→For logo: no. 2 |
|||
Line 602: | Line 602: | ||
* [[File:Valued pics 3.svg|100px]] |
* [[File:Valued pics 3.svg|100px]] |
||
--'''[[User:Extra999|Extra 999]]''' ([[User talk:Extra999|Contact <sup>me</sup>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Extra999|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
--'''[[User:Extra999|Extra 999]]''' ([[User talk:Extra999|Contact <sup>me</sup>]] + [[Special:Contributions/Extra999|<sub>contribs</sub>]]) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:No. 2; matches the user box. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:52, 3 August 2010
![]() Archives Archive 1 (January 4, 2009 - January 13, 2009) Archive 2 (January 14, 2009 - July 9, 2009) |
---|
Nomination drive
If VPC wants to be self sustaining then we need enough nominations to maintain interest. I'd suggest that everyone interested nominate a few images per week. I've been just doing it as part of my usual reading. The FPC archives might be a good source of images. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- That's not a bad idea, but I guess we'd also not want to look like it was just a closed circle. I have felt for a long time the big issue here is voters, rather than noms, i.e., things were reasonably strong a while back in terms of noms, but people weren't voting. I'm not sure if that was because people felt the criteria were too airy-fairy or what, but I think when people nominated, had their noms closed with 'no quorum', they probably got to the point of saying 'what's the point' and gave up. Personally, I'd probably rather have a nom fail with good arguments against it than just sit there and fail by not attracting votes (not that I want my noms to fail at all :-), but at least if it gets shot down I know people have bothered to look at it). I have thought of a number of ideas, none of which are that great, but that would try to get more voting at least until business picks up and things are more self-sustaining. Say something along the lines of saying that 'for every image you nom you have to vote on two others' or 'lets get a group of say ten interested users and everyone agrees to vote on every nom (whether support, oppose, or at least neutral/comment, it doesn't matter, but make a statement)'. I don't really know, but perhaps if the action picked up a bit it would make things seem a bit more interesting and more people would want to keep coming back for a look, and then hopefully to get involved. --jjron (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is the lack of awareness and acknowledgment. Unlike FPC, main page, VPC doesn't show up anywhere. I'm still trying to get a VP to a portal. I made Portal:Primates in a special way where the selected pictures are marked with a bronze star for FP or the VP logo for VPs. ZooFari 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I already use fungal VPs on Portal:Fungi alongside FPs, and that is a featured portal. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- And that's a good start, but I would like the bronze star or VP logo used like in the primates portal. It makes it visually appealing and would inspire much more nominations. I hope portals are made like that in the future... ZooFari 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly Zoofari is right though in his original comment. VPC doesn't really show up anywhere, it's really just a self-recognition thing when someone opens the image. Is this a reason why things are quiet? Is this actually really a problem even if true? If so, is there a solution? (FWIW I don't think the suggestion someone made once with sharing the POTD with FPs is at all likely in the near future). --jjron (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another issue: Unlike FP, the VP template does not show up on Commons. Since there's no bot that would exchange templates between Wikipedia and Commons, we should move the template to Commons. ZooFari 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, we could probably just have it added to the Assessments template at Commons so it's there as well. That template is updated by Dustybot, Wronkiew's bot over there, for FPs, but unfortunately, he seems to have gone missing, since Dustybot isn't updating the FPCUrgents template. wadester16 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Another issue: Unlike FP, the VP template does not show up on Commons. Since there's no bot that would exchange templates between Wikipedia and Commons, we should move the template to Commons. ZooFari 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly Zoofari is right though in his original comment. VPC doesn't really show up anywhere, it's really just a self-recognition thing when someone opens the image. Is this a reason why things are quiet? Is this actually really a problem even if true? If so, is there a solution? (FWIW I don't think the suggestion someone made once with sharing the POTD with FPs is at all likely in the near future). --jjron (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- And that's a good start, but I would like the bronze star or VP logo used like in the primates portal. It makes it visually appealing and would inspire much more nominations. I hope portals are made like that in the future... ZooFari 18:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I already use fungal VPs on Portal:Fungi alongside FPs, and that is a featured portal. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is the lack of awareness and acknowledgment. Unlike FPC, main page, VPC doesn't show up anywhere. I'm still trying to get a VP to a portal. I made Portal:Primates in a special way where the selected pictures are marked with a bronze star for FP or the VP logo for VPs. ZooFari 14:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposal- Number of articles and time limit
I think the number of articles has much better emphasis on EV than the one-month time limit. How about knocking the time limit off and propose a required number of articles? I'd say it would be much better and easier, IMO. ZooFari 16:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agree: I've always felt this way; I believe that a picture is really valued if it has multiple uses. Hence my collection of robust VPs. The time, to me, seems negligible. wadester16 20:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. The way it is now works well. Cacophony (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I also disagree, but then again that time limit thing was one of my original proposals. FWIW I have commented regularly both here and at FPC about article spamming, and I feel any criteria that suggested an image had to be in multiple articles, or implied 'the more the better', would be doing nothing but encouraging article spamming. That's my real objection (I'm not just being cantankerous :-) ). --jjron (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well there is also the other way. Propose a number of articles and a time limit for those. ZooFari 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand. That would seem to make no one happy - people that don't like time limit wouldn't be happy cos now they'd have multiple time limits, people that don't like article spamming wouldn't be happy cos you've also enshrined that... Am I misreading? --jjron (talk) 08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Well there is also the other way. Propose a number of articles and a time limit for those. ZooFari 14:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
VPCold template
Either {{VPCold}} needs to go on the image talk page or it needs to categorize the images. I, personally, don't care which, although for consistency with the former featured picture candidate templates, it should probably go on the talk page. But one or the other has to be done. If you create an image description page for a Commons image and that description page doesn't contain a category, it adds the image to Special:Uncategorizedimages. This page is an important maintenance tool for finding copyvio images and it needs to be kept clear of commons images. --B (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Don't quite understand the purpose of VPCold. Does anyone use it? Why? I'd be inclined to just delete the template and delete the en:wiki image page when the nom is finished if not promoted and it doesn't get the VP notification (as is, or at least used to be, done at FPC). --jjron (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I didn't even know we had one of those for FPC, but apparently somebody uses it. I think both are useless. wadester16 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Seems that FPCold was created in 2006: Revision history of Template:FPCold. I would have been around then but I can't remember any discussion about it, though I possibly wasn't really involved at FPC Talk. Regardless, I can't remember it really being used. However checking through Pages that link to "Template:FPCold" it seems that Radiant chains went on a drive around late April adding it to failed FPCs, and also created VPCold at the same time. I don't know why. Personally I think the lot should be deleted; I can see little to no point in tagging failed candidates. --jjron (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Have left Radiant a note on his talkpage asking him to comment. --jjron (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to just delete the template and delete the en:wiki image page when the nom is finished if not promoted and it doesn't get the VP notification - This is what I think the best option would be. As for why I created the template: I was active going through Special:Uncategorizedimages, looking for copyvios. However, I found that many images were commons images. I marked many of them for deletion, but I faced backlash from several users and admins - they claimed that things like VPC and FPC nominations were "valuable history" that we shouldn't get rid of. Perhaps we could just have the template place the images in a category - I posted on several talk pages as well as the village pump looking for consensus, but I never got many replies. I actually started a list of commons dupes instead of marking them for deletion, so that way it would be easier for admins to look through - the response I got from a few was that "we cant just go deleting image pages like crazy. we'll have to go through the list one-by-one and it just wouldn't be worth the time." I had made it my goal to clear out all the commons dupes from special:uncategorized images, but I couldn't find much help. Perhaps now it's a better time to do so. Radiant chains (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, here's the original discussion between me and User:Amalthea. Checking back to most of the old dupe images I've found, most of them have since been deleted. I still think the best solution would be to either have the image be automatically categorized, or, even better, just note the nomination on the talk page. Then, the en.wikipedia local image page could be deleted, which would probably result in less clutter. Like jjron, I too find the templates useless, but apparently some people find them quite useful. Radiant chains (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Failed noms are meant to be tagged with {{db-f2}} by closers (used to be {{missing image}}), which is meant to bring about a speedy deletion of the unnecessary image page. Did something go wrong with that process somewhere along the track? Re the history argument, that is maintained anyway - all nominations are archived, and the images retain a link to their nominations through the File Links section. Perhaps those you contacted didn't understand the process. --jjron (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, here's the original discussion between me and User:Amalthea. Checking back to most of the old dupe images I've found, most of them have since been deleted. I still think the best solution would be to either have the image be automatically categorized, or, even better, just note the nomination on the talk page. Then, the en.wikipedia local image page could be deleted, which would probably result in less clutter. Like jjron, I too find the templates useless, but apparently some people find them quite useful. Radiant chains (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to just delete the template and delete the en:wiki image page when the nom is finished if not promoted and it doesn't get the VP notification - This is what I think the best option would be. As for why I created the template: I was active going through Special:Uncategorizedimages, looking for copyvios. However, I found that many images were commons images. I marked many of them for deletion, but I faced backlash from several users and admins - they claimed that things like VPC and FPC nominations were "valuable history" that we shouldn't get rid of. Perhaps we could just have the template place the images in a category - I posted on several talk pages as well as the village pump looking for consensus, but I never got many replies. I actually started a list of commons dupes instead of marking them for deletion, so that way it would be easier for admins to look through - the response I got from a few was that "we cant just go deleting image pages like crazy. we'll have to go through the list one-by-one and it just wouldn't be worth the time." I had made it my goal to clear out all the commons dupes from special:uncategorized images, but I couldn't find much help. Perhaps now it's a better time to do so. Radiant chains (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I didn't even know we had one of those for FPC, but apparently somebody uses it. I think both are useless. wadester16 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, no more beaurcracy. Some images don't have it and just causes confusion and that template does not have any honors to FP. Just creating unneeded pages at Wikipedia and I don't like the idea of categories either. Why would people find failed FPCs? Why would we have an FP template and a FPCold template at the same time? No good reason at all. Both templates at both projects are useless and I suggest creating a discussion over there about getting rid of it. ZooFari 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Time frame for renomination
So, if a VP nomination fails because nobody bothers to say anything at all, positive or negative, about the image, how long should the nominator wait before trying again? BencherliteTalk 09:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't really matter. There are no rules on it. It's your decision. upstateNYer 23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, as the nomination received a grand total of zero comments despite being up for three weeks in total, I've got the message and closed the renomination myself. Thanks everyone. BencherliteTalk 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Preventing MFD
It looks like some featured pictures people feel that the valued picture candidates people have been fishing in FP waters. I can see where they're coming from.
Wikipedia is supposed to be a non-zero sum game, where projects don't need to compete with each other. I think we can alter VPC slightly so that things don't get tangled with FP so much, and incidentally might give VPC more success. Is anyone opposed to this? --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Share your ideas. Though I think people mention VPC in good faith: it's not canvassing or fishing, it's offering a legitimate suggestion and opinion, which is what is needed at FPC (expanded opinions and thorough reviews). The most recent mention came from someone who wasn't around at the last MFD. The rest of us bite our tongues lest we get crucified again. upstateNYer 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can I ask a question? I see that a picture can't be VP and FP at the same time? Why was that approach chosen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't take part in the creation of VPC, but I would assume it was to prevent legitimate turf wars. upstateNYer 23:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- So who created VPC?
- And ... would it be ok if I changed that, so that a picture can be both VP and FP at the same time? That would change the dynamics from a de-facto zero sum game into a potential cooperation. <scratches head> Does that sound like a good plan? I think some FP regulars might take it a bit easier with the MfD thing, if they saw that change, because they will see it as a step towards cooperation. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, User:Elucidate actually created the page, and User:Intothewoods29 was very active at the beginning also. Both rarely edit on Wikipedia any more. I have no objection to your plan, but I would presume that the idea would go over even worse with the opposition to VPC. upstateNYer 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't take part in the creation of VPC, but I would assume it was to prevent legitimate turf wars. upstateNYer 23:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Can I ask a question? I see that a picture can't be VP and FP at the same time? Why was that approach chosen? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
May I weigh in? A change to allow recognition in both projects would be a substantial improvement. With historic media the overwhelming challenge is access. VP has had several problems, the biggest of which is its encroachment on historic media. Institutions have been willing to donate thousands of encyclopedic medium resolution images with the hope that a selection of high resolution material would be restored by volunteer labor and perhaps spend a day on the main page. The impression VP has created with historic media editors is of a parasitic program that threatens to create setbacks to progress. When we've raised these issues before the responses have been openly scornful. Since the last round of MFD two respected museums in The Netherlands have partnered with WMF: Tropenmuseum and Spaarnestad. So here's hoping that resolves your earlier skepticism about whether we were serious and credible. If the existence of VP didn't function as a shunt to keep important historic media off the main page, it would be much less destructive. I still wouldn't be convinced it does much good, but I'd no longer regard it as a cancer that needs to be excised. Durova321 15:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- This viewpoint still has no significant proof and most likely never will. There is not a shred of evidence that implies that the existence of VP remotely affects the willingness of media holders to release their archives. Indeed VP is so small that probably 100% of them don't even know it exists. And it still comes down to how the WMF plays its cards. Do they say, "Well, we have a number of "picture" programs and there is a chance that the democratic group at FPC on Wikipedia may not accept your image on EV grounds, so you could [for example] end up on the Main Page of Commons." When I ask sources for media, I don't promise them WP Main Page, I promise them recognition on the image page and mention that the image could be honored by our various picture programs – if the users agree with me – with a small possibility of WP FP. There's always the chance that image may only end up as a QI at Commons, which never makes even Commons' Main Page. I really don't know how WMF is enticing sources without implicitly lying to them if their only play is WP Main Page. If this is a cancer, it is the most benign seen by mankind. upstateNYer 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's put this another way. Featured pictures run on the main page; valued pictures do not. I can and do share traffic statistics that Wikipedia's main page received an average of nearly 6 million page views per day in August.[1] By contrast, The New York Times sells 23 million copies per month. These are numbers curators understand. It's a very persuasive argument for openness, but we can only make that argument for FP--never for VP. Of course there are no guarantees for selection; the relevant caveats are always included in the discussion. But the specific encroachment of VP upon FP candidates and existing FPs does present a problem. If VP recognition were not a barrier to FP recognition, that obstacle would be removed.
