informs me that there are too many FPs anyhow. So maybe some restriction to higher EV, is worthwhile as a filter. I donno... ;-) TCO (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added this to the FP criteria. I tried to be conservative in the interpretation of the consensus here, it can always be strengthened (or weakened).--RDBury (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 7 Days is fine with me. In a stub with no available pictures (eg), I'd ignore it if I felt like it (apply the word preferable). JJ Harrison (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of these uploads have any potential? It's OK to rip them just want the insights on what to look for:






TCO (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In general you want to avoid what photogeeks call "blown highlights"--patches of pure white. All of these photographs have them--the middle one is almost half blown, but the other two have blown areas on the shells, reflecting the flash (or maybe the sun on the last one).  It would be better to photograph these species using indirect lighting to avoid that reflectivity. Also, I'm not sure if the three-quarters angle all of these have is the best way to photograph a turtle; if you want to emphasize the shell, than take it top down, with the shell centered in the image; if you want to emphasize the rest of the anatomy, getting down to the animal's level might be a better idea. Chick Bowen 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are looking for WP:PPR. – SMasters (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Licence
Is the licence for this photo no good for FP? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that license is okay. As far as I know, anything that is licensed correctly on Commons is fine.  Jujutacular  talk 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!
There is just less than an month and a half until April fools, and only a few nominations for FP have been received Here (two of which are from me). Just wan tot heep the discussion going so that no one forgets about it.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Muhammad
What do we do with this? There is little confidence among the voters there that this is public domain in the US. Perhaps we should put it a request at Commons:COM:DEL? It may take some time, but they are very good at sorting out this kind of thing there.  Jujutacular  talk 06:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's start a deletion request, and suspend the FP candidacy until that's resolved. --Avenue (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg.  Jujutacular  talk 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page proposals
Dear FPC community, a note to make you aware of an existing proposal and a future proposal for main page inclusion.


 * Featured sounds inclusion where a second featured picture is added five days of the week but two featured sounds are added at the weekend.
 * Future proposed FL inclusion where one of the second featured pictures is substituted for a featured list on Wednesdays.

Overall, this would mean 7 FAs per week, 11 FPs per week, 2 FSs per week and 1 FL per week. Please head to Talk:Main page for the current FS proposal and shortly where the FL proposal will be listed. Many thanks, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Elephant
I suggest that it's about time to close this. It has support and it's still used in an article.  Jujutacular  talk 17:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I make it a rule never to close nominations where an animal's erection is unexplained. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting rule. I hesitate to ask, but has been applied more than once?!  Jujutacular  talk 05:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I agree that it's time to close the nomination. I understand PLW's concern, but (1) the image has enough support without his vote; (2) the image would pass even if he opposed; and (3) it's unclear when/if we'll get an answer. I'd say close it. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.  Jujutacular  talk 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons POTY
I just bounced over to commons to check in on the Picture of the Year and realized that one is not under way. What is going on this year?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviews please
Here and please --Muhammad (talk)  11:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone broke FP
The FP star now suppresses the Commons file description page, apparently. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The Commons file description currently seems to be missing from the en wiki page for all Commons-hosted images that I've looked at, not just FPs. There is still a link to it, but it isn't included in the page by default like it used to be. --Avenue (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And now the file descriptions are back. I don't know why. --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama_of_Edo_bw.jpg FP status
This image was delisted awhile ago ostensibly to be replaced by File:Edo_Panorama_old_Tokyo_color_photochrom.jpg but since there was some controversy about the replacement image it was not automatically promoted and the color image was rejected here. I have a personal stake in this (I nominated the original black and white image) so I resist the urge to be WP:BOLD and do it myself, but I believe that the original image should be re-added as a feature picture without the need for a new nomination as it was delisted under "mistaken" (to assume good faith} pretenses and since it seemed that most of the other reasons for the delist were in relation to the new color nomination it should be fairly non controversial. Cat-five - talk 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the 'mistaken' pretenses? It seems that at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Panorama of Edo bw.jpg, there was consensus that the black and white image was not worthy of FP status, but that the photocrom version may not be either, and would need a separate nomination to become an FP.  Jujutacular  talk 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The only errors that were ever noted in the denom were also noted in the nom and were considered acceptable considering historical value, and those were the stitching errors (along with some disputed size issues). As far as I can see from the denomination the new one supposedly having less stitching errors was an issue that was later rebuked. I'm perfectly willing to renominate the original black and white if necessary but I don't think that should be necessary. Cat-five - talk 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do think this is a wonderful image, but I think that we'd really need to get one or the other somewhat larger before it could be promoted. Further, the photochrom version of the image has replaced the black and white in all articles, and I think that's probably the best choice, as photochroms generally managed a fairly high level of colour fidelity.
 * This image deserves to be an FP. But we just need it larger. =/ Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Library of Congress has an album of 200 images of Beato's work, among other things. . It may be worth asking them if they'd consider adding it to the digitization queue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any form specifically for that but I put in a general inquiry, it looks like some of them are rights restricted still (a bit odd) according to the site but hopefully they'll put at least some of them into the queue for digitization eventually. Cat-five - talk 15:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what I received from the Library of Congress in response to my request. I edited out the very beginning and the end since it was just a restatement of my initial request (seen above) and their notices of recognition when it moved from department to department.

{{Quote box|quote= Thank you for your interest.

We do not generally take requests for adding to our digitization queue. Generally, preservation priorities and support for the Library's publication and exhibition projects dictates much of what goes into that queue, along with considerations about the popularity of the images and rights considerations. With more than 14 million items in the collection, many of them fragile negatives, there is much competing for our limited digitization resources.

That said, we have given some priority to digitizing albums, given the preservation concerns that often attend them. (If you have not already seen it, you might be interested in our recently added reference aids on photographic albums: < http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/photoalbums.html>).

We do have a color laser copy surrogate of the Beato album pages that we offer to researchers in the reading room, but I will mention the interest in this album, in case their is some sort of surrogate we could offer digitally. Cat-five - talk 00:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Best wishes.

CONTACT INFO ORIGINALLY POSTED diff then removed for space. Cat-five - talk 00:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Announcements template
Please see discussion at Template talk:Announcements/New featured content.  Jujutacular  talk 23:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently closed
Hallo, I have some wonder refering this recently closed nomination and the rules where is stated that 4 supports are required not 5.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." That's 5 total (4+nom). Makeemlighter (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The concerned nomination has exactly 4+1?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * An expression of "weak" support is generally given half the value of a 'normal' support, thus it was 3.5 + nom = no promote. As Makeem noted at the nomination, this may be worth nominating again at some point, as opposition was not strong and it very narrowly missed being promoted (I would still support! ;-) Regards,  Jujutacular  talk 12:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, in this case I suppose that "strong support" = 1.5 ;-) Is there a rule when should it be renominated?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case there is any confusion (not sure if your comment was in jest or not), "strong supports" and "strong opposes" do not equal 1.5. The only affect of the "strong" modifier is to perhaps sway other voters more by having expressed strength of feeling!  Only "weak" alters a vote from having the value of 1.  :)  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 13:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no fixed rule on when a closed nomination can be renominated. Generally though, it's best to wait several weeks and let it fade from reviewer memory a little before trying again.  <font color="#4B0082">Mae <font color="#008080">din\ talk 18:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Support from nominators
Is support from nominators still counted towards the minimum of 5 supports needed, or has that changed? If it is the same, perhaps this would be best noted in the rules at the top of the page to differentiate this process from FP on other Wikipedias and on Commons. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with four or more reviewers in support (excluding the nominator(s)) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." Makeemlighter (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And if an image creator supports a nom, is it counted? Separately from a nominator. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that counts too. So Featured picture candidates/Noisy miner currently has 2 support and 1 oppose. I see the point SB is making, but it's really not an issue. JJ could just have easily nominated the image and then you would have supported. The nom needs to get up to 5 supports regardless. Makeemlighter (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Naturally. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue with respect to the outcome but is an issue with respect to having clear wording that accurately describes the process. The nominator's support vote is counted because 5 positives are required. However the current wording implies it is not included. A simple change in the wording could reflect reality by stating "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with 5 or more reviewers in support and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list.". That the nominator's vote is included is implicit in the Support next to their name. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Saffron that this is best clarified. In theory, the nominator could be neutral, as is often the case on Commons; five support votes would still be required. We could also have joint nominations- it happens in most other processes. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current wording could be better. How about "For promotion, if an image is listed here for nine days with 5 or more reviewers in support (including the nominator) and the consensus is in its favor, it can be added to the Wikipedia:Featured pictures list." However, this begs the question, if an image has five reviews but four are weak support, would that still qualify the image for promotion? How about an image with four votes in favor and one weak support? Should we say "5 or more reviewers in support" or "5 or more votes in support"? <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 09:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just linking to the related discussion so we don't lose it. Possibly worth pursuing. --jjron (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Change made. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sensible. May be worth including a link to this discussion in a hidden comment once it is archived. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with this change, but I also think that "five reviewers" should be changed to "five votes." <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please advise me on which pics would be best for FP
I found this guy on Flickr who has some really awesome sports images. We have some uploaded, but some are not. I want to get some uploaded or just nominate some that already are uploaded.

