Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 2

My next idea - nominator decides on ONE article
OK, so when I was putting the currently promoted images into the gallery I talked about above, I got to thinking that a lot of them were in more than one article and I had to decide which one I considered them most encyclopaedic for. I have then had a look through past and current nominations and noticed a bit of theme - there seems to be a fair bit of discussion on images having good EV for one article, low EV for another, etc.

Since our primary criterion here is EV, I think it should both OBVIOUS to both nominator and voters which article the image has outstanding EV for (it may still contribute to other articles, but should be ESPECIALLY good in one), e.g., for my Jeff Hardy image I would obviously say Jeff Hardy, Wadester's White House image would most likely be White House, the windmill shot would be Fabyan Windmill, etc.

I therefore propose changing the nomination template from saying Articles this image appears in (as taken from FPC) to something along the lines of Article for which this image displays outstanding encyclopaedic value. That would then also simplify the 'one month' criteria as we would only need to check for its presence in that one article for the month. If the nominator gets it wrong on which article, then bad luck, the EV obviously can't have been as high as they thought. As I said above it can still be in more than one article, but the nominator just picks the best (as a side bonus it may help to cut down on article spamming by people trying to 'increase' EV).

Feedback? --jjron (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. That's a great idea. Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also agree. I've said the same thing on FPC discussions.  EV should be strong for one article (more than one is just gravy).  There's no cumulative EV with an image weakly contributing to many articles adding up to a high total EV; even though it may be a useful image, I think the VP project is about images that are strongly informative/educational on one topic.  Fletcher (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea. It simplifies things a lot, aand will make the process much smoother. Elucidate ( light up ) 18:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comments below. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't been around VP long but I don't really see a need to change anything. It seems to be working just fine without narrowing the focus.  Cacophony (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox and Advertising
Howdy. In an effort to increase VPC's visibility, I created an infobox! You can put it on your userpage by copying and pasting  . Any other efforts to advertise VPC would be helpful too. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea. We need all the contributors we can get. I'll put one on my userpage. Elucidate ( light up ) 17:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes Great idea, in fact I was completely unaware of this, adding the userbox is a great idea, but apart from this, can a banner similar to the fund raising event be added (I dont know how)? This will definitely catch the attention of a lot of users! --Nvineeth (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot Closings?
After seeing the debate above about galleries or categories I was thinking, maybe we could add another requirement in the nomination template which would require the nominator to suggest a category the image should be placed in if successfully passed as a VP. A bot could then close the nomination and add the image to the category. We would first have to create a list of possible categories of course. --Muhammad (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... who will create the bot? It would be awesome if the wiki software had some type of checkbox, radio button, or drop down list for the author to select the category from. Anyone skilled who can do this would be great.  Zoo Fari  20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea; now we just need someone who can do it. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on Dschwen's talk page. He created the commons VIC bot I think --Muhammad (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Bot closing would be very useful, especially with the categorizing. Elucidate ( light up ) 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Should we postpone the nomination until we confirm that someone can make the bot?  Zoo Fari  22:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Dschwen is busy and can not create the bot. --Muhammad (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A ghetto?
If this program is going to become a ghetto to shunt historic material away from Wikipedia's main page, then it may do considerably more harm than good. Durova Charge! 04:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Some of the historic material is very though provoking and has good quality. IMO, this should still remain at FPC. Only those images that do not meet the technical requirements of FPC, such as less than 1000px, or damaged beyond repair should be kept for VPC. --Muhammad (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any specific nominations you're referring to? Most of the VPs are either failed FPCs or too small anyway. Also, I've always thought of VPC as lower on the totem pole than FPC, so a Valued Picture can always be nominated and promoted onto the main page that way. Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Durova was referring to comments made by users to one of her nominations at FPC. See the FPC talk page for more info. --Muhammad (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two different FPCs of the Wounded Knee massacre were open at the same time. One was almost exactly the same dimensions, file size, and quality as this featured picture which was promoted less than two years ago. The other candidate has 50 times greater file size and was a careful restoration. Nonetheless, one valued picture enthusiast ignored the lower quality image and campaigned to get the better one disqualified for FP--due to technical limitations that could not be surmounted with nineteenth century technology. When made aware that both candidacies exist, he continued to ignore the lower resolution one and redoubled his efforts to undermine the candidacy for the higher quality one. Effectively, that moves the goalposts so far that no image of an important historic event would ever reach Wikipedia's main page.

Aggressive 'recruitment' efforts for VP are attempting to revamp longstanding FP standards, which were already rising due to better quality material. The effects of that VP recruitment effort are pernicious. Last year I persuaded the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum to release a high resolution image of the final days at the Warsaw Ghetto. A major reason they agreed to release the material was the possibility of a turn on Wikipedia's main page. A group of editors are negotiating with other great museums and archives to gain access to high resolution digitized versions of other valuable material. If VP becomes a ghetto to shunt that material away from FP consideration, then VP will seriously impede Wikipedia's access to valuable images. This program is a solution in search of a problem, and since it can find no real problem it is creating one. Durova Charge! 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite this situation, I have some opinions that have kept me inconfident ever since Valued Pictures was opened for nominations. I wrote this without the exception of provoking anything or anyone, and I hope you may feel free to agree or disagree.