On a related note, it really is difficult to hold a discussion with someone who persistently asserts that disagreement with his own viewpoint is equivalent to fabrication. Shoemaker's Holiday and I have contributed hundreds of featured pictures; we have no reason to mislead you. During the last MFD a member of the board of directors of WMF UK stepped forward to substantiate our assertions, and the head of the Open Progress Foundation did so also. You expressed disbelief that museums would talk to us at all, and now that we have actual partnerships you suppose they arose through deceit. Please consider withdrawing that part of your statement; it is a very serious accusation. I assure you the fear it expresses is baseless. Durova321 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I'd jump into this conversation since you obviously have already mentioned me. Forgetting that I haven't got a good idea what a "MFD" is that y'all are talking about, I'd like to assert that since VP and FP are seperate entities, VP disqualifying an image from being FP and not being on the main page, with that setup any image someone might think is good will be ran through FP first, to not do so isn't logical. If it fails FP then it can be brought to VP. But why in the WORLD would anyone run an image through VP before trying to see if it meets FP quality. First thing I notice is that absoutely AMAZING images that have been nominated here, like this one, presumably do not pass because no one is watching and voting here. Images, like this, do not pass due to unreasonable requests and not enough votes from people who understand the science. Both images are amazing and highly EV. But failed likely do to almost zero traffic at VP. Actually the first Parachute image probably is FP quality and definitely worth a nomination. As for the image you criticized I posted to FP, the opposes are basically all centered around lack of understanding of what is being shown in the image, read Durova's most recent comment about it to understand the technical difficulty to create a shot like that. Anyway my point is that why would anyone go to VP first before trying FP with the current rules and there is clearly not enough people participating in VP to make it even worth it looking at the archives (and I just looked at the current month and September). — raeky (talk | edits) 17:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Figured out what a MFD was and commented, considering y'all linked it here. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regular FPC users know what can and can't make it as an FP. There are many photos that are highly valuable encycolpedically, but won't make it at FPC. Here's a few: Rensselaerswyck map, SUNY Building, Chicago, etc. These images never would have made it at FPC; I needn't go to WP:PPR to be told that. Obviously borderline images would go to FPC first. upstateNYer 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Figured out what a MFD was and commented, considering y'all linked it here. :P — raeky (talk | edits) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems I spend too much of my typing time here responding to your false accusations, leaving us from the real issues at hand, but here you go: I never said I don't believe you can get educational institutions to release their contents; I offer you a full-on apology and barnstar for finding the quote that proves it (unequivocally, not in some gray way) - not sure how you think I could make a comment like that after the German archives were released (unless you doubt my basic intelligence?)... I mean come on. I also don't suggest "fabrication" nor have I said you do your work wrapped in deceit. My point is that if you're making Main Page promises to get potential donors, without fully explaining the democracy that decides on FP, in addition to the other pictures programs at Commons, that's not right. I'm sure you do a great job working on getting these media donated, but name/title dropping on me isn't helping your case. It doesn't change the fact that VPC does not negatively affect FPC in any way. I see no proof because you and the users that agree with you offer no proof. The burden of proof on MFD is for the nominator (this was a very big issue at the last MFD, with many users not being satisfied with sufficient evidence); mentions of VPC within various FPCs is not the fault of the VPC program, but of the users. And following that logic, allowing the comments at FPC is not the fault of the users, but the FPC project, I said in the last MFD that maybe FPC should make a "No VPC comments" rule. Rather than jumping to such drastic measures, maybe a simple rule would solve your problem. upstateNYer 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- We'd have to go through that long MFD to get the exact quotes and context. You didn't seem to ever deny that cultural institutions might release material to WMF, nor have I ever attributed that position to you. It was more a tenor of persistent disbelief at the notion that the editors who were directly in contact with you onsite might actually be the ones conducting the negotiations. Even within this thread, you appear to frame the response around a supposition the Wikimedia Foundation itself conducting these talks. They're barely involved firsthand at all; it was the German chapter that negotiated with Bundesarchiv. We wish WMF had the staff to become more hands-on, believe me. ;) Again, please withdraw the mistaken assertions about what I am or am not communicating to these institutions. That appears to be based upon a misreading of my original statement, and clarification has already been provided. This is a serious matter and your suppositions on that point are in danger of derailing productive avenues of discussion. Durova321 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- In an effort to show proof in my previous statement, I did go through the old MFD; making a strong, evidenced statement takes a little time and research. You've already successfully derailed the conversation, especially by not responding with proof of your accusations or beliefs. Not sure how else you expected me to interpret "You expressed disbelief that museums would talk to us at all..."; I never made any such assertion. I have no doubt that it is single users here that can and do get donations; I've gotten donations myself. That is a moot point and please don't bring it up again, lest we waste even more time. This discussion is about how VP hurts FP. I still await your explanation, with evidence. A response to the simple solution of not allowing VPC mentions at FPC would be nice too, considering it seems to solve everyone's problem. And to clear up a misinterpretation (my fault), by WMF, I meant anyone at all related to it, including any editor here or at Commons; I don't mean to credit the actual Foundation for gains made by individual users. I'll be clearer in the future on that point. upstateNYer 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- It comes as a surprise how personally you appear to take this; the tone of the reaction leaves me at a loss for how to participate in a manner acceptable to you at all. Let's not reduce this to he said/she said; this isn't a battle of personalities. The underlying issue here is that access is the principal challenge to historic media content. Our primary need is not a process to distinguish the good from the great, but basic access to good material. This factor affects the area in ways that contributors to other areas can hardly imagine, and I've endeavored to understand your perspective and explain this to you. Let's take one example: remember the Mission San Juan Capistrano nomination from several months ago? It's incredibly hard to glean good historical media about my own geographic area. When you first declined to reconsider your borderline closure I pleaded with you to reconsider; you expressed optimism that other nominations would follow. I already knew what a dearth of material existed in open sources but was unable to persuade you a problem existed; in half a year's time nothing else has surfaced. So another editor and I are making plans to visit the next county (the counties in this part of the country are very large) and hold a conference with the mission's staff in hopes of obtaining additional context to enhance the encyclopedic value of the image. Really, I've knocked on doors. I've sent press releases to the regional newspapers without success. The local historical societies are unusually gunshy: what's needed to move forward with serious negotiations is one more example, and in this regard I've spent months in a holding pattern principally because of you (yes, you as an individual). Each time I answer one of your concerns it's as if you move the goalposts. You aren't the focus: the goal is access to the millions of images in the historical society archives. I've been groping for months for a polite way to express that you have been merely the obstacle. Durova321 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that statement proves it is you making this a personal matter. Your efforts in getting material have absolutely nothing to do with VPC. You have yet to show evidence. And I never made one edit to your Mission nom; I assume you're mixing up your photocroms. And I can't believe you're still so sore about a nom that ran for 10 days and even went 5 days before getting its last support, and short of the 4 support minimum. It's not my fault there was lack of interest. If you're so sore about it (or other ones, as you obviously are) nom it again! It's really not difficult and I would think sufficient time has gone by. But you can't honestly tell me that I am the factor that holds you back in your efforts, that I (or VPC for that matter) is the weight on your shoulder when you discuss options with these places. It has everything to do with groups not wanting to release; trust me, I know exactly what you mean about local historical societies being unreasonably gun-shy. I'm working on my own local one to release useful images for articles and they are worried about (of all things) fewer people visiting them. I'm trying my best to say it politely that you can't have fewer than 0 visitors in a month. But you placing this blame on me and this program is absolutely ludicrous. You've explained and reiterated your points so many times, each time I completely understood what you were saying, but each time I was not convinced. It's all hearsay and complaining with no hard evidence. I can't believe you would bring this to the level of blaming me for your problems. upstateNYer 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, you're right about that example. Should've double checked before selecting it. But seriously, have another look at your own statement for tone. Goes over more like the student debater who gloats over scoring a point in competition than a serious editorial discussion. Whether or not it's intentional, over time that does leave the impression of habitual antagonism. Is it really so surprising that some of the site's most dedicated media editors have given up on consensus and nominated this process for deletion twice? The specific thing that brought me to this thread the post where you speculated that Kim Bruning's suggested solution would antagonize the historic media editors. So I responded to say that it would actually resolve a key problem--not enough to make me a supporter of VP but enough to tolerate it. The discussion could have moved toward resolution on that basis, and could still take that direction. If you want to shake hands and get back to content that'd be great. But if you prefer to continue discussion please take a more constructive route such as explaining why you support this process so ardently. Durova322 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did in fact think that Kim's suggestion would stir up even more of a battle over VP if the rules changed the way she proposed, but apparently I was wrong; I have no objection to it, and if you don't, it seems we can make at least some progress. But you asking to take a more constructive route is surprising, considering you've now blamed me for any issues you're having with gaining media donations and have yet to give sufficient reasons for destroying VPC. Your expression of animosity toward the program due to getting content is all well and good, if you can support the claim answering the questions of "Why?" and "How?". In the four months since our first grand debate, you have yet to fulfill that need, which is why I'm not the only one that disagrees with this. Rather than always dropping the "the two most prolific historic image restorationists..." line, maybe you should consider that well more than two people disagree with this proposal, even after considering your repeated arguments. upstateNYer 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for at least a little agreement. I still have no idea why you support this program. Have presented my own position in a variety of ways, which it seems you quote mine for purposes of rebuttal. Do you actually have positive arguments in favor of VP? About the only case for it I've seen from anybody is to create an analog to the GA program, but that analogy doesn't hold up very well. If there are inherent reasons for VP to exist then I'm willing to hear them. Durova322 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- VP offers less-than-perfect photographers, along with other users just strolling the wiki, to get some recognition for their work, especially if they've produced an image that is exceptionally well used, but doesn't hold up to the FP requirements. I do think of it as a GA, not really caring about the comparison made regarding that a GA can typically be improved to FA because it's text. Yes, true, but there's still almost three times as many GAs as FAs, which shows you that not all of them are updated (indeed many editors stop at GA considering that step to be "good enough"). One argument against VP is that it has no point because it doesn't make it to the Main Page. Does that make me start an MFD on WP:FSC? Of course not. Once in a blue moon, a featured sound will make it to the main page, but only in conjunction with a related image. All of that said, it' doesn't matter why anybody likes it or takes part it in; they just do. It also doesn't matter why because the reason for an MFD is for the nominator to present relevant evidence for deletion, proving why it's bad for the wiki. So far nobody has done that, including you. And you're reiterating your claim that VP hurts historic media editors again below in your debate with Christopher Parham, and just like every other time, you are not telling us why or how it is negatively affecting you, only that it is. Reread all of your permutations of this claim on the wiki and find me one (you won't) where you actually answer why and how the program is derailing. If VP were deleted now, how would that affect anything regarding voting on FPC? How would it affect your ability to get media? It wouldn't. This is a user issues, and the users wouldn't change. Also, arguing for grey-area noms to be given extra slack or even reversed because you're intentions are "more important" than the rest of ours isn't within the FPC criteria. But then again, it's obvious that me and my cabal are only here to make your life miserable anyway, because it's all about you. upstateNYer 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comparison to featured sounds is an exceptionally poor way to make a case for VP. In order to make room for featured sounds I've offered to take all of my featured pictures out of the queue, so that sounds could reach the main page with minimal impact on anyone else's work. Have you made that offer? Has anyone else? Sounds don't bubble to the main page by force of osmosis; they reach there (even at featured level) because a dedicated core of volunteers makes sacrifices. Please cease the ad hominem and non sequitur; it reads like you're playing to the crowd rather than answering serious questions. Durova322 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? Section 5 of the Main Page is "Today's Featured Picture". Only 4 sounds (now here's me doing research to find evidence to prove a point) have made it to the Main Page as a supplement (not stand-alone) to POTD since January (Nixon, Au Clair de la Lune, Piano Sonata No. 28, Propaganda of Spanish-American War). That's four days out of a possible 282: a measly 1.4%. If you're making sacrifices, it would be interesting to know where. I don't really care whether you are or aren't, but if you're going to make the claim, it would warrant evidence based on my findings above. Therefore FS is essentially in the same realm as VP; nothing comes from them being promoted, only additions to a page that collects them all. Oh wait, it also offers users a way of compiling some of the project's most valued works, and brings general happiness, enjoyment, and intellectual stimulation to its users - interesting. And before you start going off saying that I want to decommission FS, I'll make it clear that that's not what I'm saying here; I'm simply being devil's advocate to show the close current relationship between the statuses of VP and FS. upstateNYer 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comparison to featured sounds is an exceptionally poor way to make a case for VP. In order to make room for featured sounds I've offered to take all of my featured pictures out of the queue, so that sounds could reach the main page with minimal impact on anyone else's work. Have you made that offer? Has anyone else? Sounds don't bubble to the main page by force of osmosis; they reach there (even at featured level) because a dedicated core of volunteers makes sacrifices. Please cease the ad hominem and non sequitur; it reads like you're playing to the crowd rather than answering serious questions. Durova322 00:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- VP offers less-than-perfect photographers, along with other users just strolling the wiki, to get some recognition for their work, especially if they've produced an image that is exceptionally well used, but doesn't hold up to the FP requirements. I do think of it as a GA, not really caring about the comparison made regarding that a GA can typically be improved to FA because it's text. Yes, true, but there's still almost three