Dude also has some cool building shots and the like, but I'm not as motivated that way. But letting you know.

I'm not sure their total technical beauty, but most seem "decent" at least. And some of are highly notable athletes and from moments of incredible importance.

Here is his flickr stream:

Ones that I especially like:


 * The FX finals Oly girls lined up before the judges before starting (it's kind of a weird shot, being from the back. But it shows their physiques and the chalk and even an aspect of the sport...the nerves and the facing the judge.  Kind of arty in a way).



(note athlete 396 is "Semmy" (our recent FP, shown below)


 * Michael Phelps, 8th gold, hands up, teammates embracing. I mean...momentous.  EV to the max, no?




 * Dara Torres, after 50m race, won silver (EV)




 * Shawn Johnson pose, before starting FX at AA, 2008 Olys (EV, she won silver AA and is most popular teen female's athlete for like 4 years now).



When, I think of this recent FP we had of Semmy:



it just doesn't seem as good. It is not at the Olympics. Not during competition. Not in sporting attire (look how clothed she is). Not even a good training shot. Sort of a portrait really. I mean, I was very happy that we got a shot of a middling famous gymnast up...but I just routinely see stuff on blogs as good/better than that (and not all rips from newspapers...sometimes just bloggers who attended the competition).

So anyway...any of the above have a shot...and which one?

Oh...and if you see any of his stuff you want to nominate (actually including the sports), go ahead. He has a lot of nature shots as well.

TCO (Reviews needed) 03:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So are you're asking if you can nominate them for FP? If others will think they are FP quality? Can you clarify what your saying? Dusty777 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Picture peer review. Makeemlighter (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This. The Shawn Johnson one is the closest of the new pictures in my view, but it is blurry, and if the exif is valid, this is purely down to poor camera settings choice. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, especially JJ. I will nom at least one. Not a total evil EV provocation. I think when we really step back and look at the photos, especially at the size used in Wiki, it is hard to say that the Semmy photo we FPed is anything as worthwhile as say, the Phelps photo, which shows a more famous person and in the exact moment of his acheivement. And maybe we give some benefit of the doubt for pictures of really famous moments, where no alternative exists. Don't worry, I won't nominate them over and over or disturb the universe. I just want to toss one out to think about!TCO (Reviews needed) 20:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with JJ totally. The Shawn Johnson one is easily the best, but at a decent size it's poor quality, and as JJ says it's chiefly to do with poor choice of camera settings (most notably 1/15s for an action shot). And as Makeem says, PPR is for these type of discussions. --jjron (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Press pass trial
Re the Phelps photo. I wouldn't mind betting that hundreds, if not thousands, of similar photos exist from spectators. Just because we generally only have access to fairly poor sports photos, it doesn't mean we should be featuring it. That doesn't mean such photos can't have good EV though. We should be trying to figure out how to get better photos. Eventually I think that might come down to the wikimedia foundation working towards press passes and stuff, when someone is interested etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude...we can make that presspass thing happen. If you want to work on that with me, let me know. I think even doing just a few demonstrations so that people get the idea could be a start.

Are you in Australia? What part? Willing to shoot some training shots of Lauren Mitchell? Or championships or something? not sure where Pac Rims is this year.

BTW, what do you think of this site? Like is she your kind of peeps? TCO (Reviews needed) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In principle yes. I'm in Hobart, Tasmania, most major sporting events are going to occur on the mainland somewhere. Lauren Mitchell is in Western Australia, a substantial distance away. It may make more sense to find someone more nearby in her case. I've got limited funds, and would not spend the money out of my own pocket to do it - I'd need travel grants in order to do so. There is also the issue of equipment. I'd be fine for an indoor gymnastics training session provided that I was allowed to set up off camera flashes.  As a spectator in the gymnastics championships I'd have to upgrade equipment (namely my 70-200mm IS to the f2.8 model) to get reasonable shots - it might make more sense to send someone (jjron, for example, if he was willing), with the right equipment. I'm pretty well equipped for the outdoors. We should really be discussing how to get someone with good camera equipment into the Olympics! JJ Harrison (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I volunteer for an Olympics press pass, no travel grant necessary. ;-) Haven't got a single ticket for any of the Olympics events though, but will probably get some photos of some sort during the Games, probably just the village and other public areas. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to get onto your local Wikimedia chapter ASAP regarding that :P, at least have a go. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Diliff, I think any kind of demonstration of the concept would be useful. (1) I have found sometimes with image donations that contacting people and representing myself as a Wikipedia editor gets traction.  So even just trying on own is a possibility.   (2) Another possibility, is I know some people that regularly get press passes as bloggers (I see them and Wiki as sort of in the same stratum...I think that is how to play it, we are not AP or NYT).  See this link:   (3) We can try to work Wiki UK (GLAM or whatever).


 * I'm up for pushing on all fronts. I would not make it only about Olys or some huge process.  Let's do something (soon) and just build traction.  I can contribute what I can to get it going and would also write some content to benefit from good photos.  (but most would be on you, you would be the hero.)  Note there is a CURRENT competition going on (on podium IN LONDON: ).  Trying to get into that might be easier as a first step.  EVen though the shots would not be as historic, you can get some great competition shots or at least some great pre and after cometition (and training gym).  i bet you can at least get "action shots" of famous gymnasts.TCO (Reviews needed) 00:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Oly's is probably trickier, but World Championships is doable. Certainly for podium training and the media pen. (Perhaps even the competition floor...can try.) And you can get excellent shots for training time. The most important bloggers had press passes (like Gymnastike...actually that site is maybe even more than a blogger, but certainly Gymnastics Coaching and The Coach Gymnast are just blogs, good ones, but still). I think we could get that level of access with a little chutzpah. Note the Wiki article for World Champs had an insane spike during the competition. So it's doable to kinda play on that (social media is more and more a thing they use...they all have twitter and facebook...and we fit right in in terms of their press strategy). Doesn't really have to be gymnastics although I know a little more there.

2012 Pac Rims is here:. If we had somebody local, would not be bad, even if a ticket price charged.

Let's figure something out and do it. I just want to try things and advance things. This is doable...I can feel it.

TCO (Reviews needed) 05:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, In order to find someone local I had a look around Everett for geotagged pictures. Kiwi Cam releases CC-BY-SA pictures and appears to live relatively close to Everett. He might be your best bet to approach. Assuming he/she is interested, then there will need to be talk with the Pac Rims people, preferably via wikimedia to get a press pass. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

1. ''Dillif (and the Everette, WA) volunteer should start the process by applying on this website. '' The proper category is EP. I think you just create an account to get started and ask for whatever event you want. I still think going for the event now (they took some late media according to my contact) or the Test Event (this spring) would be an easier first step than the games themselves.