First, by what you have been commenting about, I believe you are saying that Featured Pictures is a more stronger, competitive project than Valued pictures. Though I may be wrong or right, I must say that both are equal and should not be competitive, because what I am seeing, people are preferring FP. That is not the case. However, if you do think so, then consider adding VP to the main page.

But now, on the other hand, why was Valued Pictures created? Nominators at FP are nominating valuable images that I believe should be Valued pictures and not FP. Read the following, which is directly from the first sentence in the Featured Pictures main page:
 * ''This page highlights images that the Wikipedia community finds beautiful, stunning, impressive, and/or informative.

'' So basically my point here is that I believe FP is for stunning, high quality images with beauty and impressive and VP is for images that are educational despite its quality. I never read in the FP criteria that an educational image may be supported just because of its value without the requirements of quality. That is why I prefer some images in Valued Pictures. So for those who say that I became aware that now both candidacies exist and trying to eliminate images from FP, don't comment on my actions because they appear to be false.

Now, for Valued images. Personally, I think 3/4 of the images already promoted should not be part of Valued Images. Below, I have expressed what I personally think:

Now, I know that the VP mentions that the images there are images that add significantly to articles, either by illustrating article content particularly well, or by providing information relevant to a particular topic. I don't support this statement for the same reason I expressed above.

I didn't write this to provoke anything or anyone, and I know that I kind of got off topic with the Valued Picture conclusion (I know this belongs in that project talk page). But I just wanted to point that out to you. Even though you may not agree, from this moment and on, I will not comment anymore about the relationship between Valued Pictures and Featured Pictures. I'm a big fan of both.  Zoo Fari  00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The value in the Tasmanian Thornbill is because there isn't another photograph available on wikimedia of the species. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia valued pictures project is modeled after the Commons valued images project with two important exceptions: The main disadvantage to the Commons valued picture program is that some editors at that site have abused it as an excuse to oppose nearly all historic featured picture candidates. It has become much harder to get vintage material onto the main page there, which in turn makes it harder to persuade curators to release more material in digital form. So long as English Wikipedia featured pictures did not suffer the same prejudicial dynamic, that obstacle was not a serious one.
 * 1) Commons serves nearly 300 language editions of Wikipedia. So editors from hundreds of projects may go there in search of the best available image of encyclopedic topics such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 * 2) Commons featured picture criteria do not count encyclopedic value (English Wikipedia featured picture criteria do count encyclopedic value).

Zoofari has yet to articulate any reason why he continues to ignore this featured picture candidate and insists upon undermining this one. He puts forward a 'separate but equal' rationale despite the fact that featured pictures run on the site's main page while valued pictures sit at the back of the bus. The Wounded Knee massacre was an ethnic slaughter that occurred the same decade as Plessy v. Ferguson established segregation in the United States. During the month when the country inaugurates its first black president, there is an irony to this parallel--a very distasteful irony. Zoofari's reasoning would marginalize important subjects such as the history of racism, and would seriously hamper efforts to gain access to more archives. That means global archives; so long as our best sources remain American it is very difficult to counter systemic bias. We're working to change that; please don't create new setbacks.

I would nominate this process for deletion before I see that happen. English Wikipedia valued pictures has all the shortcomings of Commons valued images and none of its advantages. Durova Charge! 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you insist, I will continue to review the candidates from both projects normally as I did before this situation has started, despite the considerations between FP or VP. I will follow the criteria from that particular projects without the exception of the other project. Though I may agree with you that VP may cause problems between FP and COM:VP, who knows how this will work out as it has only been 1 month or so since VP has opened. (Also, what do you mean about my ignorance of File:Woundedknee1891.jpg and File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg??? I only reviewed File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg, what is the problem of me not reviewing the other?)  Zoo Fari  04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * They're both important images that show different aspects of the same subject. In 2007 File:Woundedknee1891.jpg would probably have passed FPC.  Fortunately we've been able to raise FP standards by locating better files and doing restorations.  File:Wounded Knee aftermath3.jpg might be as good as we can ever get.  The event happened in rural South Dakota in midwinter and the photographer worked with nineteenth century technology under harsh lighting conditions due to snow glare.  The uncropped Library of Congress original is 100MB in uncompressed TIFF format.  If you're used to vector graphics and digital photography an albumen print might not pack the same wallop, but in its own way it's quite a leap forward.  If you're looking for material to populate VP there's plenty I could send your way.  Thank you for your hard work and best wishes.  Durova Charge! 06:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically as I see it, I'd deny a nomination at FPC if the quality of the scan or restoration was at fault for technical problems. If on the other hand the image is of the highest quality likely to be available, then there is no reason not to support. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to populate VP with more material,

Okay you guys... FIRST of all, there are several VPCs that have no votes yet, so we (meaning you who is reading this) work on those before/in addition arguing.

Second, in response to ZooFari, I believe that the purpose that VPC was started was to reward the hard work of editors who take and upload pictures that fulfill the EV part of the FP requirements but fails on quality grounds. It was not, to my knowledge, simply a bureaucratic process for identifying very rare pictures, even though very rare pictures do have an exceptional amount of EV. In addition, because of the sub-quality status of the VP criteria, this project is less important than FPC. If there is still debate about it, we can always take a straw poll of FPC and VPC regulars to clear that up.