times as many GAs as FAs, which shows you that not all of them are updated (indeed many editors stop at GA considering that step to be "good enough"). One argument against VP is that it has no point because it doesn't make it to the Main Page. Does that make me start an MFD on WP:FSC? Of course not. Once in a blue moon, a featured sound will make it to the main page, but only in conjunction with a related image. All of that said, it' doesn't matter why anybody likes it or takes part it in; they just do. It also doesn't matter why because the reason for an MFD is for the nominator to present relevant evidence for deletion, proving why it's bad for the wiki. So far nobody has done that, including you. And you're reiterating your claim that VP hurts historic media editors again below in your debate with Christopher Parham, and just like every other time, you are not telling us why or how it is negatively affecting you, only that it is. Reread all of your permutations of this claim on the wiki and find me one (you won't) where you actually answer why and how the program is derailing. If VP were deleted now, how would that affect anything regarding voting on FPC? How would it affect your ability to get media? It wouldn't. This is a user issues, and the users wouldn't change. Also, arguing for grey-area noms to be given extra slack or even reversed because you're intentions are "more important" than the rest of ours isn't within the FPC criteria. But then again, it's obvious that me and my cabal are only here to make your life miserable anyway, because it's all about you. upstateNYer 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for at least a little agreement. I still have no idea why you support this program. Have presented my own position in a variety of ways, which it seems you quote mine for purposes of rebuttal. Do you actually have positive arguments in favor of VP? About the only case for it I've seen from anybody is to create an analog to the GA program, but that analogy doesn't hold up very well. If there are inherent reasons for VP to exist then I'm willing to hear them. Durova322 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I did in fact think that Kim's suggestion would stir up even more of a battle over VP if the rules changed the way she proposed, but apparently I was wrong; I have no objection to it, and if you don't, it seems we can make at least some progress. But you asking to take a more constructive route is surprising, considering you've now blamed me for any issues you're having with gaining media donations and have yet to give sufficient reasons for destroying VPC. Your expression of animosity toward the program due to getting content is all well and good, if you can support the claim answering the questions of "Why?" and "How?". In the four months since our first grand debate, you have yet to fulfill that need, which is why I'm not the only one that disagrees with this. Rather than always dropping the "the two most prolific historic image restorationists..." line, maybe you should consider that well more than two people disagree with this proposal, even after considering your repeated arguments. upstateNYer 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, you're right about that example. Should've double checked before selecting it. But seriously, have another look at your own statement for tone. Goes over more like the student debater who gloats over scoring a point in competition than a serious editorial discussion. Whether or not it's intentional, over time that does leave the impression of habitual antagonism. Is it really so surprising that some of the site's most dedicated media editors have given up on consensus and nominated this process for deletion twice? The specific thing that brought me to this thread the post where you speculated that Kim Bruning's suggested solution would antagonize the historic media editors. So I responded to say that it would actually resolve a key problem--not enough to make me a supporter of VP but enough to tolerate it. The discussion could have moved toward resolution on that basis, and could still take that direction. If you want to shake hands and get back to content that'd be great. But if you prefer to continue discussion please take a more constructive route such as explaining why you support this process so ardently. Durova322 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think that statement proves it is you making this a personal matter. Your efforts in getting material have absolutely nothing to do with VPC. You have yet to show evidence. And I never made one edit to your Mission nom; I assume you're mixing up your photocroms. And I can't believe you're still so sore about a nom that ran for 10 days and even went 5 days before getting its last support, and short of the 4 support minimum. It's not my fault there was lack of interest. If you're so sore about it (or other ones, as you obviously are) nom it again! It's really not difficult and I would think sufficient time has gone by. But you can't honestly tell me that I am the factor that holds you back in your efforts, that I (or VPC for that matter) is the weight on your shoulder when you discuss options with these places. It has everything to do with groups not wanting to release; trust me, I know exactly what you mean about local historical societies being unreasonably gun-shy. I'm working on my own local one to release useful images for articles and they are worried about (of all things) fewer people visiting them. I'm trying my best to say it politely that you can't have fewer than 0 visitors in a month. But you placing this blame on me and this program is absolutely ludicrous. You've explained and reiterated your points so many times, each time I completely understood what you were saying, but each time I was not convinced. It's all hearsay and complaining with no hard evidence. I can't believe you would bring this to the level of blaming me for your problems. upstateNYer 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- It comes as a surprise how personally you appear to take this; the tone of the reaction leaves me at a loss for how to participate in a manner acceptable to you at all. Let's not reduce this to he said/she said; this isn't a battle of personalities. The underlying issue here is that access is the principal challenge to historic media content. Our primary need is not a process to distinguish the good from the great, but basic access to good material. This factor affects the area in ways that contributors to other areas can hardly imagine, and I've endeavored to understand your perspective and explain this to you. Let's take one example: remember the Mission San Juan Capistrano nomination from several months ago? It's incredibly hard to glean good historical media about my own geographic area. When you first declined to reconsider your borderline closure I pleaded with you to reconsider; you expressed optimism that other nominations would follow. I already knew what a dearth of material existed in open sources but was unable to persuade you a problem existed; in half a year's time nothing else has surfaced. So another editor and I are making plans to visit the next county (the counties in this part of the country are very large) and hold a conference with the mission's staff in hopes of obtaining additional context to enhance the encyclopedic value of the image. Really, I've knocked on doors. I've sent press releases to the regional newspapers without success. The local historical societies are unusually gunshy: what's needed to move forward with serious negotiations is one more example, and in this regard I've spent months in a holding pattern principally because of you (yes, you as an individual). Each time I answer one of your concerns it's as if you move the goalposts. You aren't the focus: the goal is access to the millions of images in the historical society archives. I've been groping for months for a polite way to express that you have been merely the obstacle. Durova321 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- In an effort to show proof in my previous statement, I did go through the old MFD; making a strong, evidenced statement takes a little time and research. You've already successfully derailed the conversation, especially by not responding with proof of your accusations or beliefs. Not sure how else you expected me to interpret "You expressed disbelief that museums would talk to us at all..."; I never made any such assertion. I have no doubt that it is single users here that can and do get donations; I've gotten donations myself. That is a moot point and please don't bring it up again, lest we waste even more time. This discussion is about how VP hurts FP. I still await your explanation, with evidence. A response to the simple solution of not allowing VPC mentions at FPC would be nice too, considering it seems to solve everyone's problem. And to clear up a misinterpretation (my fault), by WMF, I meant anyone at all related to it, including any editor here or at Commons; I don't mean to credit the actual Foundation for gains made by individual users. I'll be clearer in the future on that point. upstateNYer 22:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- We'd have to go through that long MFD to get the exact quotes and context. You didn't seem to ever deny that cultural institutions might release material to WMF, nor have I ever attributed that position to you. It was more a tenor of persistent disbelief at the notion that the editors who were directly in contact with you onsite might actually be the ones conducting the negotiations. Even within this thread, you appear to frame the response around a supposition the Wikimedia Foundation itself conducting these talks. They're barely involved firsthand at all; it was the German chapter that negotiated with Bundesarchiv. We wish WMF had the staff to become more hands-on, believe me. ;) Again, please withdraw the mistaken assertions about what I am or am not communicating to these institutions. That appears to be based upon a misreading of my original statement, and clarification has already been provided. This is a serious matter and your suppositions on that point are in danger of derailing productive avenues of discussion. Durova321 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Well, I hope that FP is WP:NOT democratic, that would be a problem (long story), but not something we're dealing with today.
For now, tell you what, let's not get into who did bad things to whom, and just try to reach a solution for the future.
I think 2 minor changes at VPC would get the FP regulars to take a much more friendly view towards VPC. Would people at VPC agree to these?
- (Remove a rule): A picture can be both a Featured Picture and a Valued picture at the same time. (This removes the (perception of) competition, and allows for cooperation moving forward)
- (Change in focus): Valued Pictures are pictures with the largest encyclopedic value, (regardless of quality?). (By altering the focus somewhat, folks don't end up stepping on each others' toes so often)
These seem fairly logical to me, but I haven't talked number 2 through with everyone yet, so these might not be perfect yet. Can we do even better?
Also, is there some way in which FPC can improve?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- FPC is essentially a democracy, especially after the reworking a few months ago (where it was made clear that almost no votes would be discounted). But this is the way it should be, per the need for consensus. I agree fully with your suggestion above. I think #2 should be amended to include a common-sense minimum for quality (we don't want absolute crap): "Valued Pictures are pictures with the largest encyclopedic value, with a common-sense minimum for quality". This is essentially how I have been voting at VPC anyway. upstateNYer 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, noted! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) (Democracy is not Consensus, in the same way that dictatorship is not democracy. But like I said, potential disenfranchisement at FPC is an issue for another day. :-)
- FPC is the most democratic process at Wikipedia, if you ask me, especially after the rift (and dramafest) in June, where several editors were upset about nomination closers and their ability to interpret consensus. The process mainly removed discretion in the act of closing, making this a true democracy, and not a consensus-based system. And regardless, whatever WP:NOT says regarding democracy fails the common sense test, no matter how loved and engrained within the system is: as an elected member of a legislative body, I know that consensus is the second truest form of democracy anyway. With respect to actual voting at the table, the only difference is that with consensus, you can have the rare opportunity to become a benevolent dictator when necessary, to reintroduce common sense into people. That ability does not exist at FPC, therefore discussion revolves around, and the outcome is determined by, votes (and not !votes). upstateNYer 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think our understandings of consensus are very different. In the context of an online community with open participation, a democratic system is very vulnerable to multiple avenues of attack (and the "attackers" might not even realize that they're doing something bad) . I end up explaining diverse aspects of the system we're using to people every couple of months or so. In this case I think robustness is an issue. We should probably discuss that elsewhere though. I think we're in agreement on the basic issues on this page now! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless, FPC is essentially a democracy due to complaints by a few users in June about borderline closings (i.e. making that necessary executive decision when determining consensus in difficult situations). Shoemaker's Holiday, the nominator of the MFD, actually proposed to make strict vote counting the rule at FPC at the end of July (proposal failed). Now he is one of the main closers. I haven't really investigated his closings (if I had time like that I'd keep closing noms anyway), but for all we know he could be following that method anyway. I assume nothing really grey has gone through yet since closed noms are posted now and users can read them; nobody has yet complained... but maybe that's because he errs on the side of promotion (you wouldn't complain if your 3.5 supported nom passed, would you?)? upstateNYer 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I think our understandings of consensus are very different. In the context of an online community with open participation, a democratic system is very vulnerable to multiple avenues of attack (and the "attackers" might not even realize that they're doing something bad) . I end up explaining diverse aspects of the system we're using to people every couple of months or so. In this case I think robustness is an issue. We should probably discuss that elsewhere though. I think we're in agreement on the basic issues on this page now! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- FPC is the most democratic process at Wikipedia, if you ask me, especially after the rift (and dramafest) in June, where several editors were upset about nomination closers and their ability to interpret consensus. The process mainly removed discretion in the act of closing, making this a true democracy, and not a consensus-based system. And regardless, whatever WP:NOT says regarding democracy fails the common sense test, no matter how loved and engrained within the system is: as an elected member of a legislative body, I know that consensus is the second truest form of democracy anyway. With respect to actual voting at the table, the only difference is that with consensus, you can have the rare opportunity to become a benevolent dictator when necessary, to reintroduce common sense into people. That ability does not exist at FPC, therefore discussion revolves around, and the outcome is determined by, votes (and not !votes). upstateNYer 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent, noted! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) (Democracy is not Consensus, in the same way that dictatorship is not democracy. But like I said, potential disenfranchisement at FPC is an issue for another day. :-)
- I disagree with the proposed removal in number 1. There's a good reason why FPs can't be VPs. ZooFari 23:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright; can you explain what that reason is? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because FPs are like super-VPs. They have all the EV, but they're higher quality. Aside from VPs not needing to be of the highest quality, they must also have been in the article for a month. But this is a minor concern: any image that passes at FPC is going to end up being in the article for a long time, even if it hasn't been in there for a month yet. So to make a current FP a VP as well would do nothing but say "this has been in the article for a month." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, and that's pretty much harmless, correct? On the other hand, explicitly saying "an FP is not allowed to be a VP" turns FPC/VPC into a textbook zero sum game, and that's not so harmless (never play a zero sum game if you can avoid it).
- The #2 change is that I'd like to make FP and VP be just slightly different, so that FP's are not quite super-VPs anymore. This should attract more people to VPC, and cause less friction with FPC (hopefully :-) )
- --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say pointless rather than harmless. The idea behind this rule was to stop images needlessly piling up templates on their image page, and pointlessly running through both processes for no reason. Around the time VP was first floated there were some suggestions to abolish WP:FPC and centralise things at Commons, partly for these same reasons. That didn't go a long way at the time, but could return, especially if editors see success at getting VP deleted on trumped-up reasons.
- VP was basicallly meant as a recognition of highly encyclopaedically valuable images that lacked the quality to be FPs - if the image was improved or a better version found then there was never anything to prevent it being 'promoted' to FP, but there was and is little point in it being both.