2. Left a note with a couple WMFers asking about who can write a letter for us.

TCO (Reviews needed) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While on the subject, it's coming up to the TV and movie award season here in LA. I'm sure there'd be people who would be willing to mingle on the red carpets and get press passes for the actual ceremonies. Matthewedwards : Chat  02:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Something like that where we could get snaps of a lot of different actors would be good. We got ripped in 2009 by NYT for how lousy our celebrity photos are.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding the press passes, I think it would be a great thing to have. In Tanzania for instance, many government buildings do not even allow photography from the outside unless one has a media pass. If I had one, I could cover delegates who visit TZ as well --Muhammad (talk)  02:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.paralympic.org.au/news/wikipedians-aim-london-2012 JJ Harrison (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Paralympic_Movement_in_Australia/Wikimedians_to_the_Games/Rules#Press_Passes in particular JJ Harrison (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The main thing I get from that is that they basically regard photos/photography as trivial, simple, and largely irrelevant. To pull out some figures, 15 points for getting through a Good Article or Featured List to which you may have contributed, 50 points for a Featured Article, hell you even get 2 points for simply reviewing any sport related article, but getting through a relevant FP earns you a whopping 1 point (yes one). Plus there's a limit in how many points you can get through that. Personally I regard that as insulting. If I took anything from that it would be that we wouldn't be getting any support in gaining press passes from Wikimedia. Bah! --jjron (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Australian Paralympic Committee is in the habit of releasing their photographs, and I presume we will get some good photos from the 2012 games too. For this reason I guess that getting wikimedians to take photographs is low priority, particularly from the APC's point of view. The 1 point is for getting an existing picture or sound featured. You get 5 points for taking a picture, which is still nothing mind you, and getting it featured. Given that the APC is generous enough to donate plenty of good pictures, I'm not too concerned about it. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As a complete novice, I just wrote to Sydney Olympic Park to find out who to talk to for sporting events. Here's the answer:


 * Thank you for your enquiry regarding media passes to major sporting events at Sydney Olympic Park.
 * Sydney Olympic Park Authority manages the precinct as a whole, not specific venues such as ANZ Stadium, the Sydney Showground or Allphones Arena.
 * For sporting events at these venues you will need to apply to the relevant sporting organisations for a media pass, thus the AFL for media accreditation to the AFL matches held at ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Showground Stadium, the NRL for matches held at ANZ Stadium, the ARU for Bledisloe Cup matches and internationals held at ANZ Stadium and so forth.
 * For venues that the Authority does manage, such as the Sydney Olympic Park Aquatic Centre, Hockey Centre, Sports Centre and such, the Authority is not the agency that issues media passes to specific events.
 * That is the realm of the sporting organisation which is managing the sporting event, such as Tennis Australia for tennis events, Swimming Australia or Diving Australia for events involving those sports at the Aquatic Centre, Netball Australia for netball matches and so on
 * The advantage is that if you are accredited by the AFL for example, you are accredited for all AFL matches, not just those at ANZ Stadium.
 * Good luck with your enquiries.

--99of9 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is the impression I have as well. I think a point of approach is to decide on a national sport federation and just make it work with one of them.  I have a little knowledge of gymnastics (know someone on the accrediting committee) so was pushing for that.  Also, I figured it was a little easier than say NFL football which gets all the media it wants...but still not totally obscure either (very big draw during Olympic years for instance).


 * But honest, any sport or nation would be movement forward. I think this is not actually as hard as we might think, but just something (like doing donation requests) that once you have played the game a little, you get used to...and it serves as a good model forward.  I know someone who has connect and can get some allowances with concert photography also.  We just need to bootstrap something and get the early simple win and move forward.  Really even for venues where we PAY for a ticket for admission and DON'T even get "courtside", just having the credential to allow taking professional level lenses in would be a step forward.


 * And once we get used to filling out the silly paperwork and have some demonstration of capability (and some repeated discussions with federations so they "know us"), I suspect they will look favorablly on us. REally...I think it will end up a success and a win/win both for us and the federations.  I know we have good photo-takers here.  And I know that Wiki has high readership.  Once, we get going, I think it will work!


 * TCO (Reviews needed) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Update
Firstly, myself and User:Bidgee attended a women's national basketball league game (Canberra Capitals vs Logan Thunder) thanks to the generosity of User:LauraHale, who purchased the tickets. I mostly attempted to capture some of the action in the game. I think bidgee was a little more completionist, also aiming for portraits of the players, coaches and so on. After the event started, I had no problem leaving my seat and walking around basically court side to take pictures from a better perspective (I was careful not to block the view of any spectator). The stadium was well lit, and a F4 lens was acceptable.

I also snapped pictures of the end of this years Sydney to Hobart yacht race, though I didn't go to much effort, shooting from the shore with my 500mm (it'd be better to do it from the water). I also went out some time ago after the last discussion and snapped a few people in a mountain bike orienteering race.

Secondly, at the conference itself, press passes were discussed. Basically in the near future will be to produce a few wikinews articles, and then one will be able to get an official looking pass with a microchip and stuff.

Thirdly, born out of a discussion on Wikimedia and sport, a new model, called NEXT, has been coined for current events coverage. Have a look at NEXT. I believe Wikimedia Australia will be developing, and then committing funds to this model. Presumably, if it is successful, then it will spread across chapters, much as the GLAM stuff has. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am proud of you guys for getting something going. I really hope that this can kind of grow and become something we are used to doing.  GLAM only covers museums and such.  But Wiki needs the same sort of engagement with sports and even music and movies.  It's all about starting something going, so glad you got it done.  Not sure if I can support in any way other than cheerleading, but FWIW, YEAH JJ!!! :-)  TCO (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm also very impressed! Good work. Jujutacular (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphire photos
Pretty technical discussions ( and ) going on about getting better photos of the gemstones in the Yogo sapphire article. Wonder if some superstars from here might have good advice or help. I think a topic like this would benefit from good looking, representational, pictures. After all that is why the gem is worth so much, from aesthetic appeal and appearance!