Thirdly, in response to Durova, please don't throw around numerous threats of MfD before VPC "turns into a ghetto" like Commons (which, hopefully it never does). Let's see what happens and use Commons as an example of what obviously to avoid. Also please don't bring emotionally-charged accusations of intolerance and analogies to segregation - it only makes things worse. (By the by, your Wounded Knee nomination on FPC has double the number of supports to opposes, so it has a good chance of passing still. :)

Now get out there and !vote! And smile! Wikipedia is FUN! :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the only thing that I am confused about, and it would be great if you can explain. According to your description you have given above, wouldn't that make almost every image on Wikipedia a good VP (except those who are FP)? There are thousands out there with good quality and meet the criteria. (By the way, the VP a gave in the above discussions about the bird, I guess I wasn't there for the nominationg proccess to see its reasons)  Zoo Fari  16:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes. However, many images on Wikipedia pages aren't useful or don't have much EV. If you want to try it out, click Random Article a few times. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Valued Picture Insignia
So, per this vote, the image for the VPC templates will be File:ENWP VP Logo.svg!!!! It was really, really close, but this one had one more vote than the second place image. Anyway, happy editing! Intothewoods29 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! But you never mentioned the color of the box's stroke. Does it have to be light blue (not that it isn't a good choice)?  Zoo Fari  16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that a different color would be better, feel free to be bold and change it. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Template for contributors

 * Ta da! This is for users who wish to record, on their user page or other dedicted subpage, the amount of valued pictures they have uploaded to Wikipedia. Just put the template on your page, and put the number of uploaded VPs in the designated spot. (It works the same as the User FP template) Elucidate ( light up ) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WOOHOOOOOO! (Oh wait... I have no VPs :( Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

HELP WITH BACKLOG


'''All of the nominations on the VPC page need one or more votes. A few have none, and one or two are one support away from passing. Any assistance would be very much appreciated!''' Intothewoods29 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Valued Picture
Note: I moved this into a separate heading since it wasn't getting much response, and I think it's an important subject to discuss. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

After a quick glance at this talk page, I didn't notice anyone bring up what I've been thinking. I assumed that a "Valued Picture" was one that is used in many ways and has exceptional EV to the overall project, and definitely outstanding EV in one or more articles. That is why I nominated my White House photo. It is the infobox photo of White House and is used in many other articles (and the White House template). So what I'm getting at is that I don't think an image should be valued unless it has multiple places of use, at least a couple of which have exceptional EV in their respective articles. In line with the suggestions above, I think that:
 * 1) The image should be used in more than one article;
 * 2) The articles should be listed by value in given article (i.e. 1. White House; 2. Washington, D.C.; 3. United States; Other. Template:White House, etc);
 * 3) The image should offer outstanding EV in the first article (see #2) and at least some EV in the others (i.e. secondary articles benefit from the inclusion of the image);
 * 4) The image should be in the first article (see #2) for at least one month; and
 * 5) The time the image has been in subsequent articles is irrelevant even though it may add to the "value" of the image by spreading it to other articles, even if they are added the same day as the nom (or even after).

I'm worried that any image that's in an infobox (or even not, as we've seen already) could become a valued image. I'm also concerned that almost any reasonable-quality image that's not an FP could pass as VP in the current system. Thoughts? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this idea is a toothless tiger. To paraphrase, it has to be in more than one article, but could have been placed in all but the first on the day of the nom (or after!!). So I have a photo that sticks in one article, I whack it in a few more when I'm nominating so that it meets these criteria, and then it's eligible to pass anyway. This achieves nothing. --jjron (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It achieves broader use of an image beyond just using an image in one article. It encourages users to make an image a multitasker (used in many articles) rather than a unitasker (used only in one article). I personally don't think an image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia unless it is used to portray a significant meaning in more than one article. For example, my oppose to Halemaumau vent would have been a support if the image had been included in the articles I mentioned in my comment. I mean, using the image in Pele had little EV, but using it in Halemaumau Crater, Kīlauea, or Hawaii Volcanoes National Park would offer much more EV; inclusion in all three would gain a strong support from me. My main concern is that we're going to get a collection of valued pictures made up of images like this. I mean absolutely no disrespect to the nominator, creator, or supporters of this image (I really don't), but I think it stands as a good case study to support my point. It is used in only one article and while it may be supporting a GA-status article, does it really add value to Wikipedia as a whole? If it were removed, would people notice? On this track, almost any image would qualify, IMO. I'd really like to read more comments on this because to me, this is a fundamental quality of VPC that should be on paper while it's still young. And if an apparent consensus is not in my favor, I vow to shut up about it :-) ~   ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 08:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It achieves a temporary broader use, but there's no saying it's going to stick in all these articles, and you even recommend somewhere adding some photo to a gallery to give it wider usage - how does that help WP? However I think we're on philosophically different wavelengths. In my original suggestion I argue about it having high value for one article, other articles may be a bonus. However I finish up pointing out that we shouldn't be spamming articles with our photos. The whole gist of your argument is in support of article spamming. A number of users agree with my concept and also oppose article spamming. I actually agree with your comments about Halemaumau vent, not in the sense that it needs to be in many articles, but in the sense that it was in the wrong article to begin with, and I covered that area in my suggestion linked above. As I say though I think we're on different wavelengths as I don't think I'm going to change my mind in support of article spamming (and I say this with two promoted VPs thusfar that I have created, both of which are prominent in multiple articles, so I'm not just trying to 'protect my turf' as it were). --jjron (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, how do you respond to my comment that almost any image could end up as a VP based on the current system? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of fear that is the case. To say "any" image could become VP is obviously an exaggeration, but perhaps far too many could. However, having said that, a quick look at the archives shows quite a few failed noms already, most of which had passed at least the primary criterion of at least 30 days in the article. However this is why for example I raised this discussion about technical standards. --jjron (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All I have to say is that I can't determine anymore what I should support/oppose based on this and the above discussion. I still believe that many of the images that are VP and VPC are no where near the honor to be VP. I don't see how chocolates and candy should be VP, as I don't see any purpose how they are educational. Yes, they add a very significant resource for an article, but I guarantee you that I would pick out 100 pictures in one hour that apply to the criteria and add significant image to an article. As of now, I'm unable to vote on VPC anymore, as I can't determine what I should oppose or support accordingly to the criteria and the discussions here. Sorry!  Zoo Fari  17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't feel that not voting is going to help anything. To a degree I think that only by participating can we clarify these things. That's why I am trying to give a pretty detailed justification in my 'votes', whether for or against - so that other people can see exactly how I'm trying to apply the criteria (or even apply my own criteria at this early stage). They may agree or disagree, but at least I'm trying to be explicit. In your discussion above you almost seemed to be arguing for rare or unusual images rather than what I would consider valuable images - for example I would rate the bird on the tree more valuable than the bird chasing the other bird, but you come to the opposite conclusion. IMO this is a misinterpretation of what we are looking for. --jjron (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