- What you probably don't realise is that almost all participants at VP/VPC are also involved at FPC and originate there. There is no competition and plenty of cooperation (given the same people are involved). Having said which, to be honest I'm struggling to see a lot of point in VP atm, I'd see even less point with your proposed changes, but I won't support it being deleted for phoney reasons. --jjron (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really a "zero sum game" type situation...it's like if you ruled nobody could own both a Kia and a Ferrari at the same time, in theory this might create a zero sum competition but in reality it wouldn't. Everyone who could afford a car would get the Kia, unless they could afford the Ferrari, in which case they would buy that. The two simply can't compete because one is evidently subordinate to the other. There's no prospect that VP will appeal to images that could pass FP; if anything the existence of VP allows FP to be more strict about its quality criteria since there is another place for images that don't quite make it to go. The experience at FAC suggests that a subordinate process will encourage standards tightening at the "best of the best" process. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Although I'm loath to draw analogies between media and text processes, there is a faction within FAC which resists promoting certain types of articles. Very broadly speaking, that type of problem is applicable here. The majority of regulars at FPC are digital photographers. Digital photography is a challenging medium and many of these people are wonderful at it--it's a boon to the site that we have them. Yet the challenges they face are very different from what the historic media editors face. For example, we have a variety of historic featured pictures about Japan and could promote quite a few more, but the available archives have much less material about Korea. I know a Korean editor who's in contact with the administrators at the Korean language Wikipedia; we've discussed preliminary strategies for approaching Korean cultural institutions. I've run periodic searches for historic media about that culture, and the first candidates are not likely to equal the Japanese material on technical merit. A year ago that would not have posed an insurmountable barrier. Since VP got instituted the photographers have been apt to put the cart before the horse: in the misguided pursuit of quality some of them have actually been doing things that encroach upon our ability to access to high quality historic media. The historic media editors have endeavored to communicate the problem in a variety of different ways, but our work is so specialized and arcane that some reactions range from disbelief to hostility. Durova322 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of what's happened at FAC and it discourages me. It seems very plausible something analogous to that is happening with FPC as well (though I agree the text/media analogy is strained). However, that's an FAC/FPC problem. If you are unhappy with the articles being promoted or failed at FPC, the place to propose changes is in the featured picture criteria. It sounds as if you believe the standards applied to historical media are too strict. Yet, if there's no consensus to lower them, that's something we must simply live with. Deleting an indirectly related process in an effort to reduce standards at FPC does not strike me as productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- One issue is that this shift in review patterns has occurred without actual change in the formal criteria. That is, people who do not do this type of work have asserted new expectations that aren't part of FPC standards. Sometimes that's obviously out of touch with common sense and reality, such as the reviewer who mistakenly thought I had restored a Rembrandt painting (and admired the so-called restoration). Other times the new unwritten expectations are equally unrealistic but it takes direct experience to see why. Durova322 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- However again I doubt you could find data to support your assertions. We recently celebrated the 2000th FP. As I identified at the time "it took almost four years for the first 1000, and...less than a year and nine months to make the second 1000". My personal feeling is that standards have probably declined somewhat in the last year or so, which helps explain this acceleration in promotions. Without having reviewed the numbers (and I'm not going to spend my time doing so) I would suggest that obviously in absolute numbers, but also as a percentage of total promotions, historical image promotions have also increased over the second 1000. Historical images are also far less likely to be delisted. So I don't really see why you claim historical images are being held to unrealistic expectations, and in particular, why you blame this on VP - if this was the case then there's far more likely reasons than VP. I have never voted differently due to the existence of VP and I can't see evidence of others having done so either (they may have, but I haven't seen it). I have suggested that images would be better suited to VP, but they are simply images I don't feel meet the standards anyway and would oppose regardless. For example, at least one of the accused "Canvassing in FPC" attempts at the MfD was apparently my edit on this which I don't feel that any reasonable person could regard as canvassing - for the record I have little doubt that 18 months ago this image would have been shot down in a hail of opposes, but on current standards it ended as a questionable promotion. And besides which, there is also a lack of evidence that historical images are being affected - of the 18 VP mentions raised at the MfD only one (arguably two if you count a 1995 event with thousands of existing photos as historic) would fit in our general definitions of historic images. --jjron (talk) 06:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Still, if there is consensus to change standards at FPC in any particular direction, I imagine that the process can be crafted to effect that change. For instance, if people as you say are asserting standards that are not present in the criteria, it is up to FPC closers to exercise discretion in discounting those opinions. (i.e., the necessary change might be to permit that discretion.) Christopher Parham (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes Christopher, indeed the criteria may be changed if required, and have been tweaked from time to time. However what Durova is not acknowledging is that standards evolve over time without the criteria actually being changed. For example the 'bar' for macro photography is far higher than it was say three years ago due to a wealth of high quality macro contributions over that time. Indeed many of the recent delists have been older macro images that were often considered excellent when promoted in say 2005. The criteria haven't changed to reflect this, but voters' expectations have gone up due to better contributions. However macro photographers aren't blaming this on VP. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jjron, there's been a huge dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT throughout these discussions. During the early phases I brought forth an arsenal of data, which was summarily brushed aside by the people who supported the valued pictures program and still haven't given coherent reasons why. Valued Images at Commons makes sense, but when you look at the differences in the project missions an analogous program at en:wiki does not make sense: Commons is the central media repository for nearly 300 languages; en:wiki is not a media repository. Right there at the get-go this program falls on its face. It's had nearly a year and hasn't gotten off the ground. Durova322 00:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Stop claiming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you're guilty yourself. We heard you, every time. We just don't agree with you. Major difference. It's notable that a user that finds no interest in the program is one of its greatest defenders here. upstateNYer 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Anecdotal evidence is not data. --jjron (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The reverse would make more sense to me; Commons as an image repository has an interest in image quality itself. Here, on the other hand, "encyclopedic value" is really the only sort of value much consistent with our mission. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Stop claiming WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you're guilty yourself. We heard you, every time. We just don't agree with you. Major difference. It's notable that a user that finds no interest in the program is one of its greatest defenders here. upstateNYer 02:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- One issue is that this shift in review patterns has occurred without actual change in the formal criteria. That is, people who do not do this type of work have asserted new expectations that aren't part of FPC standards. Sometimes that's obviously out of touch with common sense and reality, such as the reviewer who mistakenly thought I had restored a Rembrandt painting (and admired the so-called restoration). Other times the new unwritten expectations are equally unrealistic but it takes direct experience to see why. Durova322 18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of what's happened at FAC and it discourages me. It seems very plausible something analogous to that is happening with FPC as well (though I agree the text/media analogy is strained). However, that's an FAC/FPC problem. If you are unhappy with the articles being promoted or failed at FPC, the place to propose changes is in the featured picture criteria. It sounds as if you believe the standards applied to historical media are too strict. Yet, if there's no consensus to lower them, that's something we must simply live with. Deleting an indirectly related process in an effort to reduce standards at FPC does not strike me as productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Although I'm loath to draw analogies between media and text processes, there is a faction within FAC which resists promoting certain types of articles. Very broadly speaking, that type of problem is applicable here. The majority of regulars at FPC are digital photographers. Digital photography is a challenging medium and many of these people are wonderful at it--it's a boon to the site that we have them. Yet the challenges they face are very different from what the historic media editors face. For example, we have a variety of historic featured pictures about Japan and could promote quite a few more, but the available archives have much less material about Korea. I know a Korean editor who's in contact with the administrators at the Korean language Wikipedia; we've discussed preliminary strategies for approaching Korean cultural institutions. I've run periodic searches for historic media about that culture, and the first candidates are not likely to equal the Japanese material on technical merit. A year ago that would not have posed an insurmountable barrier. Since VP got instituted the photographers have been apt to put the cart before the horse: in the misguided pursuit of quality some of them have actually been doing things that encroach upon our ability to access to high quality historic media. The historic media editors have endeavored to communicate the problem in a variety of different ways, but our work is so specialized and arcane that some reactions range from disbelief to hostility. Durova322 17:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because FPs are like super-VPs. They have all the EV, but they're higher quality. Aside from VPs not needing to be of the highest quality, they must also have been in the article for a month. But this is a minor concern: any image that passes at FPC is going to end up being in the article for a long time, even if it hasn't been in there for a month yet. So to make a current FP a VP as well would do nothing but say "this has been in the article for a month." Makeemlighter (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Alright; can you explain what that reason is? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Specific efforts to populate valued pictures by delisting actual featured pictures, from one discussion:
- While I now see some effort, it is still not the quality we want and I don't think we will obtain it. High EV, but just an unfortunate misquality. I would say nominate at VP, but you people are just too peevy about it so I say delist, replace, and send it on its way. ZooFari 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, yeah, good point. Sure, it is extremely encyclopedic, but what about quality? I'd see this photo better at VP for such conditions it is in. FP is not all about EV, unlike VP, so I will change to keep when I see some effort in it. ZooFari 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's not the window reflection (which I didn't even notice until you mentioned it) or the technicals that bother me; it's the effects of age: scratches, dust, marks, hairs, etc.—all reasonably fixable by a relatively skilled hand in photoshop. Remember, these FPs were nominated way before VPC existed, and passed mainly (in this case only) on their EV. Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them. I'd fix either of these if I could; but I have no experience nor time to learn how to restore at the level you do. We aren't doing harm; maybe this will be a saving grace for the VPC program. wadester16 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The history is extermely interesting, but it's not like the window reflection tells that story; it only shows two windows in the background and no other identifiable information. And you don't need that story or the reflection to know the image was taken from a plane. I believe the image would be better without the reflection, but it's tolerable given the rarity of the photo. That said, while restoration isn't a requirement, it's most certainly become an expectation. This image could easily sit happily at VP until somebody takes on the scratches and dust and can then be re-nom'ed at FPC. wadester16 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you see this as an FP or a VP? I believe the fact that the argument against it being delisted boils down to EV. But that's not all FPC is about; on the other hand, that's mainly what VPC is about. wadester16 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
From another:
- Indeed. See my comment below about "demoting" lower quality FPs (which were promoted mainly on EV before VPC existed) to VPC. wadester16 05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delist - Agree this would make a better VP than FP. Technical quality is low - stitching errors, pixelated edges, inconsistent sharpness, grainy, etc. The EV is extremely high though. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (later struck through by poster)
- So shouldn't it be a Valued Picture instead of a Featured Picture? Kaldari (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The ironic thing is that this drive didn't even go after the really low quality FPs. Going purely from historic material:
-
576 × 461 pixels, file size: 175 KB
-
862 × 587 pixels, file size: 313 KB, also halftoned and artifacted
-
Decent resolution, but there are tons of better archival photographs of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906.
-
Borderline at 1,013 × 800 pixels, file size: 409 KB, tons of Lewis Wickes Hine photography on this subject is available at better resolution and better composition.
-
800 × 769 pixels, file size: 101 KB
-
500 × 674 pixels, file size: 290 KB
-
740 × 529 pixels, file size: 73 KB
-
See below.
The Chancellorsville example is particularly telling. That got restored from File:Conf dead chancellorsville.jpg when I nominated it for delisting, but really the result is not good: scanner streaks, scratches and spots remain. And the lower left corner remains in bad disrepair. I wouldn't nominate a restoration which looked like that, and if I did the chances are near zero that reviewers would accept it--a good example of how some people's historic work gets judged by different standards than others. But the drive to retain this left essential questions unanswered: we could get better quality images of Confederate dead, and we could get better quality images of Chancellorsville. No one answered why this particular scene needed to remain featured rather than superior material on related subjects, and reviewers appeared to be groping during the original nomination:
- Neutral Historical, but really very bad quality. Hard to call this not knowing the rareity of the shot. -Fcb981 19:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)'
- Support as per Thegreenj. I love the cracked and broken plate at the top; very fortunate that images like this have survived in any form. mikaultalk 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support original Agree with Fcb981 that I, not an expert in historical photography, find it hard to judge the historicity of the photo. Quality is not too bad, all considered. In any case, I feel the original is better, not only because of the cracked plates but also because the figure in lower left gets cut off in the crop. --Asiir 11:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
After that delist nomination turned into a low quality restoration and Passchendaele got kept, I pretty much gave up on delisting bad material even when it deserved the boot. So to see the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki get singled out for a VP/FP shuffle--at nearly 7MB--sends the message that people hadn't spent ten minutes clicking the FP galleries to see which FPs were weakest, or put much thought into what's replaceable versus what isn't. And people who don't take the time to do that easy research are really unlikely to ever have done serious searching on the Library of Congress site, which has wonderful content but beastly site architecture.
You don't react like you have any idea how many hours or thousands of images it took to glean the source material for our only Indonesian FP, then more hours restoring it. I know a Wikimedian in Indonesia who's working with a local museum to get images for WMF: he has to supply his own equipment because the museum has no budget for it, and then he'll have to snail mail a DVD to the Foundation because the bandwidth in his part of the world isn't sufficient for electronic transfers. When we say slow down, you're moving the goalposts too quickly in counterproductive ways, what we get from certain people is the brush-off. Yes, it makes a difference to curators to see examples of their own cultural history already at FP. Once those doors open and we have access to more material you can redefine the standards any way you like, but please make a serious effort to to so according to rational standards. Because the recent trends don't even hold up to superficial scrutiny. Durova322 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but after reading through I don't believe that those nominations were motivated by a desire to populate VP. I read them directly as being driven by the concerns mentioned in the nomination statements. VP is mentioned later and incidentally. You also bring up issues of consistency in FP delisting nominations. A valid point, but not particularly meaningful to any discussion of VP's merits. I tend to think I am in pretty broad agreements with your commentary on FP, but don't find myself comprehending what this has to do with VP as presently constituted. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The nominator of the Nagasaki bombing was the author of five of the eight quotes listed above, including the words "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them." That's a statement of explicit intent; it couldn't be any clearer. Durova322 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is with those quotes. Just because you dislike VPC and get offended every time it's mentioned doesn't automatically mean that we are attempting to dump FPC for VP. I suppose a quote like "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs" would sooth you better? VPC or not ain't going to change FPC much. ZooFari 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- The nominator of the Nagasaki bombing was the author of five of the eight quotes listed above, including the words "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them." That's a statement of explicit intent; it couldn't be any clearer. Durova322 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent, responding to ZooFari) When this program was new I even participated in the hope that it would find its place. But as months progressed its enthusiastic supporters increasingly promoted it in ways that drew complaints. They had no need to do so: five years of FPC archives could have been mined for potential VP candidates, but instead they set their sights on existing FPs and FPCs.
Even from the start this program had conceptual shortcomings: it purports to be an analog of the Commons Valued Images program, but a principal reason Commons has that program is to serve as a media repository for hundreds of WMF projects--a purpose which is explicitly outside of English Wikipedia's project scope. See Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY. One might try to defend VP for creative feedback and encouragement, but Wikipedia:Picture peer review already served that purpose. VP provides a pretty logo to put in one's userspace, but basically that's what barnstars do.