TCO (Reviews needed) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks to J Harrison for coming over to "article land" and giving a superb discussion on how to take best photos. I don't think we did all he asked for, but we did prevail in getting somewhat better pics nonetheless.  I really think improving appearance of pics on a FA is important (even if they don't get to FP!) and especially for an article on a gemstone.  We are presenting multimedia content to the viewers...and even print media like magazines "care" about the quality of illustrations.  They attract huge eyeballs and are an integrated part of the overall presentation.  Not just ornaments in the walls of FA text. (/editorial)  Again, thanks J.TCO (Reviews needed) 17:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Overturned delisting
Featured picture candidates/delist/Phyllopteryx taeniolatus was not properly closed - only four out of the required five votes in favour of the motion. As I'm likely not to be around for some time, I wanted to complete the task rather than leave this hanging for others. Anybody should feel free to renom it for delisting if the strength of feeling persists, but on this occasion, it must default to keep per the rules that we've consistently used for some time now and that we should be continuing to apply the same way to all nominations. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * J Milburn has reverted Papa's overturn of the delist decision, citing that closes like this have been occurring without controversy and that "the norm is shifting" . I haven't been around FPC much myself recently so I took a quick look to verify: in the last year 5 delist nominations have been closed as "delisted" in spite of not having obtained the required minimum of five delist votes.  I had no idea that this was happening and would have objected if I had.  If a closer makes a decision outside of standard practice, I would expect to see a notification of this on the talk page; correct me if there was a discussion about it and I missed it?
 * We've recognised in the past the need to get more eyes on delist nominations and there have been several suggestions on how to achieve this. Instead of bending the rules to make something happen, we ought to be putting energy into making positive changes to our process.  It may seem uncontroversial to say "no arguments in favour of keeping", but there were two delist nominations last year that were short of five delist votes, also had no keep arguments, but they were not delisted.  Why the difference?  We now have a problem that the rules are intended to prevent, that of inconsistent closures and an appearance of a closer making a decision based on personal opinion.  I'm not going to get into a revert war and overturn J Milburn, but I oppose delisting featured pictures in the future without the agreed quorum.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  00:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I, being a reasonable person, support common-sense closures. If a delist nomination has been open for some time, and sports several voices supporting the delisting and no voices supporting retention, then yes, it should be closed as delist. As I have said, if you genuinely support these images having FP status, then stand up and support them, providing reasoned arguments as to why we should consider them the most valuable images on Wikipedia. Don't sit here and claim with a self-righteous tone that the rules have not been followed. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about whether anyone thinks they should be retained or not; I've just given two reasons why "common sense" closures cause problems that are messy to resolve. We've had huge conflicts about it in the past.  Care to comment on that aspect?  Why is it any more acceptable to delist with fewer than five votes than it is to promote with fewer than five supports?  One of the out-of-process closures had only three delist votes and another only had three and a half.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  01:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Julia, could you link to the other ones you are talking about? In terms of the 'commonsense' aspect I guess we regard not getting enough 'supports' during a nom as an indication that the image doesn't have the 'wow' required to be an FP. The corollary of that in terms of delists could be that by sitting for two weeks plus in the delist section and not attracting a single argument to 'keep' that again the image doesn't have the 'wow' anymore to lead anyone to want to speak on its behalf. I think that's also why we should ensure we are vigilant in notifying original creators and/or nominators though. In addition, by the closer choosing to delist without the five votes, they in effect are adding their consensus to the delisting, otherwise they themself would register a 'keep' vote or close it as a keep. I'm not arguing necessarily for or against this behaviour, but there does seem some commonsense to it. However, perhaps with this in mind we should alter the delist rules to simply state that if an image has consensus to delist then it be delisted, rather than actually specifying how many votes it should get. A single 'keep' would effectively mean it would need to reach about the current number of delist votes anyway. --jjron (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Oh my apologies too; it's neither here nor there, but I didn't realise you were the reborn Maedin. It's just I was wondering who this Julia was that apparently used to be a regular here and knew a lot about the history. --jjron (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, 'tis Maedin! Sorry for the confusion, I got tired of using a made-up name and followed JJ's example!  Here are two delisted with fewer than four votes: 1, 2, and two closed with four votes: 3, 4.  Here are two with not enough votes that were kept: 5, 6 (this is the inconsistency I referred to.  If we're going to break the rules, we'd at least better do it consistently).  It looks like the original nominator for the Blender image was never notified of the delist nomination.  This is precisely the kind of way in which we'll get ourselves into trouble.  It's not about "petty rules-lawyering"; I'm not a kid trying to make things difficult for no reason.  It's about being fair, considered, applying the same rules in the same cases and being above criticism.  That's what they're there for.  Also, it's been argued plenty of times that a lack of votes doesn't necessarily mean "it's not good enough"; it just as often means "neutral".  The community might not be able to definitely say it ought to be kept, but they're not positive it should be delisted, either.  That happens to me plenty of times.  It's not for us to second-guess why a nomination isn't attracting support.  Our job is to sufficiently improve our process and build our community so that we don't have a problem with ignored noms.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  13:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Julia, I think this is the crux of the problem. You say that "[i]t's not about whether anyone thinks they should be retained or not"; as far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what it's about. If no one wants the image as a featured picture, I can't comprehend why people would sit here claiming that it should be one, just for the sake of process. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we should use common sense, we should ignore rules when they get in the way. You also claim that you have "just given two reasons why "common sense" closures cause problems that are messy to resolve". I'm not sure what they were- could you please write in plain English what these two "problems" are? As far as I can tell, it's that there's inconsistency with how it is done now, and how it used to be done, and that it leads to drama. Neither of these are real problems- with the first, yes, the norm is changing, and we all know that consensus can change. With the second, it leads to drama on the talk page because some people love to create drama on the talk page. The problem is not with the change in process, the problem is with the petty rules-lawyering. J Milburn (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your tone is pretty irritatingly condescending without cause, particularly when you're the one who needs in plain English what I've already written in precisely that. Here's an example.  A nomination with three delist votes and one weak delist (that's half a keep!) was closed as "delisted".  In the same year, another nomination with four delist votes and no keep votes was closed as "kept".  That's a discrepancy, an inconsistency, with how we're closing our delist nominations.  The first case is out of process and was never discussed.  This is a problem because when the original creator or nominator comes along and witnesses this, he or she will have cause to say, "hang on, wait a minute, why was MY image delisted without quorum, but this other one wasn't?"  Answer him that.  It leads to the second problem I already mentioned, that of the closer, who is meant to only be an interpreter/counter-upper, giving the appearance of making these closures based on a personal preference.  No matter how "reasonable" this is in one particular case, there will be cases where an involved party will feel it's not.  We can all recall the numerous conflicts we had with MER-C about exactly that kind of closing.  I thought the whole point of those endless discussions we had was to move away from these potential points of conflict.  If you're so concerned about a few featured pictures hanging around for longer than they ought, you can take it upon yourself to do several things, such as adding them to the Urgents pile when their time is about up.  You can renominate them.  You can work on changing the way they are listed so that they're not at the bottom of the page.  You can make talk page notifications to let people know that a nom hasn't reached quorum.  The point is to get the community involved; not get the community pissed off with repeated applications of ignore all rules when there is insufficient cause to do so.  <b style="color:#4B0082;">Julia</b>\<sup style="color:#008080;">talk  13:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear what these two problems are. In response to what you claimed, if the "the original creator or nominator" wants to participate in the discussion, they're welcome to; these are all cases where no one has supported keeping the image. If they then are annoyed that "their" image has been delisted, they're welcome to renominate- inevitably, it will fail, which will serve to vindicate the delister anyway. Your problem is a completely hypothetical one, while the problem of weak images sitting around with the star for extended periods is a very real one. As I have said- yes, there's a discrepency between closures. These things are decided on a case-by-case basis, as is written in the closing instructions, and practices and conventions change with time. This is not only obvious, but enshrined in Wikipedia policy. As far as I can see, the only part of the "community" who are "pissed off" are you two. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is too long for me to read now. Here's the short reply: this type of closure has been made before, by myself (April 2011) and others (June 2011), without controversy. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having now read the above discussion, I see that these closures were mentioned. The two, so-called inconsistently closed noms were different from the others. The one only had 3 delist votes (not 4) and consensus was not clear in the other (which had also been sitting for a month and I closed "Keep" despite voting "Delist"). As far as I can tell, nothing has been closed against consensus. If someone wants to argue that the images should be kept as FPs based on the merits of those images, please do so. Arguing that they should be kept because a quorum wasn't met seems counterproductive. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at those 'inconsistent' keep closures before reading Makeem's reply I concur that I had also concluded that I could also see where they could have been considered differently from the ones delisted. One had a dissenting opinion to the delist, which while not explicitly termed as a 'keep' vote could be taken as enough not to delist, given it also had not reached five votes. The other had a somewhat dissenting opinion (though again not explicitly a 'keep') along with Makeem himself having voted delist; given that had then sat for a month after it was meant to be closed before Makeem himself closed it, I can understand why it was kept, with the dissenting opinion and Makeem wanting to show neutrality as closer. Then I'd suggest the two closed with less than four delist votes were perhaps a bit less clear cut or convincing in being delisted, but I wouldn't personally disagree with the delist. However Julia also raises a very valid point, that of being been perceived to be consistent or of following our own rules. While an FPC cognoscenti may be able to see the difference in these things, a casual observer or even a less regular FPC participant may not. And a person who happened to wander back to find their prior FPC image delisted against the stated rules (especially when they had not been warned about the delist) could indeed be quite miffed. I'd therefore suggest the closer probably should be particularly vigilant in such cases to ensure the nominator/creator had been notified beforehand and given a chance to respond. Overall, as I wrote above, I'd therefore suggest we change the wording for delists to reflect this current practice, so as to remove this possible perception of inconsistency. I'll put a proposal below. --jjron (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Delist procedure changes
Based on the above discussion, and reflecting evolving practice and low participation in delist nominations, I propose that we change the wording at Featured_picture_candidates to remove the specification of how many votes are required in order to delist.

The wording would change from:
 * For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with five or more reviewers supporting a delist or replace, and the consensus is in its favor, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures.

to:
 * For delisting, if an image is listed here for fourteen days with a consensus of reviewers supporting a delist or replace, it can be delisted from Wikipedia:Featured pictures.