VP Insignia - next step
OK, so now we have a more distinct VP insignia -. However I've just noticed that the same insignia is being used in the VP candidate template. Should we create an alternate version for the VPC, like the FPC 'broken' FP star -. Perhaps even simply change the VP text to say VPC? --jjron (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. "VPC" could be a simple enough switch. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, and it might also be a good idea to split one of the twigs apart as well. But I'm neutral :)  Zoo Fari  17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So who's got the skills to do this? Who ended up making the VP insignia? Noodle Snacks? I wonder if he can make this modified version. I'll drop him a note shortly if he doesn't notice this discussion. --jjron (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any update on this? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 23:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, here are some modifications. Choose which you prefer:

 Zoo Fari  17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One week elapsed; Option one chosen This will now be updated in the template page.  Zoo Fari  23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I Like Option 1. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - Though I thought #3 was a medal hanging off the branches and thought "that'd be even better for an actual VP than the current design." ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 18:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 3, though Option 1 is a close second. I like the whole seed -> branch imagery. Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The simplicity is visually appealing. Elucidate ( light up ) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd take option one, but drop the C. Noodle snacks (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It is essential that we iron out the wrinkles
It seems that many people have many different opinions on how VPC should work. There have been discussions on technical quality, encyclopedic value, and size requirements, but none of these discussions have led to changes (or clarifications) in the VPC Criteria. Because of this, everyone seems to have a relatively different idea of what a VP is. Here are some things I've noticed:
 * 1) IMO there are only two clauses in the current criteria addressing quality and they are extremely vague. A rewrite of technical standards is very necessary so everyone is on the same page (especially for any newbies that may come around). This nom (is the lighting acceptable?), this nom (are minor stitching errors acceptable?), this nom (is the van acceptable?), and apparently now this nom (are the shadow and bushes acceptable?) are dependent on clearer standards definitions. Here are the two clauses in the criteria that address technical standards:
 * 2) *A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; and
 * 3) *A valued picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing.
 * 4) We need to come up with a general size requirement, or at least make mention of a size requirement versus EV in the criteria (per this nom).
 * 5) We need to finalize this conversation and get explicit criteria for evaluating EV.
 * 6) I would suggest the first reviewer of a nom to verify time requirements, and include that in their post, allowing subsequent reviewers to ASG on that assessment. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Per this discussion, I'm still concerned that almost any reasonable-quality image could be come a VP.