This program has failed to gain community support is because it serves no unique positive purpose. It continually recruited from the same pool of volunteers which it quickly tapped to the point of diminishing returns. When concerns arose the supporters refused to acknowledge that problems existed and engaged in verbal sparring instead of improvement. The result has polarized the site's best media contributors. You needn't have alienated my former support, but those factors tipped the balance. Now this program gets terrible word of mouth when it's mentioned at all. It's useless to ask me to reinterpret "Maybe its time we 'demote' some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them" as something other than what was actually said. Those words, within the larger context of what else was being said and done, were why this program got MfD'd months ago--and probably why it's been MfD'd a second time. This program is far more important to you than it is to me, so if you don't want it to get marked historical one of these days it would be a good idea to take this feedback on board and learn from it. Most of the people who consider this project unnecessary have stopped trying to communicate with you. Durova322 02:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Preventing VP from being shut down.
The participation in this project is non-existent, currently theres just 2 pictures listed. What is everyones opinion on why participation is so low on this project? — raeky (talk | edits) 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- I also want to note that there are currently less than a hundered VPs. I have an idea, see below:
New and brief proposal
I haven't seen muchany progression since the last Mfd. If we don't do something, I don't see why we should continue to run it. Therefore I would like to propose changes for the VP program, ones that would completely alter it into a different process. My main idea is to create an assessment project similar to the quality image project at Commons. Their program is based on their FP program, yet very successful. Since we can relate our programs with the ones at Commons, I think we have a chance to make ours successful as well. All we need to do is think outside the box. One reason why the Quality image program at Commons drives many nominations per day is because the evaluation standards are much more simple than the FP one. It only takes one reviewer's input to promote an image, otherwise rejected. Our VP program does not have many quality expectations, so I figure we could do the same. Fortunately, we have a few users that sometimes participate in this program—enough to start a good assessments project. The assessments do not necessarily have to be broken down to groups like they do in Commons (e.g. composition, exposure, etc). Instead we could just rely on one expectation, in this case EV. If groups shall be proposed, examples would include usage, originality, and/or historic value.
The way promotion and consensus would work
As in the Quality images project at Commons, nominations would stay opened for a certain amount of time. If a reviewer does not come by during that period to assess the image, the nomination would be closed without promotion. If a reviewer comes by, however, and agrees/decline promotion and no objections arise within a certain period after review, the image would become promoted or fails, according to the review it would receive.
If you think this is a good idea for rehabilitation of the program, we could proceed to much more detailed proposals. Please share ideas and concepts; we really need to take action soon. ZooFari 04:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support simplifaction of promotion process. I think this is a significant detractor at present and I agree with a simplification of the process. Probably, this would also require the VP criteria to be more detailed, so that individual assessments are still consistent. Elekhh (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Quality images are diagrams or photographs which meet certain quality standards (which are mostly technical in nature) and which are valuable for Wikimedia projects." It's a matter of project scope: Wikimedia Commons is the shared repository for all WMF projects. That site serves nearly 300 language editions of Wikipedia plus various Wikibooks, Wiktionaries, etc. People from all those projects go to Commons to seek material so it makes sense for Commons to facilitate that. That purpose is explicitly outside the role of English Wikipedia as a matter of policy. If you want to really improve media content it would be so much more useful to make contacts at an art school in your community and get in touch with the faculty that teaches advanced Photoshop classes. If we interface with them to get digital image restoration into their curricula, I have contacts that could get the best student work exhibited in the physical space of a museum in a European capital. That would be great for the art school, a wonderful credit for their most talented students, improve our museum relations, and provide a superb cache of content for WMF along the way. Each time a new museum joins this type of partnership we can gain tens of thousands of medium to high resolution encyclopedic images. Aim higher; set your sights on a broader horizon. The opportunities are real. Your intentions are good; you could be accomplishing so much more. Durova380 05:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds great, but practically speaking, most of us don't have the time for such an intensive venture. Many of us are students and devote a lot of time to study and many others have full time jobs, which allow us only so much time here. Your plans are exciting, but only someone with a lot of time can make it happen. Based on the vast amount of work you produce (which, of course, is stellar), I would venture a guess that you're either doing restorations and GLAM communication for a living, or you do not have a paying job (for whatever reason; I'm not speculating, just going thru the logic). The rest of us do. Not trying to be a Debbie downer, just a realist. If people are interested in these ideas, they'll jump on them themselves. Now, as you've asked us to stay away from WT:FPC with VPC-related issues, I kindly ask that you let us try to invigorate this program, while not trying to sell GLAM to us unnecessarily. We've heard you at WT:FPC and Signpost. If that doesn't do it for you, WT:VPC definitely won't. upstateNYer 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks ZooFari for re-opening the discussion. My strating point would be the potential role I see VP could have, such as: (1) providing a platform for stimulating provision of good images which are well placed and add most Value to Wiki articles, (2) providing a stimulating reward for emerging photographers which don't have the equipment to produce FPs, contributing thus to Wiki openness, and (3) providing the opportunity of an assessment of image quality distinct from FPs, i.e. with an emphasis on Wiki article display size and full screen size value rather than poster size quality. As FP gets more elitist, as well as biased for technical quality and judgement based on poster size images (while most Wiki users will never look to an image at that size) it appears to me that VP makes a lot of sense. The problem I see is rather that VP is currently not yet well defined, for instance through general description like: [VPs] .. may possess many of the characteristics of a Featured Picture, but for a variety of reasons not quite make that mark or the WP:Valued picture criteria. I would suggest reviewing these, with a view of having a much stronger emphasis on EV. Elekhh (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is the need to start a local process for that from the ground up when Commons already has a project which does the same thing and has over 7000 reviewed and promoted items? Duplication would amount to wheel-spinning Would be more productive to start a wikiproject to work with Commons by importing their promoted images if they're better than what we have, and by nominating en:wiki's best material there for use at other WMF sites. Durova381 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying: not a separate photographic quality assessment but assessment of how well an image illustrates a Wiki article(s). Elekhh (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Those goals would be better served by working with the existing Commons program rather than trying to operate a parallel program locally. For example, this image is a valued image at Commons that gets used on 31 pages at 10 projects.[2] The Commons program helped it reach the German, French, Russian, and Bulgarian Wikipedias. Volunteers feel very rewarded and encouraged when their work gets translated and reused widely. The Commons program is already strong; it's easier and better to go directly there. A local duplicate program couldn't ever be as useful. Durova381 22:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- (e/c) Which, by definition, is en:wiki specific since you won't find me playing around with image placement at the Turkish WP (since I don't speak it). I like your idea. upstateNYer 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The wonderful thing about the Commons programs is that volunteers from around the world do that translation. This Commons valued image of one of the dead sea scrolls is getting used at the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Farsi, Hebrew, Finnish, Afrikaans, and Malayam Wikipedias. Suppose your non-featured photography were getting reused that widely. Talk about feeling valued! Everyone knows about the Commons projects and they're already strong. Best to work where the best synergies already exist. Durova381 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mine[3] are[4]; and I didn't need Commons, either. upstateNYer 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- So let's see if this is consensus: with volunteer time at a premium the ideal way to focus effort is to shift from one unsuccessful attempt to compete with a thriving Commons program to...compete with a different thriving Commons program? Bear in mind, when there aren't enough active volunteers locally the goal of encouragement can have the opposite consequences.[5] Durova381 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- As can the stubborn domination of a project. upstateNYer 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- By your definition of a parallel program, I believe that en:Wiki FP would also fall under a Commons competition. ZooFari 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Commons and en:wiki have significantly different featured picture programs. The Commons featured picture program provides the equivalent of cover art to the main page of Wikimedia Commons and a variety of smaller Wikipedias that mirror the Commons POTD. Commons FPs need not be encyclopedic or actually in use anywhere, but esthetic value is more important there and they need to meet higher technical minimums than we require locally. The key factor is whether a process finds its own unique niche worth the effort of sustaining as a program (as opposed to awarding barnstars). A process is not an end in itself; a drive to mirror the quality image program may do nothing more than balkanize it. Durova381 23:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- So let's see if this is consensus: with volunteer time at a premium the ideal way to focus effort is to shift from one unsuccessful attempt to compete with a thriving Commons program to...compete with a different thriving Commons program? Bear in mind, when there aren't enough active volunteers locally the goal of encouragement can have the opposite consequences.[5] Durova381 22:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mine[3] are[4]; and I didn't need Commons, either. upstateNYer 22:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The wonderful thing about the Commons programs is that volunteers from around the world do that translation. This Commons valued image of one of the dead sea scrolls is getting used at the German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Farsi, Hebrew, Finnish, Afrikaans, and Malayam Wikipedias. Suppose your non-featured photography were getting reused that widely. Talk about feeling valued! Everyone knows about the Commons projects and they're already strong. Best to work where the best synergies already exist. Durova381 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that's pretty much in line with what I'm saying: not a separate photographic quality assessment but assessment of how well an image illustrates a Wiki article(s). Elekhh (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is the need to start a local process for that from the ground up when Commons already has a project which does the same thing and has over 7000 reviewed and promoted items? Duplication would amount to wheel-spinning Would be more productive to start a wikiproject to work with Commons by importing their promoted images if they're better than what we have, and by nominating en:wiki's best material there for use at other WMF sites. Durova381 18:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Personally I'm of the belief that all images should be at Commons unless they are required to be here by fair use or some other provision. I think supporting Commons has the best net effect of all of the options, and also engages local participants from a wide variety of language groups (as well as helping them build resources in their own language). Having an image program here at en therefore seems redundant, especially when Commons have a good one going already. And re FP - you may well be right, that preceded Commons if I recall. Orderinchaos 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- We can't apply fair use rationales to project space, so that leaves images that meet pre-1923 PD but not the life +70 rule, seized Nazi images affected by a US ruling on copyright forfeiture, and a few other legal quirks. Those constitute 2% of my en:wiki featured credits (and probably none of anybody else's). Durova381 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Compromise?
Wikipedia works on a consensus model, so how about this: try out ZooFari's idea and see if it works. If VP promotes 20 images a month for three months in a row, I'll create the "you told me so" barnstar and award it to the people who had faith in the idea. Fair enough? Durova381 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2010 WikiCup participation
Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
So what's the decision?
The WikiCup will be starting pronto and any changes to the Valued Picture program should be made before it precedes. What have we decided? ZooFari 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Seems that everybody was on vacation. As stated above I support simplification of the process but I think that would require more elaborate criteria. Elekhh (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, let's start by the criteria:
- The image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia and has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month.
- Images that only make a minor contribution, such as a gallery image, would not be considered to have high encyclopedic value. Images must have been suitably located in at least one article for a minimum of one month in order to help demonstrate that other editors of that article consider the image to be worth retaining and thus to have encyclopedic value. Images that do not meet this criteria are ineligible for VP status.
- An image's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value.[1]
- It is among Wikipedia's most educational work.
- It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
- It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
- A valued picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing. Encyclopedic value is more important than an attractive appearence. Highly educational, and historical images may not have to be classically beautiful at all.
- commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
- It is not a featured picture on the English Wikipedia.
- A featured picture may not become a valued picture. If a valued picture becomes featured, its valued picture status is revoked.
- Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
- Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:
- Is succinct
- Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable
- Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other media.
- Describes the location of the subject where relevant
What do you believe should be changed? --ZooFari 01:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I generally like the criteria as it is, although I would separate It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more into a separate point and would move point (3) to last. What I think is needed is either more detail or a separate guideline to assist consistent assessment of encyclopedic, educational and aesthetic value. As past experience shows, there are different views on these, and without some guidelines, the proposed promotion system by individuals could lead to inconsistent results. Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could create multiple assessments as I suggested above (as in QI at Commons) that will fall under different categories, each with different, but still similar, criteria. We could have one main criteria that will summarize the importance of educational and aesthetic value. We could create categories such as usage, rarity, historic value, and great demonstration, each with more detailed criteria. An editor would then be able to assess them under one of those categories and see if they meet the standards, otherwise decline promotion. --ZooFari 23:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Historic value / Rarity
Aesthetic value
Usage
Educational / Great demonstration
Excellent examples, Elekhh. Shall we form a criteria proposal? --ZooFari 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Criteria proposal
General Valued picture criteria: A valued picture:
- The image is encyclopedically valuable to Wikipedia and has been suitably illustrating an article for at least one month.
- Images that only make a minor contribution, such as a gallery image, would not be considered to have high encyclopedic value. Images must have been suitably located in at least one article for a minimum of one month in order to help demonstrate that other editors of that article consider the image to be worth retaining and thus to have encyclopedic value. Images that do not meet this criteria are ineligible for VP status.
- Images are considered exceptionally valuable under at least one of the following criteria:
- a.) Aesthetic value
- It is among Wikipedia's most aesthetic work.
- It illustrates the subject in an exceptionally compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
- a.) Aesthetic value
- b.) Educational / Great demonstration:
- It is among Wikipedia's most educational work.
- It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
- Diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
- commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
- b.) Educational / Great demonstration:
- c.) Historic images/ Rarity:
- It records an important historic moment, which cannot be repeated and replaced by better images.
- Scans and images depict originality. Documents with historic scratches or damages are not restored and colours are natural.
- c.) Historic images/ Rarity:
- d.) Usage:
- The image is used in a large amount of articles in addition to the primary article it illustrates.
- d.) Usage:
- Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
- Has a good caption The picture is displayed with a descriptive, informative and complete caption. A complete caption:
- Is succinct
- Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable
- Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other media.
- Describes the location of the subject where relevant
- It is not a featured picture on the English Wikipedia.
- A featured picture may not become a valued picture. If a valued picture becomes featured, its valued picture status is revoked.