 * Support as proposer. --jjron (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The nature of delists seem to make this approach much more sensible.  Jujutacular  talk 05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible; both appropriate as a normative prescription and an accurate description of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the only sensible approach. -- Extra   999  (Contact me) 09:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Make it three or more + consensus. Some AfD closers consider even two !votes to be consensus, and I don't think it's fair to delist an image with such minimal participation. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support with caveats. Any less than 3 votes isn't consensus in my opinion, merelyt the opinion of one or two people. As such, I don't want to complicate the guidelines further, but I would say this would satisfy everyone's concerns a little better than what is proposed:
 * If less than 5 votes but more than 2, and if no opposition, then delist.
 * If less than 5 votes but more than 2, and if any reasonable opposition, then keep.
 * If less than 2 3 votes, then keep.
 * If more than 5 votes, usual 2/3 majority consensus applies.
 * Thoughts? <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  13:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems sensible as solid rules of thumb, and certainly more sensisble than the hardline position as espoused by Julia and PLW. Of course, there may be other cases- what if five people have voted "weak delist"? Sounds like consensus, but, following the "half vote for weak" rule, it would not be three delist votes. What if the image is not in use when it comes to closure time, and it was nominated on the grounds that it is not in use? The image pretty unambiguously fails the criteria, but should it still be kept? The trouble with hard and fast rules is that there will inevitably be exceptions; we just have to rely on the common sense of the closer to judge consensus. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I still believe that your concept of "common sense" (which seems to be that you will support any delist decisions, however they may have come about) is a really, really, really, really bad idea, and will create a lot of strife in the project over an extended period of time, until people realise that actually, having hard closure rules with possibility to renominate (and, as Julia correctly points out, create more awareness of closure noms) makes for much calmer life and is a much preferred option. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still seems like a storm in a teacup to me... My opinion still lies somewhere in the middle. J Milburn, I could be misinterpreting, but you seem to be refering to using speedy closures or something similar when you discuss the rationale of delisting an image no longer used in an article. But the problem is that while sometimes things appear open-and-shut, the process of nomination actually gives others the opportunity to make adjustments to the image or its article use so that it can satisfy the criteria. But if after a proper nomination period, an image is still no longer used in an article and yet people have voted to keep it, then maybe indeed you could discount the keep votes as being based on an flawed premise. The closer does still have the ability to interpret votes for validity against the criteria, I assume? It's semantics, but I would say common sense within predefined bounds is analogous to sanctioned closer perogative, wouldn't you PLW? <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  15:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a proposal some time ago to adopt a prod-type mechanism for images that have fallen out of use. I still regard this as the most sensible approach. Executive summary: open a "use it or else" nom, notify appropriate people (creator, nominator, article editors), give it ten days for someone to reinsert, allow four days to assess stability/pass criticism of placement, with possible extensions to discuss/change placement. Exact number of days can be subject to discussion before we adopt this new process. As for my willingness to bend to some "common sense" that has to be argued over on each occasion, my answer is a clear no. My concern is a smooth and fair running of the project, and while Diliff's suggestions bend this motion back towards a sensible course, I'm not yet convinced that making more complicated rules that are going to be harder for newcomers to follow along with, is the best way forward. Anything that excludes people is bad, full stop. Your inclusion of "reasonable" in your proposal is particularly problematic, as that's bound to give rise to disputes. I honestly don't know why we don't bot-close noms by default based on only support/oppose or keep/delist, with human input needed only to correct the bot during the "recently closed" latency period before a second bot implements the decision. It seems to me that 90% of noms could be correctly closed by a bot, with humans perhaps ticking off the result to make sure it's been reviewed. I'll reiterate that we have quite enough general participation that it would be possible to get conclusive results on delist noms even with the current requirement. And if a delist nom has to be run twice, what's the big deal? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not convinced that 'reasonable' is a dirty word. I just meant legitimate votes for a 'keep' with actual rationale, as opposed to blank votes that ignore any of the points raised in the delist nom. I'd be all for bot-closed noms (with human sanity-checking between stages, as you say), but nobody seems to have coded one and demonstrated its use - or have they? As for having enough participation, I agree that there are enough of us around to make the project function, but population does not equal participation, and noms do slip through without enough votes - the question that keeps coming up is how to handle it and it seems we're still not in agreement. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we have the automatic closure script, which, being client-side, is arguably more involved than a closure-suggestion and -execution script might be. Filtering for "weak", "support", "oppose", "keep", "delist", etc. while weighting only bold text and avoiding struck things should be reasonably simple. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Diliff, I wasn't meaning to refer to speedy closures- while I could still support them in principle, the way they were used was a long way from ideal. That's not what this discussion is about. I was meaning exactly the kind of thing you described- I support the application of common sense (as PLW has said, he considers that "a really, really, really, really bad idea"...) and I support trusting those closing nominations to make sensible decisions, and not just count votes and compare to the number listed at the top of the page. PLW, your characterisation of my apparent automatic support for delisting is unfair and unwarranted. I have opposed delist nominations before- here's one from a couple of days ago, and here's one from last month. Even if it was fair and/or warranted, it has nothing to do with the current discussion. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My words are being twisted: There is no formal definition of "common sense". For formal law to be based on "common sense" would therefore be meaningless - the same applies to any area of making rules or policy. Some of us, however, seem to think themselves above the law, or relish the prospect of being frequently involved in disputes. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to enshrine common sense into FPC doctrine, just acknowledging that there are times when the closer needs to make decisions that fall outside of the guidelines. The way I see it, we have two fundamental choices. We either legislate for every conceivable possibility in a nom, or we create guidelines and let the closers make nuanced decisions. I don't think anyone really wants FPC instructions the length of the Apple iTunes terms and conditions, so it seems logical that we go for the latter. If we go for the latter, then it seems to me that we need to simply find the right balance between closer decision-making and written guidelines. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust closers too. I don't think anyone deliberately sets out to apply their own agenda when closing noms. It would be nice if PLW could support the same impassive approach to dealing with innocent mistakes made by closers (politely pointing them out, perhaps? Requesting a second opinion, etc) as PLW wants us to apply to the closing process itself. As much as I'd like a closing process that covers as many circumstances as possible (as I've tried to create with the amended guidelines above), I really just don't see the problem with a closer using that dreaded 'common sense'. If people are going to get so upset by what they see as a bad decision, then I think it's they that have the issue, not the closer. We can all be reasonable and discuss things rationally surely. And I agree that if we apply the 'would it pass today?' thought-experiment to our delists, giving them the 2/3 majority benefit of the doubt is more than generous IMO. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the Diliff 'rule of thumb' amendments (I swear you should have been a lawyer ;) ). Re the second one, hmmm, maybe I'd make that "If less than 5 4 votes but more than 2, and if any reasonable opposition, then keep." but don't really want to make it even more complex. However I wouldn't really want to include them in the closing instructions due to their length. Maybe a simplified version for the closing instructions could be to simply change the next line from "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator" to something like "Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and at least two other supporters." --jjron (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agreed with the delete discussions, but would prefer a hard and fast rule.  No system is perfect, but I think that serves us better overall.  Note, I had voted to delete the one picture at issue.  I'm a little worried that we will start doing the "consensus judging" on the approvals as well and basically the more mechanical system has just served this program well.  I think if we start putting the delist discussions inline (not at the bottom) with the normal discussions, that might help get more eyeballs.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about delisting, and no one is challenging the notion as a whole. I really have to question whether you have any idea what this discussion is even about. Quite clearly, the system does not serve us well overall, as the current delisting process is laughably ineffective. J Milburn (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)