Thanks for reading. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, technical quality is a not-so-important qualification. After all, this isn't FP. For instance, the panorama stiching. It is barely noticable, but it sure gives a value as a set.  Zoo Fari  17:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the technicals have to be good enough for it to be an effective illustration. We can forgive things such as CA, artifacting, noise and to some extent size, exposure, stitching errors and unsharpness. However we must require, for instance, that the subject be not cut off/obscured without reason, no unencyclopedic distortion and an accurate white balance. I'd set the size limit to approximately article size (~300px for ordinary images to ~1500px for panoramas using wide image). MER-C 13:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's basically my interpretation on technicals. The Bermuda one for example I wasn't so concerned about what may have been minor stitching errors as the fact that the whole thing was horribly curving to the right. On size I disagree a bit, but have stated my opinion elsewhere - in effect it should be sufficient to show relevant details at image page size. I don't think you can put a definite number on this, as the size to do this will vary from image to image. In general I agree with what Wadester16 says, that we need to clarify some things and finish or act on a few discussions. However let's be honest, after whatever it is, say 5 years of FPC, different people still interpret technical merits differently, or interpret them differently based on the overall merits of the image. That's why many images get a variation in supports and opposes, not just a string of one or the other. So sure we need to better clarify, but don't expect that everyone is suddenly going to have identical interpretations. --jjron (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Delists
File:Augustine Volcano Jan 12 2006 edited-1.jpg has been removed from its article and is now an orphan. Oddly enough, it was the editor that nominated it for VPC that has removed it from the article. What happens now? Do we auto delist? There is no actual delist process on the VPC page. --jjron (talk) 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Crap! Lol, I was trying to bring the article to a better standard and must have accidentally removed it! Anyway, re-added. Ceran →// forge 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Display of Valued Pictures on Commons
I was closing up some promoted images and I noticed that the template is not displayed in commons, as the template is put in the Wikipedia file page. Shouldn't it be displayed there like all the other featured templates? Perhaps a template at commons?  Zoo Fari  02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the way it works with FP too. For example, File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg on WP has the template, but commons:File:Pisaura mirabilis on Plantago lanceolata.jpg on Commons does not. Though FPs that are featured on Commons and many different language WPs have one template on Commons that opens in any WP, though for some reason we do it redundantly and still add the FP WP template (see File:Tower Bridge London Feb 2006.jpg). ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 02:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That also made me think of this. What do you think? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 03:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. It also left me wondering at FPC talk. It seems like a nuisance to me that images are mixed up with tags that others do not have. Sometimes it can be a pain on the neck when it comes to the relationship between WP and COM. Thanks  Zoo Fari  04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Could post addition diffs in the nomination
Linking to the diff of when the image was added in the nomination might aid reviewers in checking the one month requirement.Noodle snacks (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've thought of that too, or a variation where the nominator simply states how long it's been in the article, but have also thought of some issues. Consider images that are 'in and out' of articles for a while; now presumably you'd ask editors to link to the diff of when it last went into an article, but an unscrupulous (or unknowing) nominator could easily link to an earlier diff. Also do you have to provide the diffs for all articles it's in (this relates back to my earlier discussion about nominating for just one article)? The other thing can be finding when it when into an article, especially for very busy articles - easy enough to look back a month ago and see it is or isn't there, but finding when it actually went in, well it could have been 3000 edits back. Does then make it too arduous for nominators, especially for newbies? I haven't come up with a really good way of doing it yet overall, but in my noms I usually state in my reason roughly how long it's been in the main article. Needs thinking about though. I'm also wondering now whether the one month time limit is actually long enough. --jjron (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference Facts
It is particularly pertinent for diagrams but the criteria should probably say something about citing references for numbers and so on used as the basis of diagrams. This would ensure diagrams meet similar guidelines to article text. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The FP criteria has "Is accurate. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments." which would probably do nicely. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But what about those who have no references available? I recently nominated a mantis image in defense pose, but consensus was to provide a reference. I didn't have references, but I knew by heart that it was a defensive posture (despite the way it got angered by the camera).  Zoo Fari  04:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you knew it by heart then it'd violate WP:OR unfortunately. I don't think high enc is possible without the verifiability and accuracy that a reference provides. Some time ago I successfully nominated an image of an Australian Magpie chasing a Brown Goshawk, the relevant article had much discussion (with references) on the behaviour of magpies towards intruders. A separate reference is only really required if the image is not supported by article text. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For sure something like that should be in the criteria. Obviously for diagrams, less obviously for photos, but if a photo is claiming to encyclopaedically depict a certain behaviour for example, then that should be referenced in the photo and/or article, not just assumed or supposed. Perhaps should be part of Criterion 2: It is among Wikipedia's most educational work? --jjron (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions to the time requirement?
The recent VPC of Beverly Eckert admittedly didn't meet the time requirements in its respective articles, but I wonder if we can make exceptions for outstanding circumstances. This is undoubtedly an outstanding circumstance. The image is the main photo of Beverly Eckert, and will most likely never be removed. In addition, I can't see it being taken out of Continental Connection Flight 3407. If it were removed from either, I would honestly re-add it because I think it belongs in both places. Not wanting to violate WP:CRYSTAL, isn't it fair to allow a photo through here if a consensus is met to allow it to? If the nominator can offer compelling reasons for current-event-type images, shouldn't we allow them? I think this image is too important to not let it through now. Just my opinion. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 19:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there are some exceptions, but I'd deny it, as it is not fair for other images who'd also deserved exceptions. As high as its value gets, all Valued pics are important, so should be treated equally. So what? Why not wait for a a few weeks? There's nothing to lose :)  Zoo Fari  04:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm not a fan of the time limit. If there is to be one then it needs to be applied uniformly imho. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the time limit either, but if we'd made exceptions to one image, then I personally think we should make exceptions to all images.  Zoo Fari  07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about the time limit myself - but more in the sense that one month is not long enough. As someone says above, just wait a few weeks and renominate - to me that's maybe not quite the spirit in which the criterion was first created. But having said that, I don't see much point in making such a limited criterion, then allowing exceptions to it. To be honest I wonder about how successfully people actually evaluate the EV of as you call them "current-event-type images", and whether they should even come under VP consideration - perhaps we should have something like a one or two year time limit on article existence as well? --jjron (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping...
Is there anyone else still out there?