Above are elements to start forming a proposal. Feel free to share ideas. --ZooFari 21:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reworked a bit, but I think it still needs more detail. Feel free to work on the same draft. Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Closures needed
Some of the older candidates can be closed. Two waiting to be promoted. Elekhh (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did a few. I'll get to the rest later. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Template for contributors
Just a reminder that we have an userbox template for VP contributors {{Template:User VP}}. Elekhh (talk) 08:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia. |
Recently closed nominations
I think it would make sense to keep recently closed nominations for a week or so on the main page under a separate section. This would allow new participants to have a better understanding of the whole process. Elekhh (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Valued picture criteria - amendment proposal
I suggest a few minor amenments to the Valued picture criteria to make participation easier, primarily by clarifying what the project is about:
- Move criteria nr.5 "Image caption" up to become nr.3 as it directly relates to educational value.
- Reduce time condition from one month to three weeks;
- Add examples to illustrate what VPC is about, by presenting a selection of the best promoted work so far:
Is among the most educational examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
Illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.
Highly educational, and historical images may not have to be classically beautiful.
Please signal you support, opposition or any comments below. Elekhh (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't participated here in a while, but I figured I'd add my two cents. I think changing the time condition doesn't really do anything. Any picture that lasts 3 weeks in an article will probably last the entire month. Changing the condition would just allow someone to nominate the image sooner. I don't see a problem with that, but I also don't see any reason why we couldn't just wait a week until the month was up. Adding examples is probably a good idea, but you might want to limit the number of examples and add a small explanation for each one. It wouldn't have to be anything elaborate, just something short like "this has great EV because ..." Makeemlighter (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I have been told that votes based flawed premises, their vote will be ignored. Is a the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Kevin Grady where he says he is not evaluating all the uses a valid vote? Is the vote at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Brandon Graham pressures Terrelle Pryor where it is based on use in a secondary article (with an edit summary that says "vote oppose based on usage in mask") valid?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Excessive VPC's by Tony....
Of the active candidates now, 24 of them are by TonyTheTiger and 2 by other people, of the "decision time" ones 11 are by Tony, and 1 by someone else. Of the recently closed, 10 are by Tony and 2 by other people. Of the closed ones on the page by Tony 1 was prompted so thats a 90% failure rate. In the July-2010 archive, 9 are by Tony (only 1 promoted) and 2 by others. Of the June-2010 archive, 9 (5 of which promoted) are by tony and 7 by others.
Is it only me or is this looking to be excessive? — raeky (talk | edits) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm also getting concerned that so many nominations vs so few reviews might be deterring participation in the project, and start to become counterproductive. I would suggest a bit more self-restraint could be beneficial. --Elekhh (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: informing Tony of this thread. Jujutacular T · C 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I must also agree. I had initially thought about it as simply affecting Tony's nominations negatively, but it's a good point that this may be deterring participation in general. Commons FPC recently adopted a 2 nom maximum. Perhaps we could propose a similar measure? Although given the low participation here, the max would most likely need to be slightly higher. Jujutacular T · C 04:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- There have been times when I have had 30 or 35 simultaneous WP:GAC noms and they have considered changing the rules, but the real problem is a need for more reviewers and not fewer noms, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- You picture guys have been looking for a fight with me for a while, this is a pretty good one I guess. I don't know what you think you will really get out of it though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I only care about decreasing participation, if you can do something to _increase_ it more power to you, we'd all be grateful.. but VPC is basically dead anyway, and is on it's last legs. I had hoped giving it point value in the wikicup would enliven it some and get more voters, but it hasn't. It barely scraped by being deleted before the wikicup, and after this wikicup it MIGHT actually get deleted. Having one user occupy 95% of all the nominations and 90% of them being zero votes is really at risk of driving the few people who participate away. Personally I don't want to wade through 30+ nominations that you have currently on here. I definitely do recommend self-restraint, and using (AND LISTENING) to WP:PPR before you nominate pictures. 90+% of what you have currently nominated won't pass, and that really is just wasting everyones time. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure what pleasure you get out of your efforts on my noms, but surely, 90% will fail if you guys continue playing games like saying perspective correction is a waste of time and such.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I only care about decreasing participation, if you can do something to _increase_ it more power to you, we'd all be grateful.. but VPC is basically dead anyway, and is on it's last legs. I had hoped giving it point value in the wikicup would enliven it some and get more voters, but it hasn't. It barely scraped by being deleted before the wikicup, and after this wikicup it MIGHT actually get deleted. Having one user occupy 95% of all the nominations and 90% of them being zero votes is really at risk of driving the few people who participate away. Personally I don't want to wade through 30+ nominations that you have currently on here. I definitely do recommend self-restraint, and using (AND LISTENING) to WP:PPR before you nominate pictures. 90+% of what you have currently nominated won't pass, and that really is just wasting everyones time. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just slow down a bit. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Dead project?
Hi. I just closed 17 nominations, all non-promotes since those are quicker and easier. The earliest of those nomination started on May 26 - two months ago! The most recent started June 26 - one month ago. I could keep going until I hit the one week time period for leaving nominations open, and I could promote the ones I skipped over, but I have to ask if I should even bother. VPC has been struggling for a long time. Participation is very low: there are only 2 or 3 regulars and nobody had closed a nomination in over 3 weeks. There are two directions we can go at this point, and we need to pick one. We can try to increase participation, probably by finding a few to publicize the project and make it more relevant. Or we can retire the project and delete it or mark it as historical. Frankly, I'm on the fence. VP has been up for deletion twice already, and the issue of participation and lack of direction came up both times. But both times, the consensus was that VP deserved a chance. Well, I'd say it's had that chance and come up short. I'd hate to shut down the project if some good can still come from it, but at this point, something needs to happen. Any ideas or comments? Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I fully share your concerns, and is obvious the project is struggling. Important to note here that the two previous (and very early) deletion nominations you mention, IMO rather contributed to the troubles of the project than were a reflection of it (seem to have undermined its success from the start). Now if you compare this project with many WikiProjects you'll find that activity on most of them is by no means higher than at VPC, yet nobody would think of deleting them. I would certainly argue that is a worthwhile initative to provide recognition to images which greatly contribute to Wikipedia, yet not meet the increasingly high technical standards of FPC (which are in part irrelevant for many users looking only to images at standard article size or full screen view). From millions of images only a few thousand are FPs and is obvious that there is place for further differentiation of non-FP images (we have seven quality levels for articles). I agree with you that the VPC needs to be greatly improved to gain stronger identity, relevance and participation. Proposals have been advanced in the past, such as refining and illustrating VPC criteria for better comprehensibility or streamlining the review process, but probably relevance and exposure are key too. I firmly believe Wikipedia should continue to focus on improving quality, and VPC is one such stream of activity. --Elekhh (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A project like this though _needs_ participation to function, it's not like one of the other WikiProjects that can go for months and months and months with no participation. I think something drastic should be done, and probably we should open up a Village Pump discussion or some other appropriate venue to discuss ways to improve this project or just mark it historical if we can't improve it. At it's current level of participation there isn't much point in it existing. — raekyT 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I fully support any form of brainstorming, improvements drive or critical review process, and I'm very open to "drastic" improvements. But I'm not sure that this constant threat of closure have provided in the past or will provide in the future any incentive (certainly not for me). Indeed very slowly, the project accumulated a base collection of VPs which I think now allows an evaluation of how the criteria and review process worked in the first 1.5-2 years. I think questions like "Does the present collection of VPs establish a clear quality standard distinct from both FP and non-FP images?", "Did VP tags on images made any difference to their placement in articles?", "What are the reasons of low participation?" should be answered first. --Elekhh (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think from the beginning it's suffered since it has been considered a second-class system to FPC, and was initially used to shunt away FPC nominations that wasn't technically perfect, the first MfD clearly illustrates the issues with it's initial inception and this attitude people had towards it and directly prompting it in FPC nominations. The second MfD also illustrated this problem of direct canvasing for VPC's in FPC nominations and also brought up the chronic lack of participation. Ever since the second MfD participation has not picked up but has gotten worse. I think the big reasons for lack of participation is because probably the greater Wikipedia community does not even now VPC exists, and probably doesn't see any benefit from it. FP's are given importance in GA and FA nominations I think, it brings front page attention to articles through POTD process. VPC's just sit hidden on image pages, has no real direct recognition or acknowledgement to any greater process. It is not commented on in the Signpost like other featured content is. I think the big thing is to get VPC considered featured content and recognized to a wider scope of viewers. Another option is probably streamlining of the nomination process... More to come.. — raekyT 01:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I fully support any form of brainstorming, improvements drive or critical review process, and I'm very open to "drastic" improvements. But I'm not sure that this constant threat of closure have provided in the past or will provide in the future any incentive (certainly not for me). Indeed very slowly, the project accumulated a base collection of VPs which I think now allows an evaluation of how the criteria and review process worked in the first 1.5-2 years. I think questions like "Does the present collection of VPs establish a clear quality standard distinct from both FP and non-FP images?", "Did VP tags on images made any difference to their placement in articles?", "What are the reasons of low participation?" should be answered first. --Elekhh (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- A project like this though _needs_ participation to function, it's not like one of the other WikiProjects that can go for months and months and months with no participation. I think something drastic should be done, and probably we should open up a Village Pump discussion or some other appropriate venue to discuss ways to improve this project or just mark it historical if we can't improve it. At it's current level of participation there isn't much point in it existing. — raekyT 00:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I knew of FPC for a couple of years before learning of VPC. And, after very minor dabbling at VPC, I concluded it was no fun and was a backwater, second-class venue. Wikipedia is a hobby and no one wants to volunteer and contribute where there is a perpetual sense of signs being posted that say “The stage coach doesn’t stop here on Saturdays anymore.” This venue gets one-ninth the foot traffic that FPC receives and there is simply far too much overlap of function. Like I opined at Talk:FPC, just hand VPC a cyanide capsule and a Luger and shut the door behind you. Greg L (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you imagine a change that would remove that overlap and increase traffic, even highly radical change? Also keep in mind this project started Jan. 09, so it's about 1.5 years old, and has already had two MfD's. — raekyT 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- The problems are sufficiently fundamental to be truly cancerous. I weighed in on a picture here a couple of times with responses that were along the lines of “Dude! This is so good! You should go to FPC with it.” And the nominators in both cases didn’t even respond after what seemed like a week in Wikipedia time. Just the ol’ (*sound of crickets chirping*). That’s what I was referring to when I wrote of “The stage coach doesn’t stop here on Saturdays anymore”; that’s a buzz-kill of a feeling for any venue that is essentially a club for like-minded individuals to enjoy a mutual hobby. No one wants to arrive at the club house on Friday night only to see one other person bothered to show up. When that sort of thing happens, the two often simply decide to get out of joint, turn off the lights, lock the door, and go see a 3-D showing of Avatar instead. I simply see VPC as either having too much overlap with FPC, or it always being a place where some pictures merely get their training wheels before going prime-time—or both. I can not imagine a way to make VPC more inviting and fun because its very nature. It simply lacks the critical mass of being a “keen idea” to become a growing phenomenon. I suggest it be shuttered. Greg L (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well if we're going to go to MfD for a third time we should at least make sure we do it right this time and explore all possible options and arrive at a consensus to MfD it. — raekyT 03:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd say the first thing VP/VPC should stop doing is to stop berating itself and wearing its past like a hairshirt. Raeky's assertions in his 01:18, 30 July post are simply wrong - not having a go at him per se, as he's just reiterating the reasons given for the MfD noms, but seems to have forgotten the full discussions. The point being those reasons were clearly shown to be fabrications, which is why the MfDs didn't succeed. I will say I played a significant role in saving VP/VPC both times, even though I had personally given up on the project even before the first MfD nom (see here, and here). Still I wasn't going to stand around watching while an old acquaintance got beaten up by some bullies, without stepping in to help out; I wasn't so much against VP being retired, but if it was then it should be for the right reasons, not based on falsehoods. Same still applies. So where's this going? Well I think VP has had an inferiority complex for a long time, which just comes through in a lot of the previous comments. Realistically a lot of people do just view it as a dumping ground for failed FPCs or similar (consider many of Tony's multiple recent noms for example). Greg makes some pertinent points. If it's going to survive, I guess then yes, it does need some sort of revamp, but I don't know what. Perhaps a question someone could answer is how does something like Good Articles survive in the shadows of Featured Articles (many people have drawn the analogy with GA/FA and VP/FP); personally I don't look at those article projects, which is why I'm asking? If we can figure that, maybe we can see a path for VP? --jjron (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Notification of past participants
I think we should leave some sorta template kinda note on the talk page of everyone that's participated in the past in the MfD's, maybe even everyones whos nominated a VPC in the past to come here to discuss the project's future or death. — raekyT 02:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I created a basic template for the notice, just need to come up with the wording to put onto peoples pages... — raekyT 03:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't even seem to get people to comment here, thoughts on the wording above, improvements? — raekyT 14:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good with me, would just simplify a bit, by removing "In case you wasn't aware", "the fate of" and one of the two identical wikilinks. Would also make the logo 10% smaller. --Elekhh (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Brainstorming Ways to Save
(Note, add your own if you don't see a suggestion you like! Nothing is too radical for consideration this time.) — raekyT 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Add requirement that image be considered the most valuable image within a <class of> article. (like FA/GA/A/B)
- Could you explain what do you mean by that? --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Commons has a requirement that the image be the "best" of it's kind/subject on Commons to be a valued picture, I was thinking of the same here but maybe group "kind" to a page, or subject. — raekyT 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I participated in the Commons VI and must say I doubt is a perfect model to be followed. Is unclear how the "scope" is best defined and also what is the best image when several very good images exist which complement each other. --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we brushed on the idea I was thinking of below, where we tie EV of the picture and promote-ability to the image's use on a Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded or High/Top rating within Wikiprojects. To be a VP it has to be an image prominently and stable on a vital article or high/top importance article. — raekyT 03:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I participated in the Commons VI and must say I doubt is a perfect model to be followed. Is unclear how the "scope" is best defined and also what is the best image when several very good images exist which complement each other. --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Commons has a requirement that the image be the "best" of it's kind/subject on Commons to be a valued picture, I was thinking of the same here but maybe group "kind" to a page, or subject. — raekyT 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Could you explain what do you mean by that? --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Release it so a Valued image can also be a Featured image.