 * Hey, no fighting, no biting. I might be WRONG, but I did follow the discussion (and articulate a trade off)TCO (Reviews needed) 20:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi TCO, not sure if you noticed a key point I made above. Let me requote: "In terms of the 'commonsense' aspect I guess we regard not getting enough 'supports' during a nom as an indication that the image doesn't have the 'wow' required to be an FP. The corollary of that in terms of delists could be that by sitting for two weeks plus in the delist section and not attracting a single argument to 'keep' that again the image doesn't have the 'wow' anymore to lead anyone to want to speak on its behalf." What that means is that, AFAIC, there is no issue about us "doing the "consensus judging" on the approvals as well", which would be a concern for me too. Now given that I was one of the drivers behind changing from four to five supports for promotion, and given that few other regulars around here would propose shifting promotions to a straight consensus model, I don't personally think it's an issue atm (for interest's sake have a read of a discussion on this very point from only a few weeks ago). Essentially this is the opposite of that - it's like saying that it should be harder to be an FP than to not be one.
 * What we're really doing is trying to address the lack of participation in delists. If again you want to think about normal noms, I'd say you'd rarely get a nom that gets five Oppose votes - most people see a few opposes and don't want to just pile on to bag an image out. But effectively voting 'Delist' is akin to voting oppose and voting 'Keep' is more like a support. By voting 'delist' you're making the effort to go out there and criticise this image just as with an 'oppose', but furthermore you're criticising an image that at one stage the community had decided was FP worthy, so effectively you're also saying all those people were wrong (or are at least wrong on current expectations). If you really think about that you may get more understanding of why delist noms struggle to attract votes for delisting, and also why some us think that if it can sit for two weeks without attracting a single effective 'support' then it's quite likely no longer FP worthy; it's not just about a lack of eyeballs. --jjron (talk) 09:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What we're really doing is trying to address the lack of participation in delists. - Surely that should be done by increasing participation, not decreasing requirement? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My reply was addressed at TCO, and he may care to actually read it in full. TCO, what do you make of this? --jjron (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * (unindent) Jj:  Kudos for writing a thoughtful comment.  I did just now read it in full, per your comment.  (I don't always, else I turn to nitpicky debaterish and THAT is a turnoff.)


 * In terms of PRACTICAL things (getting more delists done), I could support your proposal if you changed the word "consensus" to be "majority".   Making majority the hurdle as well as removing an minimum vote number would serve the purpose of making it easier to delist.  But without bringing in subjective closes (and who does them and how they are argued and blablabla).


 * I also heartily urge putting the delists INLINE with regular voting (and just make them the same period too, while simplifying, probably both 2 weeks or both 9 days or whatevaz). Those penalty boxes at the end are just confusing for a newbie and a bother even for the veterans.  (and to your point, don't be pedantic (Jmil!) about if they say keep or support or delete or delist.  ;-)


 * In terms of the logic issue with straight votes versus consensus, I don't buy the "one would be subjective and the other numerical". I can easily imagine running your whole program with "judging consensus" or with "strict votes".  Neither is unthinkable, realio.  So saying you would do half one way and half the other makes little sense.  There is nothing that drastically different about the two that require different philosophies.  And actually given the recent discussion, seems like people are open to considering going all "consensus" throughout the process.


 * I just had one diagram pass that was on the knife's edge...and seemed to linger for a little while and get a late oppose (and was not closed by person who usually does all the closes...since he was the late opposer. PLW closed it instead. :))  I just worry that we are closer to abondoning the straight voting than you think.  Then this place, which is already pretty small and numerically dominated by a few photographers, will have a small group do all the judging consensus also.  I just think the straight vote has served you guys better than one might think and is kind of a charming model to keep around (even just for efficiency and less bad feelings).  So would be reluctant to start walking away from it.


 * But I don't care THAT much about it. :)  Was just TRYING to wreslte some brain cells down and think about it and be fair and all.  Anyhoo...those are my two cents. FWIW.  Keep that firey Milburn guy from shitting on me, please.  (kidding)  ;-)  TCO (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I'm not intending to change your Oppose and doubt that I will, but I'll just make some points about a few of your concerns. I don't see why saying 'majority' rather than 'consensus' would be better, especially given that 'consensus' is the typical way things are done on Wikipedia. For example a nom that got 5 delists and 4 keeps would have a majority, but not a consensus, but on your wording that would be delisted - now that would be a major change to how things have been done, how promotions are done, and how pretty much anything else is done on WP.
 * The concept of inline voting is a valid point, although as I've just pointed out in my "Casual observation" down the page I don't really think that 'lack of eyeballs' is really the problem here. On the next point, I don't really know where the 'subjective vs numerical' stuff came from - certainly not from anything I've said, so maybe I missed it in someone else's comment; anyway, given that it's not my view I won't comment on that (FWIW my view is that we should be looking at a combination of vote counting and subjective comments in any nom, normal or delist).
 * I will however again disagree with your comment that "given the recent discussion, seems like people are open to considering going all "consensus" throughout the process" - as I pointed out above, that was proposed by one person on a few weeks ago and roundly knocked on the head by everyone else who commented. Most of us didn't bother commenting, knowing the general feeling. I also aren't sure what your personal example illustrates - are you suggesting our regular closer should be banned from voting? I believe he even pointed out that his vote was late, and therefore would probably be excluded. I believe his vote was simply stating that he himself did not support the image and did not feel comfortable performing the promotion. He did not in any way obstruct the promotion, and I believe it unfair to characterise his actions in this way.
 * Anyway, as I say you're free to have and voice your opinion, I just like to think that it is informed by the facts and details. And given that I'm apparently simply one of J Milburn's cronies I don't know that I'll be able to fend him off, but I'll do my best. ;) --jjron (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We're cool, man. TCO (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Quality always trumps quantity.-- ♫GoP♫ <sub style="color:red;">T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per my detailed comments above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support proposed change to wording. <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  14:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support so long as it is based on consensus and not vote counting. For delist nominations, a 4/0 commentary for delisting makes it clear that a delisting in order Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The proposal, however, would remove any requirement whatsoever. That doesn't seem to be what you want. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Based on consensus" is hardly "[no] requirement whatsoever"... <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  14:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support removal of numerical requirement of five supports. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose it is simple for me: under the same requirements how to vote for an FP image: minimum 5 votings and double more then contras. Why other??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems you've signed up for the wrong team. You just supported a motion to remove the requirement of 5 votes and then contradicted it in your comments. Any why other? Well, because legitimately below-standard images are being kept because not enough people have voted. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  15:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Good idea. Don't use majority; use consensus. Majority means we've gone back to vote counting. Clegs (talk) 10:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support I think that this is definitely a sensible proposal.  Spencer T♦ C 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 3+votes and consensus per King of Hearts. 99.126.137.147 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 3+votes and consensus with consensus defined as 2/3 or more votes in favor of a delist, per King of Hearts and Diliff's post that immediately followed King of Hearts. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b>talk 09:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But what is consensus? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see Consensus. J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And how would a bot be able to tell? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we're agreed; a bot closing discussions is an utterly ridiculous idea. J Milburn (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, PLW's original bot suggestion was that the bot decisions would be sanity-checked by one of the closers before being processed by the bot. In that sense, I have no problem with a bot being involved and doing the tedious work, but with the closer making the final decision. But as per my discussion somewhere else, I wouldn't support it being used to ultimately decide nominations. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 3+ votes per King of Hearts, although I wouldn't mind 2+ votes. Given the low interest, the proposed solution is less bureaucratic. The weight of the dissenting votes, however, should also be considered. Plus there has been always a judgement of the closing person.  Brand meister  t   11:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. For about the last two years, we've been happily vote-counting with clear criteria for when votes could be discounted (IP voters, opposes with no reason given, and socks). This procedure was adopted as a direct result of the survey and has only recently been abandoned by two of the four regular closers. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The requirement of "five or more reviewers" is moot in my opinion and may create a new backlog. I think the number of delisting candidates is gradually decreasing largely due to stricter demands and soon there could be only candidates for superseding to vote for. Brand meister  t   23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow... You're saying there are fewer candidates because of stricter demands... but nothing has changed in two years. I'm not sure that the number of new candidates causally follows the number of successful delist noms - among the people nominating images for delisting, there can't be many who consider it a feather in their cap to have shot down an FP. More commonly, I would say that people nominate because the low quality of a particular FP they've come across, bothers them. And saying that the number of nominations is small and that there could be a backlog (because of the suggestion that renomination would be an option when the minimum is not reached, presumably?) is kind of contradictory. I did (once again) suggest a prod-like mechanism for unused ("orphaned") FPs, a bit further up on this page - this is something that could even be automated, so if you're just thinking in terms of backlogs and looking to increase throughput, I'd think that's your best option right there. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am not fond of delisting in the first place so I am not about to make it easier. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support 3 or more support votes & consensus, oppose consensus alone. I wouldn't say I'm fond of delisting, but it should be easier than at present. Also support PLW's prod-like proposal for out-of-use FPs. --Avenue (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal: increase visibility of delist noms
Simple solution: make an effort to frequently add delist noms to the FPCurgents template which highlights nominations with additional input needed at the top of the FPC page - same as we've been doing with normal noms for some time. Requires no change of rules, just a minor adjustment of actual practice. Closures which, as outlined above, have been incorrect by current rules, should be reverted and can be re-run as needed.