I haven't seen a vote on a nom since 22 Feb (other than some I did yesterday), almost a week. Also did a mass closing last night, as that hadn't been happening, but many noms simply had insufficient votes rather than failing due to being opposed.

I guess the question is, are VP and VPC still a going concern? --jjron (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Default to promote?
A number of debates have been closed as not promoted due to the fact that there weren't enough comments- well, there aren't many people active here, and, if you look at the comparable process (this is to FP what GA is to FA) there is not voting, there is (theoretically) just a yes/no promotion. So, how about this- if there is an image that has gone for the whole seven days without comment, and the closer agrees that it meets the criteria, it can be promoted. If the closer does not agree, they can oppose, and wait for the next closer to come along and close the debate. This would prevent valuable images slipping through the net because of lack of comments, and would also allow a build-up of images, even if there are only a few commenting. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel the reverse: let the assumption be the image does not qualify as a VP. Reasons:
 * Before it was not a VP, after VPC process (not enough voting) not a VP. No change in status
 * The image can be nominated again after a while. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The basic assumption at FPC is lack of voting = lack of interest = no promotion. I have been applying the same assumption here. I can see where J Milburn is coming from, but it seems to be getting a little desperate. See my comment above: I intend to close another batch shortly, probably tomorrow, and then I will be retiring from VPC, to paraphrase lack of voting = lack of interest = no project. --jjron (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued Pictures is dying- and quickly!
If I were to put this project on a graph showing activity, it would show an enormous decreasing slope. This isn't good. First, the project was lacking votes. Now, it appears that nominations are decreasing as well, probably because the lack of votes from past nominations. According to my calculations, inferences, and analysis, I assume there are causes for this (I work a lot in solving). Here are my inferences:

''' These MAY NOT be true facts, these are only my inferences based on trends! Therefore, people will not always agree! '''
 * They come and leave According to the trend, I assume that people come to nominate, but realize that their nomination fails and decreases their interest in Valued Pictures. One example is the time minimum. This is probably why there were more nominations in the beginning then there is now.
 * Criteria is not agreed/met A reviewer's review is opposite than that in the criteria. Sometimes, the criteria is not agreed upon others. This was commonly seen towards the beginning, and probably a reason that the trend has declined. Other's reluctantly leave because of this issue.
 * Lack of notice People may not be aware of this project. There have been excellent ideas towards advertising. We simply need to think of more ideas on getting people to get aware of this project. However, this can't be done until the other issues are solved.
 * Towards FP than VP People prefer FP and nominate there, where it would have been better when nominated here. Sometimes, people may nominate at FP and fail, and loose hope and reluctantly not nominate here. This can be solved by encouraging FP nominators to nominate here if there FP nominated image isn't FP good.

This is all I got. Maybe this will make you think on how to improve, even if not accurate. If you have a suggestion, please share! If you think one of the above statements is missing something or have a rejection towards it, please share it. I only created this to share with you to see how VP can be improved.  Zoo Fari  02:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, VP was also becoming a dumping ground for failed FPCs, which is not why it was created. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 05:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. But some failing FPs are good though.  Zoo Fari  23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd ditch the time limit until it is sustainable. Noodle snacks
 * Honestly, I hate the time limit. I don't see the purpose. I'm assuming that the purpose of the time limit is to show how long the image has been a value to an article. Though it may sound somewhat understanding, I feel this idea is useless. An image would become valued to an article at the moment it's inserted into that article.  Zoo Fari  23:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This kind of project makes much more sense in Commons than in WP. Just before Commons:Commons:Valued image candidates was launched, there was a proposal to merge both projects, which was rejected by the WP:FPC regulars. The fact is Commons VIC is still working because it has already proven to be much more than a poor man's FPC, like here. Please take a look. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What was the proposal? To merge the two VPCs or the two FPCs? I wonder how many of the commons VPs ever actually end up in articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I just tried checking the cross-project usage of the first ten images we promoted on commons:COM:VI, that is, the first ten images in commons:Category:Valued images sorted by promotion date. In average, each image was used 44(!) times in Wikimedia projects (including pages not in the main name space). Although I did not quantify it, it was my impression that at least 50% of the usage was in main name space (articles, on Wikipedias). Of these ten images, the minimum usage was 14 pages (Image:Durham Ranger salmon fly.jpg) and the maximum was 111 usages (Image:Cheating.JPG) - the latter is actually a studio photo which has been made on request, from I think, the English Wikipedia. Of course, here we are not only talking about en.wikipedia usage but usage on all Wikimedia projects. That is, I think, a nice thing about COM:VI, that the images are tagged as VI for all Wikimedia projects, so you get a substantially larger global exposure. It is likely that the first VIs we promoted are not completely representative for the usage, but it gives a clear indication, that the VIs are used - quite a lot. It could be interesting with a more thorough analysis, covering all the COM:VIs, usage distribution per namespace and Wikimedia project, as well as an indication of usage before and after VI promotion - did the VI promotion have any impact on the usage? --Slaunger (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole discussion is in here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the commons VIC has also slowed down. The main reason being images awarded the valued image status do no get any special publicity as featured pictures. Getting a VI template, so what? To encourage users to submit we need incentives. I suggest we have a VI of the month or week on the main page or something like that. --Muhammad (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, that commons:COM:VIC has slowed down a little to a stable level after an initial phase of thrill over a new project, where a lot of effort had gone into setting it up, and maturing the guidelines in thorough test reviews. Actually, there are more than 500 Commons VIs now less that a year after we officially opened the project. I was originally concerned that the Commons project would not gain sufficient interest and momentum due to a lack of qualified reviewers within a wide range of knowledge domains. That was one of my objectives for presenting the idea to make a collborative project between EN and Commons. I hoped to be able to attract qualified reviewers from EN to achieve as good reviews as possible at Commons, which for me still seems to be the logical place for a media assessment project. The idea was not well received though, and it seemed like there was no interest in doing this and make the ends meet. As a consequence, two separate projects have regrettably been set up. At Commons it is running, there are qualified reviewers, but the project could be in better shape with a broader range of nominators and reviewers. Here, teh parallel project is dying. What a shame. But still, the commons:COM:VI image usage seems to be high (see above) although my analysis so far has not adressed a correlation between COM:VI promotion and Wikimedia project usage. At Commons we have not found it relevant to get further exposure for VIs on the main page - instead we tag the VIs in galleries relating to the scope of each VI, hereby indicating for the casual Wikimedia project editor browsing by for relevant media to put in an article that a particular image may be of interest for him to use. --Slaunger (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not on the main page, and certainly not weekly- that would mean individual pictures got more attention than FPs! Portals may be a solution- at the fungi portal, the selected pictures are all either featured pictures or valued pictures. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the portal idea, but I don't oppose the idea that VP can be viewed on the main page. FP is not the lead project of photographs, so I don't see what you mean by "that would mean individual pictures got more attention than FPs". And anyhow, that is what we want. We want viewers not just to look at FPs, but VPs as well.  Zoo Fari  23:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kill the time limit
Lets have a vote to get rid of the time limit. Its not a bad idea, but its really hurting the number of nominations and is what is killing the VP project in my view. So support or oppose:


 * Support Noodle snacks (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support As I addressed in the above discussion: "Honestly, I hate the time limit. I don't see the purpose. I'm assuming that the purpose of the time limit is to show how long the image has been a value to an article. Though it may sound somewhat understanding, I feel this idea is useless. An image would become valued to an article at the moment it's inserted into that article."  Zoo Fari  01:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The main idea of the time limit is to test the longevity of the images in the articles and makes all sense to me. The principle is similar to the the acceptance of works of art (paintings, music, etc.), in which time is the only relevant judge. Another reason for the rule is to avoid the spamming of articles with VP candidates, something already happening in FPC --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral The time limit doesn't bother me, it's lack of interest that's causing the problems here. When I saw few noms, I went on a spree and nom'ed 4 over the period of a half hour and not one of them passed - they didn't fail due to opposes, but lack of input. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  ♣TC♣ 04:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not having read the above lengthy discussion yet, I assume you're talking about the 'time in article' time limit, not the 'close after seven days' time limit. As I said somewhere above, if anything I think the time limit should be increased, to say 6mths or a year. Per Wadester, it's not the time limit that's the problem, it's lack of voters - I must've closed a dozen noms in the last two weeks that failed through lack of votes - there were plenty of noms, and some I even supported personally, but the votes weren't there. --jjron (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No consensus on the issue. Seems the one-month will stay. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 16:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons images
If the image is from commons, how do we handle step three of the nomination procedure where one adds to the image?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just add it to the (blank) page on en.wikipedia, the same as you would for a FPC. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

More input required
Please consider voting in these two noms. One only needs another support to pass: Thanks, ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Soldiers and Sailors Monument
 * Canon FT QL
 * Old news; disregard. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 20:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Stabilizing... sorta
VPC seems to be stabilizing. I'm closing far fewer "no consensus" and "no quorum" nominations, which is good. But there are some that do close as such, so please make sure to comment on as many nominations as possible. I wonder if there's a way to get this project more attention. There's currently a discussion going on about the template, which may include en:wiki VP, even though it's a Commons template (still under discussion). But, if I may be so bold, what if we proposed hosting a daily image on the Main Page? We are on the verge of 50 VPs, almost two months' worth. Might be smart to wait for 70 or so first (don't want to run out!). But maybe FPs are so notable (other than quality) because the Main Page offers a direct link to FPs. But maybe I'm being too idealistic. Thoughts? ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 20:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We could post a see also link on WP:GA, assuming that hasn't already been done. – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Care to be bold? I don't completely see where you'd put it. But if you have the idea, I say go for it. Worst thing is it gets reverted. :-) ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ here. – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued pictures really wouldn't be welcome on the main page (or fit in...) but encouraging their use on portals (as well as featured pictures- I already do this on Portal:Fungi- maybe someone should go around and add a few?) as well as spamming links here whereever appropriate would be great. It'd be brilliant to see this project flourish. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for implementing it on the portal, but I don't see why it wouldn't be welcomed (other than the lack of people reason).  Zoo Fari  23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Milestone