- This has been proposed many times in the past and was often opposed on grounds of inefficiency (i.e. duplicating process), and I tend to agree as based on current criteria most FPs would become VPs as well, leading to an uneccesary dupliaction. --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's because currently the project's criteria are almost identical. If we diverge away from FP criteria, and make the project something different, unique, then it wouldn't matter if they're tagged with both or not, like on Commons. I think thats the only hope of this project is to make it very much different then FPC. — raekyT 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- So what would be that criteria, since FP already aims for highest encyclopaedic value and technical quality? --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- FP may aim for educational value, but in practice is more often about technical and photographic excellence than about real-life, everyday value to the project. I have seen many successful FP nominations that are about very obscure niche subjects -- wonderful insect photography, restorations of historical photographs, Victorian posters, and so on. This is fine, but how many people view the articles that contain these images? VP should be about images that are valued because they support core encyclopaedic content: such as BLPs that we really could not be without, famous landmarks, regions, cities, and so on, which we simply must cover, and where the absence of a decent image would really hurt our ability to provide an adequate level of encyclopaedic coverage. Having an image of a country's president that looks good and professional at 200px, the way most people see it, is arguably of more value to Wikipedia than having a technically amazing image of a rare fossil that still looks totally crisp and sharp when viewed at its full resolution of 6,000 by 12,000, but is hidden in an article that gets 5 views a day. --JN466 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's very close to what was in my mind... :) Core encyclopedic content could be assessed based on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded or High/Top rating within Wikiprojects. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like this idea, of VP's being of highly EV on high value articles, this would allow it to co-exist with FP's and allow both to be tagged together. A VP would be pretty much assured EV, and a FP/VP combo would be the top pinnacle of our media. In theory VP/FP combos would also be more preferred for POTD, since we're creating an infinite backlog of FP's that has to be nit-picked down to a few best that will be on the front page. I think going down this road of exploration is the right track. But we need more changes than just this. — raekyT 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's very close to what was in my mind... :) Core encyclopedic content could be assessed based on Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded or High/Top rating within Wikiprojects. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- FP may aim for educational value, but in practice is more often about technical and photographic excellence than about real-life, everyday value to the project. I have seen many successful FP nominations that are about very obscure niche subjects -- wonderful insect photography, restorations of historical photographs, Victorian posters, and so on. This is fine, but how many people view the articles that contain these images? VP should be about images that are valued because they support core encyclopaedic content: such as BLPs that we really could not be without, famous landmarks, regions, cities, and so on, which we simply must cover, and where the absence of a decent image would really hurt our ability to provide an adequate level of encyclopaedic coverage. Having an image of a country's president that looks good and professional at 200px, the way most people see it, is arguably of more value to Wikipedia than having a technically amazing image of a rare fossil that still looks totally crisp and sharp when viewed at its full resolution of 6,000 by 12,000, but is hidden in an article that gets 5 views a day. --JN466 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- So what would be that criteria, since FP already aims for highest encyclopaedic value and technical quality? --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's because currently the project's criteria are almost identical. If we diverge away from FP criteria, and make the project something different, unique, then it wouldn't matter if they're tagged with both or not, like on Commons. I think thats the only hope of this project is to make it very much different then FPC. — raekyT 02:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- This has been proposed many times in the past and was often opposed on grounds of inefficiency (i.e. duplicating process), and I tend to agree as based on current criteria most FPs would become VPs as well, leading to an uneccesary dupliaction. --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Add Valued promotions to Signpost featured summary page.
- Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Although this is going to need discussed with the Signpost people at some point, we have to revamp the project first I think. — raekyT 02:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see VPs as being different from GAs in terms of deserving of listing at WP:POST. I think we should just review the promotion procedure.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. If they agree, sure, why not, if it's going to survive it needs some sort of promotion like this. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Adopt promotion rules similar to Common's Valued Images (see below for proposed changes)
Nominations can be closed after a period of 7 days (see below), but only if more than 48 hours has passed since the last vote (Support, Neutral, or Oppose). One support vote with no opposes is enough to promote. Demoting rules should be virtually identical.
Result | Action | Min. Review period |
---|---|---|
All support or all oppose votes | Promote/decline | 7 days |
Unequal numbers of support and oppose votes (at least one of each) | Promote/decline based on the majority vote | 7 days |
Equal numbers of support and oppose votes (at least one of each) | Close as undecided | 7 days |
No votes at all | Close as undecided | 7 days |
- Support simplification of promotions rules to something similar with your outline below. --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support — raekyT 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support although I don't think we need to close them any faster.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the current rules. It's just that nobody is around (or nobody cares enough) to actually close nominations. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose. Never liked those Commons:VI promotion rules, in fact never really understood them, as far as I could tell they were pretty meaningless. Too easily manipulated for my liking. I think it should have at the very least two supports other than the nominator. And reckon it needs at least a week (didn't this used to say something about 4 days?). --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yea Commons has a 4 day clause for unopposed votes, which I think is a bit silly, so I just made it all 7 days, I don't see any reason to shorten it. And with the level of participation we have now, yes it would probably be way to easy to manipulate if we add this policy since noone even sees them in 7 days, most nominations go on more then a month before they're closed now and most are closed without enough votes to do anything. — raekyT 16:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Create (better designed) VP banner for Commons for broader exposure and consistency with current FP tagging
- Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support Do we not have a common's banner? — raekyT 02:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comment This might draw a few people here, but there needs to be something to keep them around. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Sure, why not, but this is just window dressing. As Makeem says, you've got to get people here, and keep them here. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As a suggestion for a more radical change, as one might be warranted, modify the process to be more like GAN
A clear set of criteria to test against (such that it is very clear to both reviewers and nominators as to what is expected), with a quick one-editor review process, and the ability to delist if there are concerns with the review.
- Support - Bilby (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Picture peer review serves a similar function already. It's also difficult to lay out the criteria and have quick reviews due to the nature of images: they require a measure of technical expertise and reviews are often rather subjective. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But I'd be inclined to reduce the subjective requirements in order to speed up the process, and make the technical requirements clearly defined so that they are easier to judge: with VPC working almost as a mini FPC, it makes it feel a bit like you should try FPC first, and then go for VPC if you fail, as you are going to have to wait for votes and go through a complex process anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this is a brainstorming session so pls feel free to suggest any detailed criteria which would make easier to determine which images qualify as among the most "educational".--Elekhh (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- This kind-of relates to the sort of marking criteria we use where I work - we're being pushed to try and get a set of narrow criteria so that students have clearer descriptions of what they need to do and a clearer comments afterwards so they can learn from them, as well as to make marking more consistent. In this case I'd still like to see some basic technical requirements, which I know are covered on commons but remain relevant for any image. Things like focus, lighting, limited chromatic aberrations and distortion, and size, although clearly not to the same extent as FPC. We already have clear criteria for the application: must have been in the article of over one month, and it has to have been displayed prominently (not in a gallery). We also have good "tick-a-box" criteria for the caption. For EV, I guess I'd raise issues such as the subject of the image must clearly relate to the subject or a significant issue covered in the article and it should clearly illustrate the subject in a way which would further a viewers understanding beyond what is covered in the work. The aim, as with GAN, isn't to remove all subjective criteria, but to break it down to an extent that there is consistency in reviewing images so that they don't need an extended discussion to reach a conclusion that most people would agree with, and can be done relatively quickly while still providing useful feedback if the images fail. - Bilby (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- This seems a worthy suggestion, but I honestly am struggling to see how it would work in a practical way. By their nature, reviewing images tends to be very subjective. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to think that reviewing GAs is also subjective - the aim here is to define the criteria narrowly so that a single person's judgment is likely to coincide with that of other editors, making most reviews fast and requiring fewer reviewers or less time, while giving valuable feedback. You then couple it with a practical delisting process to cover any errors that may emerge. From my perspective, there are three problems with VPC: only a few people nominate; many nominations get no votes or too few; there is little to be gained from a nomination; and the process feels very much like FPC, so it makes sense just to nominate for FPC and, if you fail, go for VPC as a second prize. If reviews were fast and formalised, the problem of offering a photo and getting no votes is reduced or removed, making it feel less like VPC and giving more reason to do it without doing FPC.
- I should mention that I'm not necessarily convinced that this approach is the right one. But the problems are pretty serious, so I think as part of brainstorming we should be considering some more radical change. Normally with a problem like this the first step is to ask what the fundamental problems are - perhaps we need to better understand those before tackling what to do. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- This seems a worthy suggestion, but I honestly am struggling to see how it would work in a practical way. By their nature, reviewing images tends to be very subjective. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- This kind-of relates to the sort of marking criteria we use where I work - we're being pushed to try and get a set of narrow criteria so that students have clearer descriptions of what they need to do and a clearer comments afterwards so they can learn from them, as well as to make marking more consistent. In this case I'd still like to see some basic technical requirements, which I know are covered on commons but remain relevant for any image. Things like focus, lighting, limited chromatic aberrations and distortion, and size, although clearly not to the same extent as FPC. We already have clear criteria for the application: must have been in the article of over one month, and it has to have been displayed prominently (not in a gallery). We also have good "tick-a-box" criteria for the caption. For EV, I guess I'd raise issues such as the subject of the image must clearly relate to the subject or a significant issue covered in the article and it should clearly illustrate the subject in a way which would further a viewers understanding beyond what is covered in the work. The aim, as with GAN, isn't to remove all subjective criteria, but to break it down to an extent that there is consistency in reviewing images so that they don't need an extended discussion to reach a conclusion that most people would agree with, and can be done relatively quickly while still providing useful feedback if the images fail. - Bilby (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this is a brainstorming session so pls feel free to suggest any detailed criteria which would make easier to determine which images qualify as among the most "educational".--Elekhh (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But I'd be inclined to reduce the subjective requirements in order to speed up the process, and make the technical requirements clearly defined so that they are easier to judge: with VPC working almost as a mini FPC, it makes it feel a bit like you should try FPC first, and then go for VPC if you fail, as you are going to have to wait for votes and go through a complex process anyway. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we get some more concrete fleshing out how this would work? — raekyT 03:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- An example process could be that any contributor can add an image to a list of potential candidates, and anyone as an individual can review these candidate images. However, changing VP to a single-person approval process requires the development of guidelines parallel to Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Images can also be placed "on hold" for greater discussion with other VP process participants. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- So instead of nominating a picture, you nominate say a page, then add a picture or list of pictures and we vote on which we think is the most EV/best picture for the article. Others can add more in, request an extension to the voting time for more discussion, etc? I can see how this would tie in above with restricting VP to high-value/importance articles only, and potentially setting this far apart from FPC. This idea has potential I think. — raekyT 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Get a barnstar (and userbox) made to salute for their work at VPC
- It will help users. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Template:VPCuserbox
- For some reasons I thought a userbox already existed...? --jjron (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there are Template:User VP and Template:User VP Nominator. --Elekhh (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- For some reasons I thought a userbox already existed...? --jjron (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Linking with portals?