 * Support Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is no solution. "Make an effort" to do something that should be done already? That's got no teeth. If you're genuinely worried about lack of participation, what's to stop you doing this anyway? Alternatively, why not propose something that may make a difference, like listing the delist noms with the regular noms? J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the listing with the regular noms (in line) idea. They are too much down in the penalty box now.  Good call, JM.TCO (Reviews needed) 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, Milburn, no one has been listing the delist noms in FPCurgents until now. It's not actually been necessary. You're one of the extraordinary individuals here who think that delist noms may not pass without result, but normal noms may. Somewhat inconsistent, don't you think? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all; and my view is hardly "extraordinary" when it (or something close to it) is quite clearly held by the majority of the community. (Or, should I say, all of the community apart from the two "extraordinary" individuals that are you and Julia.) A lack of participation in a nom, whether regular or delist, implies that no one cares about the image. I could argue that I'm the one looking for consistency, in that I support images which no one cares about not being featured pictures in all cases, while you support them not being listed in only some cases. It is widely held that lack of interest in a nom tells us a lot about the "wow" factor of the image; it seems clear that something similar is true about delists. It certainly isn't the case that if no one participates in a delist nom that everyone clearly is happy with it being featured picture- instead, it clearly means that no one cares. Does an image like that truly make a decent featured picture? Of course not. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares to vote in favour of delisting it is what you should be saying - clear evidence that there's no great enthusiam in favour of delisting. You see, interpreting abstaining as a vote in favour of the motion is what people like Robert Mugabe or George W. Bush do. I don't think it is suitable here. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong, wrong, wrong. At least a couple of people are in favour of delisting- that's the nature of these noms we're discussing. NO ONE IS IN FAVOUR OF KEEPING THEM. That's the important point. And you really think these images make good featured pictures? This is getting ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're still missing the point. The very serious concern is with deviating from the way that the project has been very happily run for several years now. Suddenly you and your cronies (I must assume) are creating an infraction here, a disturbance that is not needed and not appreciated, and is wasting your time as much as everybody else's. Please return to the clear consensus that was achieved in a series of surveys that had wide-spread participation, and we can all, once again, get along, rather than engaging in this poor person's version of gang warfare. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's poor form to label as cronies anyone who happens to agree with J Milburn. Your tendency towards paranoia apparently knows no bounds. Regardless of what you think of us or our ideas, we all have the best interests of the project at heart, and I suspect you do too, even though you're frequently quite rude, obtuse and obstructive. Your suggestion that the project has run very happily for years seems like history rewritten to me. There have always been flare ups of disagreements, debates, catfights and straw polls. This is how the project has always adjusted its processes. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you have a short memory. This place has been a haven of peace relatively speaking since we implemented vote counting. You guys are lobbying for a very short-sighted step back where inexplicable "consensus" closures reign and the closer's "vote" counts double. Not my kind of future, nor, I suspect anyone else's who's thought this through. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly anyone who disagrees with you has failed to think it through. Anyway, back to reality. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  10:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As a light-hearted aside, after re-reading your comments, it occurred to me that if you substitute the concept of opposing consensus with opposing immigration, you'd come across as a proper right-wing nutter. "It used to be a place of peace and harmony, then those immigrants came along!" Letting those Muslims in is short sighted, soon Islam will reign and us locals will be marginalised in our own country!" "I'm not at all comfortable with the direction this country going, and I suspect anyone who loves will agree with me!" Hmmm. :) Just seems a bit alarmist to me. I'm not convinced the sky will come crashing down if we implement change. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff    <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  17:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That was very light-hearted indeed, flowers are in the post. Might I correctly guess this as an appendix to your accusing me of creating an unhealthy tone around here, perhaps? I suppose you felt license to call me a right-wing nutter as soon as you'd disposed of any feelings of guilt you might encounter on your part, by establishing, by authority of your infallible benevolence, that I am the source of the bad tone. But since the accusation cannot stand, let me diffuse it. My argument is more akin to me saying that things were fine with immigrants in the country, so why revert to bigotry? Bigotry, since you initiated the comparison and shall now have to live with the rebuttal, being assigned to your side, I suppose. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually call you a right-wing nutter or even imply that I thought you were, so your rebuttal to it is unnecessary and you're attacking a straw man there. I compared the language you used, and your apparent paranoia towards change involving those whose beliefs differ to your own. In that respect, I still maintain it's not so different. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  18:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that delisting should be made easier when participation level is at a low for FPC... And I definitely don't agree with removing the # of votes requirement to just general consensus. For me, sometimes I see delists that I don't agree with but are not getting many votes so I don't bother because they shouldn't pass with just a couple votes. No comment means more than just not caring. Delisting something from olden times of FPC when there was poor quality standards, shouldn't be very controversial, but I don't think many of those exist now. But some of the recent delists, like our new element pictures, should require the number of votes and be given the chance to be readded back to articles. So basicly, no to removing # of vote requirement is my vote. Donno what else is going on.. heh — raeky  T  13:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those kind of cases certainly do require discussion, and I don't think someone would close them as a delist lightly. They're not really what the discussion is about. The discussion is really about cases like Featured picture candidates/delist/Phyllopteryx taeniolatus, which spawned the discussion- clearly should be delisted, but some wikilawyers like to scream bloody murder when noms don't have the precise number of votes. This isn't about auto-delisting, it's about trusting the closers to apply common sense and interpret consensus when closing, rather than just mechanically vote-counting. J Milburn (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily suggesting that we implement this, but imagine if the Delist process was replaced by a new FPC nomination process (as if it had never been featured before). In this case, a delist vote would be the equivalent of an oppose, and a keep would be the equivalent of a support. In this case, it would seem ridiculous to retain/feature an image with 4 oppose (delist) votes and no support (keep) votes. This just demonstrates how considerate we already are to current featured pictures that we give them such a benefit of the doubt. Again, as I said, I'm not suggesting we replace the process, because it would encourage gaming the noms if you don't get the result you were hoping for, and I think the delist process can work if we can adjust it to suit our participation levels. Just some food for thought. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  14:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that participation levels have changed? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that's the main point Diliff was making... <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  14:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the supposed basis of the whole debate. It seems to be a case where people will keep repeating a statement until everybody believes it's true, without any data having ever been presented to support it. We don't write our articles that way, so why should we accept unsubstantiated suggestion as the basis of our policy-making? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the numbers of votes in the FPC Delist Archives I'd say that participation is about the same as usual at this time of year. However, I still feel the above is a valid argument: 4 delist votes with no opposition after 14 days is pretty clear cut and I support the decision to delist; 4 opposes to a FPC with no supports would in no way be considered for promotion. <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The example is flawed. The contrast is between CHANGE (promote/delist) and NO CHANGE (leave unpromoted/keep as FP). The rules as they currently stand say that in order for any change in status, there has to be a 2/3 majority and 5 minimum in favour of the change, otherwise we default to doing nothing. This protects us from making the wrong decision on the basis of small groups of people who may happen, by random chance, to be feeling the same way about something when that feeling is not shared by the community as a whole. It's protection against undue influence of an unrepresentative sample of people. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I concede, you are correct; it is a flawed argument. Shows what use that Critical Thinking A-Level was... <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  17:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If in a 14 day period, every single participant decides to delist, then I blame any poor reults on those supposed community members who failed to participate. The community is really only ever as big as those who are actively participating. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nik is right, it's beside the point. You don't have to prove that there has been a change to prove that there's a problem with the status quo. Fact is, we're keeping images that would never stand on their own if we applied current FPC nomination standards to them. That alone shows that there is an issue to address. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  15:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're saying does not match the community opinion, which had a split decision when asked whether in the case of raising the resolution requirement, any existing FPs should be automatically nominated for delisting. Arguing with increasing standards "wouldn't pass today" has usually been rejected as not being the correct standard to apply, but I suppose everyone brings their own biases to every new debate is also a slightly strange road to take as I would argue that standards were higher two years ago than they have been recently. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept that opinion was split on the issue, but I still maintain there's a concerning discontinuity when we don't apply the same standards to both new and existing images. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  21:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that visibility is a problem, and that listing in line with noms (as well as FPCurgents as necessary) would be an improvement. I would test the effects of this change prior to a change of the rules. There should be however some new way of distinguishing delist nominations from FPCs, maybe with a larger symbol or different background. --Elekhh (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Casual observation. Those opposing the original motion seem to continually claim that all is needed to 'fix' the problem of not getting enough 'Delist' votes is to make the delist noms more visible, or to 'increase participation' in some other miraculous way. Most of us supporting it realise that, while perhaps well intentioned, this is a fallacy. For proof we need to look no further than two current delist noms: Hydrogen and Chlorine. Both of these are smothered in 'Keep' votes with still plenty of time left on the noms. Obviously when 'the community' feels an image is worth keeping they're more than willing to voice that opinion. As some of us have pointed out, voting 'Delist' is not so easy, more akin to voting 'Oppose', and people rightly hesitate in doing so. But this is clearly evidence that over the two weeks allowed the delists are clearly getting plenty of 'eyeballs' as is, and are giving people plenty of time to put in a 'Keep' vote if they think it should remain. As we've pointed out over and over, this storm in a teacup has started over things that no one (not even the original nominator, creator, or original supporters) has been willing to vote 'Keep' on in that two week period, and yet a number of people, in some cases three and usually four, have been willing to vote 'Delist'. Oh well. There's an old saying that comes to mind: "You can't teach commonsense". --jjron (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your observations are completely unrelated to the question - the existence of variability in no way "proves" (cough, cough) that higher levels of participation are unachievable. Also see raeky's comments above. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without needing another distracting argument, I'll just say my observations are entirely related to this issue. Go and read everyone's comments who has either opposed the original proposal or supported yours (there's not that many so it shouldn't take too long) - most of them say that the main problem is probably lack of visibility, or lack of participation in delist discussions, or lack of eyeballs, or choose another variation on that theme. My key point above was that there is clear evidence that there is plenty of participation even as we speak (in terms of 'Keeps') when the image warrants it; what we are seeing though is that there is far less participation in terms of 'Delists' unless the image becomes contentious. You can argue I'm wrong all you like (and that all those images that didn't attract a single 'Keep' deserved to stay), but really, Blind Freddie can look at those two current noms I linked and see exactly what I said happening right now; right now. I'd say my observations are only "unrelated to the question" as you may choose to frame it at any point in time, and that will change to suit your needs. And I never said that higher levels of participation "are unachievable" or that nothing else could be tried (for example see my reply to TCO just minutes after my 'observation' above, where I said, and I'll quote myself: "The concept of inline voting is a valid point..."); anything's achievable, but many of us are capable of understanding the concept of opportunity cost as it applies here and the realities of the situation, some of which I pretty clearly stated above in my "unrelated" observation. And FWIW I have read Raeky's comments and he's more than welcome to reconsider his opinion; I will however note that his very first point is in direct contradiction to your own claim that participation levels haven't changed, so I'm glad you pointed that out. :) (BTW I can point out where you emphasised that if you can't remember). Oh, I'll note that the main body of Raeky's opinion is also in contradiction to the key claim that lack of visibility is the problem, as he says he sees them but doesn't bother voting; how is making them more visible going to help that? (Hmmm, I'm really not sure why you wanted to emphasise his comment.) And ultimately, if this proposal goes through, it will mean people are less likely to think that way as they know only a few unopposed 'Delist' votes are needed, so if anything it will increase participation by having them vote 'Keep' and opening a discussion, rather than just not being involved. A win-win, yes? --jjron (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I got less than half way through that comment before the amount of unwarranted accusations you're throwing around made me want to stop reading. If you want to have a discussion, it's time you learnt a little courtesy. And I hope you're not going to accuse anyone else of bad faith in the rest of this discussion because you've just blown the top off in that respect. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PLW, you're the prime example of many of the things you tend to accuse others of - in this case, bad faith and a lack of courtesy - and it's long since been that way. I know it's unhelpful to make snarky remarks, but I assure you, you drive people to act this way with your own belligerent responses. The only bad faith claim that I could conceive of in Jjron's comments above is the insinuation that you tend to frame things to suit your needs. I happen to agree with him actually, I think you do twist things around and distract the debate to the point where the original points raised have been lost in the wash and you fail to acknowledge them. In any case, judging by the votes for the two proposals above, clearly your point of view is not being favoured by the community. On the basis of the raw vote-counting that you're so keen on, Jjron's / King of Hearts / my proposal has 14 supports and 3 opposes. Your proposal has just your own support and a hell of a lot of debate. Either it's a massive conspiracy and we're all trying to ruin the delist process for our own short-sighted (or worse, nefarious) whims, or we just don't agree with you. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seconded - I can see very little offensive in Jjron's comments above (and he makes some valid points), however you appear to be taking this whole thing and any opposing opinion as a personal affront... <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I quote: as you may choose to frame it at any point in time, and that will change to suit your needs - does not establish a basis for constructive discourse - anything but, in fact! Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * His choice of words, I agree, was not entirely constructive, but that does not mean that he didn't have a point to make at all. You can choose to ignore the point he made about your behaviour and instead choose to focus on the offense caused, but that is equally unconstructive. Again, IMO, an example of you being no better than the behaviour you criticise. Why don't you re-read his comments and do your best to filter out the language that you deem to be offensive, and try to understand and respond to the points he made? We'll all be better off if you take the high moral ground here. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  18:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your final point is a good one - reducing the minimum required votes may, as a side effect, encourage prospectives to think that their vote will count. It's similar to how I've often felt about eBay auctions in the past - I've been less inclined to put a bid in when I see that it's currently below reserve price. Knowing that the auction isn't 'live', so to speak, discouraged me from participating. I can see a parallel between that and nominations, both regular and delists. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on for some time, and appears to have calmed- there have been no comments in several days. It would be good to get some closure. I have requested that a neutral editor close it. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stats
FYI, I have created a page to keep any relevant statistics for the project at Featured picture candidates/Statistics. Anyone feel free help keep it updated / add relevant statistics. I created an updated graph of the number nominations through last year. The number of nominations for featured status was markedly down in 2011, but it looks like activity has increased over the past month. Hopefully activity continues to increase :)  Jujutacular  talk 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Juju, but what's more in debate at the moment is the participation per nomination, particularly for delists. Any statistics on that? <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  16:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really making this as a response to the discussion above. At any rate, gathering statistics per nomination would be a bit more difficult (I don't have anything on this).  Jujutacular  talk 16:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You get these directly from the db? <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the subpage: List created using number of pages in categories (e.g. ). Nominations before 2007 were not separated into categories by date.  Jujutacular  talk 16:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies... <font color="MidnightBlue">Nik <font color="CornflowerBlue">the <font color="ForestGreen">stoned  17:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem!  Jujutacular  talk 18:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to PLW's statistics... I'm not sure who made the claim that the likelihood of FPs being kept was higher now than in the past... I don't remember seeing it, but I could be mistaken. In any case, I still think the more important issue is whether they are being kept due to lack of participation vs being kept because they are of a high enough standard. The stats above are interesting, but not the focus of the discussion. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to look at it that way, then the data still raises the question why this concern is coming up now, when we've had fairly consistent keep and delist rates for years. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And your previous question of whether participation could be making a dent is quite patently refuted by the data. Nothing's making much of a dent at all, neither participation nor any other factor. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I disagree. Whether participation is making a dent can only be determined by statistics that show the what percentage are kept because of consensus (5+ votes and 2/3 majority to keep) vs kept because of a lack of consensus (could be 4 votes to delist). Your stats simply do not show this. <font color="#006633">&#208;iliff   <font color="#800000">&#171;&#187; <font  color="#006633">(Talk)  07:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * PLW, can you provide your sources for your charts? Dusty777 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)