 * Hurray! Wonder who's going to be the 100th...  Zoo Fari  01:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Valued picture dispatch
See WP:FCDW/ValuedPictures. Scheduled to run in the Signpost on the 20th, would appreciate some feedback. Thanks. MER-C 12:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the comparison to COM:VI it is indeed possible to have a COM:VI of a butterfly in both catterpillar and adult forms - what matters is if the the scopes are visually distinct. It could also be mentioned that a COM:VI can be challenged in a Most Valued Review and be demoted that way. --Slaunger (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Note
I don't seem to have an "edit" option to add a template to the DannyMagen nomination. Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  17:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do it for you. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Not enough reviewers?
I began to feel a bit frustrated nominating images. Two of my nom have already failed because of the lack of supports (most only had two support !votes). Can or should something be done to get more people reviewing? Thoughts— Chris!  c t 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw several discussion above. But thought that I should began another one because this issue is serious enough to warrant one.— Chris!  c t 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We're trying to get new reviewers. For example. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 01:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * VP is already doing better than featured topics, good topics, featured portals and featured sounds volume wise. Now if only we could divert inexperienced FPC reviewers here. That would solve two problems. I think the next long term evil plan would be featured media sets = FP + VP + FS, but only when we've dealt with the poor review problem. MER-C 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And a 100 VP dispatch. MER-C 07:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a few options to fix lack of reviews. 1) leave things open longer, 2) leave things as is, 3) required supports. Best option is to probably attract more reviewers though. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We could leave a message at commons (such as the license one seen above) to attract reviewers. --Muhammad (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Should VP be a consideration to be included as part of the Picture of the day project? It only consists of FPs. Maybe having VPs too may help inspire more voters to come here.  Zoo Fari  22:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I do not think so. The main page should showcase our very best work, and we have enough FPs. This would be the equivilent of using GAs as TFAs. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I agree with JMilburn. Even though I think it would give us some good press. ~  ωαdεstεr 16  «talkstalk» 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, another advert
I created a banner that might appeal more users to our project. Please feel free to use it in your userspaces.  Zoo Fari  01:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

VPCold
I've created a new template for old VPC candidates VPCold, based on the FPC version, FPCold. I think it would help bring more exposure to the VPC process. Syntax is the same as FPCold. So, for example, on File:Butterfly portrait.jpg, which was nominated in April 2009, you'd use: "" Radiant chains (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we create this at Commons? That way it is also displayed there. We might as well inlcude over there before the usage increases. Also, it may be a good idea to include "English Wikipedia".  Zoo  Fari  14:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Change the VP template
VP is not going too well. I was wondering, maybe the VP template is not too appealing?  Zoo Fari  16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to VPC, then I have to say that this and its FP counterpart really don't do much. To be honest, I've never actually come upon an image with one of these templates when just browsing WP. But that's just my experience and 2¢. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

FP v VP
I moved this discussion here. Original post here  Zoo Fari  23:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The heading on the page is unclear: if a picture has been selected as a Featured Picture, is it then ineligible to become a Valued Picture? Seems to me like that removes the best pool of candidates. &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * VP is determined for its EV (Encyclopedic Value) and does not neccessarily have to be high quality. FP, on the other hand, already includes EV, so there is no need to have it as a VP candidate.  Zoo Fari  23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. The cat claw and biological classification pictures would never become FPs, but they are still useful in displaying encyclopedic content. Thank you!. &mdash;Goodtimber (walk/talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Featured picture process
'''Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input! Mae din \talk 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going strict
Since VP is heading to a stay, I might as well pull this out now. I have decided to create my own little criteria regardless of the original's broad critiques. I'm going to have to be more strict on the candidates. Sorry, but I just think the original is pulling in random nominations and failed FPCs and regulars are supporting without thinking about it much. The goal is to make VPC more alive, but not this way. Not by taking advantage of nominations and supporting them just to populate VP. I hope and look forward to criteria changes in the future...  Zoo Fari  03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, what are your criteria going to be? J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I linked it above (here). It's not interfering the original in anyway, just an evaluation for myself on the EV to determine my support.  Zoo Fari  19:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned with your criteria which puts a minimum on # of articles using that image before it could become VP. Failing a nom just because it's not frequently does not in itself deflate the value of the image. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with the minimum. I've argued that since I started contributing here. I personally think it is a very good way of gaging the "value". If it's valued, it's probably well-used throughout the encyclopedia. It's also a good way (IMO) of weeding out images that shouldn't become VPs. Hence my collection of well-used VPs. Just my 2¢ though.  wadester 16  06:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A proposal
Considering the difficulty of getting enough votes to pass both here and at FPC, I would like to propose lowering the minimum number of votes here to three until further notice (or until someone proposes raising it again with evidence that it is no longer a problem). Some good VPCs have fallen thru the cracks recently because of the 4-vote minimum. Thanks for your consideration and input.
 * Support as proposer.  wadester 16  14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. FPC is unrelated to VPC, and if the two are linked in any way then that would be an argument for raising the minimum supports here--since FPC is raising its minimum to five.  Durova 273 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose It will just bring in more unneeded VPs, something we didn't deal with a long time ago. There are plenty of active voters here enough to fill in a 4-support (including nominator) nomination. If it doesn't get enough votes, than those voters just didn't find it that interesting. I think VPC can still live with it though. If you look back at the archive, the most recent ones are way better than what we started with.  Zoo Fari  18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)