- It has been often mentioned that utility should be increased. Just throwing in a crazy idea in the spirit of brainstorming: what if VP's would become automaticaly selected images on portals? The selected images process on most portals are dormant, and this could potentially harness some synergies --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- seems a good idea. --JN466 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Revamp and combine both FPC and VPC in combination with vote consensus
Since some people (lol) see VP as a silver medal to the gold of FP, why not make it just that without having to go between pages and use up extra Wikipedia bandwidth? And since an image can't become a FP without a certain number and percentage of votes and VP is essentially more lenient version of FP, why don't we combine that? How about if an image gets enough votes to be promoted but is under, say, 75% consensus (I believe over 5 votes and a 2/3 or 66.666% percent is the current FP benchmark) or with split votes for differing versions/edits of the same image, we award the image VP, but if over 75% or in unopposed consensus it gets FP? FPs and VPs could be decided in the same event, we could tweak the numbers. Okay, that's my first idea. =) --I'ḏ♥One 02:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- We could also, maybe, allow users to just direct vote promote to FP or VP only in recognition of an image's value, but not being up to feature quality. --I'ḏ♥One 02:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- When I last raised this idea at FP, it did not receive any warm welcome, and I think it has still no chance since so many FP regulars tend to dismiss any form of VP (hence the remarkably frequent use of the terms "dead" and "MfD" from their part in relation to this project since its very beginnings). I don't see much chance of the FP community supporting it, and without their support, regardless of its merits, is just not going to happen. --Elekhh (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I had a slightly different idea than I'dLoveOne's - has anyone considered merging VPC with the Picture Peer Review project? Specifically, giving PPR the power to award Valued Image status, after appropriate discussion. We could keep the low-pressure atmosphere of PPR, with one person adding preliminary review to the "Comments" area; the "Seconder" area, now largely unused, could be space for others to lend support for VP status if merited. People would continue to make suggestions as to whether an FPC nom is warranted. Combining forces might reduce the fragmenting of contributors, and give people an incentive to use PPR before jumping into FPC. Already FPC suffers from too many nominators not paying attention to technical quality. But there is no stick with which to punish ill-considered noms, and while VP offers a carrot for valuable images of lower quality, VP seems to languish in obscurity. A more streamlined and well defined feeder project to FPC could achieve broader recognition and support. Just an idea. Fletcher (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reason? --I'ḏ♥One 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those two are different things, no need to merge. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean Peer Review and FPC or VP and FPC? Please explain yourself in greater detail. --I'ḏ♥One 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- VP and FPC. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean Peer Review and FPC or VP and FPC? Please explain yourself in greater detail. --I'ḏ♥One 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those two are different things, no need to merge. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Fletcher - has anyone considered combining VPC & PPR? My original proposals for VPC long before it got up and running was that it would run through PPR - see VP Trial. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reason? --I'ḏ♥One 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose as well. Remember that Valued picture status is not meant as a consolation prize for Featured picture status. PPR serves as a precursor to the FP process, which limits the pool of images in the eyes of a passing contributor. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I gotta say, at present it really kind of is. VP gives acknowledgement to particularly well-meaning and useful images that don't measure up to FP standards. In your mind you can say that's not "consolation prize" or however you'd like to spin it, but you'll just be deluding yourself and splitting hairs. I'm not saying everything that fails at FPC should be featured, for instance a poor photograph of something commonly photo'd like the Brooklyn Bridge that could be re-shot better at a different time, but I think some of them do deserve it in spite of not being perfect, like this. Also, this could reduce the amount images that get featured, which Greg L pointed out is currently problematic on this nomination, and of course users could still just outright oppose either feature or valued for their own reasons. Aside from this there's really no point to VP, and Peer Review I think also has poor traffic issues just like VP as well. --I'ḏ♥One 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't intend on diluting my own statements, and that is primarily the reason I don't participate in the VP process. The majority of the nominations up right now I would oppose. Valued pictures should have a level of "uniqueness" to them, which is why they are called "valued". For example, there is nothing to be valued about the Willis Tower photo on the current candidate list because the Valued picture already in the infobox of Willis Tower is already the most valued. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I gotta say, at present it really kind of is. VP gives acknowledgement to particularly well-meaning and useful images that don't measure up to FP standards. In your mind you can say that's not "consolation prize" or however you'd like to spin it, but you'll just be deluding yourself and splitting hairs. I'm not saying everything that fails at FPC should be featured, for instance a poor photograph of something commonly photo'd like the Brooklyn Bridge that could be re-shot better at a different time, but I think some of them do deserve it in spite of not being perfect, like this. Also, this could reduce the amount images that get featured, which Greg L pointed out is currently problematic on this nomination, and of course users could still just outright oppose either feature or valued for their own reasons. Aside from this there's really no point to VP, and Peer Review I think also has poor traffic issues just like VP as well. --I'ḏ♥One 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- But I think PPR is under-used as there is no incentive to use it; there is no cost to an FPC nom, and you also get feedback at FPC. If PPR could issue an award it would increase the incentive to use it, allowing PPR to better filter nominations before getting to FPC. Fletcher (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I will admit that I know little to nothing about PPR. However, in my eyes it is parallel to WP:Peer review, which also has little incentive. While I trust the expertise of the participants of PPR, I'm uncomfortable with combining the two processes. Both peer review processes are discussions, while the image nomination processes are more leaning toward votes. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- But I think PPR is under-used as there is no incentive to use it; there is no cost to an FPC nom, and you also get feedback at FPC. If PPR could issue an award it would increase the incentive to use it, allowing PPR to better filter nominations before getting to FPC. Fletcher (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thorough comments only please! I'm doing my best to take into consideration many problems between FPC, VPC and connected projects and issues. --I'ḏ♥One 03:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also thought they would be "sister" projects and Wikipedia would be about collaboration... In any case, I would suggest separating the VP-FP merger discussion from the VP-PPR one, since these are distinct proposals. --Elekhh (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Less emphasis on FPC
Maybe FPC is the one that has become overblown, to the result that we keep trying to raise standards and people just keep making more images that meet those new standards, thus we maintain the same high influx of suggestions and winners that lead to more backing up; Maybe people should suggest ALL images to VPC FIRST and be critiqued there like we do at FPC then we should select one a day amongst the very, very best of those to get feature and POTD. FPC and VPC are sister projects, the hyper-success of one is the debility of the other, we need to deal with both these issues simultaneously. --I'ḏ♥One 04:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- That sounds like breaking FPC to fix VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, no, you misread it, it should read that they're both broken. See also the points and suggestions Greg L, others and myself made about too many images becoming featured here. It looks like anyway you slice it we need to change our processes, procedures and definitions; this one says that since "valued" and "featured" essentially mean the same thing but that featured is the higher one maybe we should stop putting the peak before the mountain. Do our critiquing/voting here and then only the best of the best get to feature and POTD - that's sort of supposed to be the dual point of the two of these categories anyway but they seemed to have sort of lost their purpose to each other. So basically VP becomes the new FP and FP becomes an even higher, rarer honor for an image - which could also arguably lead to less delistings.--I'ḏ♥One 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, breaking FPC to fix VPC. FPC's problems are completely independent of VPC's problems. Making VP the new FP would irrevocably damage FP with little benefit to show for it. Why would we completely alter a successful project to save a failing one? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Makeem. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, you just completely oversimplified not only my idea, but also the problems connected to both areas and how they are in obvious connection to each other. Step back from your loyalty to FPC and approach this issue logically, and what do you see? One is too successful and needs thinning (FPC) the other is not successful enough and needs something to attract or force more traffic to come through it (VPC), both are in danger. This is basically just moving FPC here and raising and redefining what a FP is to do away with that backup. Saying "you're trying to break my FPC!" just sounds like a child that's afraid of someone stealing their toy, and FP is apparently already breaking under its own weight. If you have a better idea for resolving ALL of these issues and think it's more reasonable than mine kindly link away. --I'ḏ♥One 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure how I oversimplified your idea when I said "making VP the new FP" after you'd said "basically VP becomes the new FP." Anyway, calling FPC "too successful" seems strange to me. Don't we want it to be successful? Isn't it good that we're promoting a lot of featured content? And again, typing FPC and VPC together doesn't make sense. FPC's problems are unrelated to VPC's. Regardless of the merit of the idea itself, the actual implementation would be a nightmare. If FPC moves to VPC, what happens to all the old FPs? New tags? Re-evaluated? And what does FP become? Super FP? This doesn't even come close to making sense to me. Finally, I have no idea what you mean about FP "breaking under its own weight", but that really has nothing to do with VP. "All of these issues" (if the FP ones even exist) need not have the same solution. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, breaking FPC to fix VPC. FPC's problems are completely independent of VPC's problems. Making VP the new FP would irrevocably damage FP with little benefit to show for it. Why would we completely alter a successful project to save a failing one? Makeemlighter (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, no, you misread it, it should read that they're both broken. See also the points and suggestions Greg L, others and myself made about too many images becoming featured here. It looks like anyway you slice it we need to change our processes, procedures and definitions; this one says that since "valued" and "featured" essentially mean the same thing but that featured is the higher one maybe we should stop putting the peak before the mountain. Do our critiquing/voting here and then only the best of the best get to feature and POTD - that's sort of supposed to be the dual point of the two of these categories anyway but they seemed to have sort of lost their purpose to each other. So basically VP becomes the new FP and FP becomes an even higher, rarer honor for an image - which could also arguably lead to less delistings.--I'ḏ♥One 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Feature one valued picture per month on the main page
As FP are often more about technical quality than supporting core encyclopaedic content, we could feature one valued picture per month on the main page ("This month's valued picture"). This would enhance visibility for the project and would be an incentive for contributors who do not have professional equipment, but have decent equipment and find themselves in the right place at the right time, to upload pictures that support core encyclopaedic content. --JN466 11:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Week better. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse that - One FP a week, one VP a day. The one that gets the whole week is obviously going to look more important and get more views, but that takes us back to the POTD backup mentioned by Greg L in my idea above. --I'ḏ♥One 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- But I think that doesn't work, because FP has much more traffic with more users helping, while here a comment is also difficult to find. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Clarification: What I propose is that on the first day of each month there is no Featured picture of the day on the main page, and instead we have the Valued picture of the month. This is shown for a day, and the next day, the slot on the main page reverts back to Today's featured picture. Should the valued picture process flourish, then at some point this could be revisited, and a valued picture could take the spot of the featured picture every Monday or Wednesday or whatever, but at the moment we simply have far more featured pictures than valued pictures. --JN466 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- But I think that doesn't work, because FP has much more traffic with more users helping, while here a comment is also difficult to find. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Reverse that - One FP a week, one VP a day. The one that gets the whole week is obviously going to look more important and get more views, but that takes us back to the POTD backup mentioned by Greg L in my idea above. --I'ḏ♥One 16:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of this idea, but it would at least give VP more meaning. I bet it would get shot down at the Village Pump or wherever it would be discussed. The Main Page is pretty packed already and displaying non-featured content would probably be strongly objected to. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. As much as we want to push this, I'm pretty sure it would get shot down by the wider community. There have been many attempts to get Featured lists, Good articles, and A-class articles on the main page, and all of them have failed. The other option is to consolidate them all as a separate content from Portal:Featured content. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This relates to my proposal above to use VP for portals. The [Portal:Contents/Portals|main portals page] gets over 100,000 hits. Also most portals have a "Selected picture" section which is often umaintained... --Elekhh (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Retire/MfD/Delete !votes
- Just retire Valued Pictures. Hold a discussion on if Wikipedia wants to change the standards for Featured Pictures, and then go through a process of deciding which VPs to promote to FPs, and which ones to let lapse back into the "normal picture" pool. (If the "Brainstorming" section is meant exclusively for brainstorming ideas to save VP, then please feel free to move this comment elsewhere to a more appropriate spot.)
- Support. (Note: I came here due to a talk page notification. I never participated in VP aside from !voting "delete" the last time it was up for discussion.) SnowFire (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support (marking historical) I'm not sure that I see the benefit of keeping it at this stage. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support I started this discussion thinking that there might be a way to save VP, but I've come to the conclusion that any change will just stave off death for a few more months. FPC draws participation because the images there are the best ones on WP and because FPs eventually become POTDs. VP has nothing like that. It's not very much like GA either, since a VP cannot very well be improved into a FP. Sorry to say it, but I think time's up for VP. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: Support marking historical; Oppose outright deletion. Makeemlighter (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I think one should consider the potential role of VP to improve the illustration of articles on Wikipedia. Clearly FP will only cover a small part of the images (currently probably around 0.1%) and it appears to me as useful on long term to have another quality rating between the few tousand FPs and the millions of non-FPs. I agree that VP is currently rather ineffective, but closing it would appear to me like throwing out the baby with the bathwater... Articles have 7 quality levels defined, and I don't see how 3 would be too many for images. IMO some kind of similar quality assessment will be anyway required, and rather than closing this project and re-building a new one it would be easier to build on the 1-2 years work already invested here. --Elekhh (talk) 07:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ratings make sense for articles - they are easily incrementally improved. Diagrams are easy to improve incrementally too, but that is what WP:PPR is for. I'm not sure that slapping a VP label on images is actually doing anything to improve articles. The time would be better spent producing new content or searching for it. Featured Pictures on the other hand give a standard for which content creators in particular can strive towards. It also feeds into POTD - something which I'd like to think encourages new contributors (including myself at one stage). It is ancillary to our goals, but FPs also tend to feed into other language WPs. I also currently feel that the effort is needlessly duplicated with the commons project - there isn't the same difference in goals present with the two featured picture processes. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree that the Quality Images and Valued Images projects of Commons sorta accomplish what your thinking already, they're a sub-featured pool of good images, unless we can improve this projects utility beyond Commons' then, I don't think there is any hope for our local project. I want a lot more people to weigh in on this though, so if it does go back to MfD we can point to a sold consensus formed here that it should be deleted and we don't have to go through a long drawn-out process of the MfD like the other two basically was. — raekyT 10:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ratings make sense for articles - they are easily incrementally improved. Diagrams are easy to improve incrementally too, but that is what WP:PPR is for. I'm not sure that slapping a VP label on images is actually doing anything to improve articles. The time would be better spent producing new content or searching for it. Featured Pictures on the other hand give a standard for which content creators in particular can strive towards. It also feeds into POTD - something which I'd like to think encourages new contributors (including myself at one stage). It is ancillary to our goals, but FPs also tend to feed into other language WPs. I also currently feel that the effort is needlessly duplicated with the commons project - there isn't the same difference in goals present with the two featured picture processes. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- The only way to keep VP running, or revive it in a different form, is for a sufficiency of editors to want to invest the time....and I don't see enough with this level of interest. VP is a well intentioned process that, for reason's that can be debated, has not attracted and kept sufficient participation to be useful or relevant. Like projects in the same position the best move is to mark it historical and move on. Any form of deletion seems pointless. Peripitus (Talk) 11:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mark inactive/historical for the time being per Peripitus above. This way it can be revived if things changed. It has clearly served a purpose and a niche is identifiable. Erasing the content by deleting serves no purpose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion, tending towards Support retire/mark historical. Unless it's resuscitated, I can't see a lot of point in continuing with it at this stage. TBH FPC itself is struggling enough for good reviewers these days, and unless we can coax the good ones over here, then it's all a bit of a hiding to nothing. At the moment though VPC is like a fish flopping around the deck of a boat. Still, I see no point in deleting it. If retired or whatever, would we also retire the VP tags, i.e., un-VP all existing VPs? I'd also tend towards retiring the Commons VI and QI projects, but that's an argument for a different place and time. --jjron (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- From the start this project has been perceived vy me and several others as a way of pushing restored pictures to the side. This was just one of several such moves. Because of this this project existed for the wrong reasons and it is therefore no surprise to find it wanting and failing. Let it die in peace. GerardM (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I think there is room for VP, just as there is room for GA and FA. The process needs to be advertised better, but the notion of VP being the equivalent of GA always struck me as attractive. Also, as said above, I think it is worth having a process that acknowledges images that are valued because they support core encyclopaedic content -- basically the stuff you would find in any good general encyclopaedia. Many FPs are brilliant technically, but support specialist content that is of marginal importance to the general readership. On the other hand, take a valued picture like File:Kaaba_mirror_edit_jj.jpg. This failed FP because of its technical quality, but it looks fine on the article page, adds encyclopaedic value, was taken at some personal risk, and absolutely deserves its valued image sticker. --JN466 18:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not to pick on you, but this seems like an "it's a great idea" argument that ignores how poorly the thing actually works. In theory, yes, it's nice to recognize highly encyclopedic images, but how is this actually working out? The whole problem is that few people come to VPC and there's nothing to it other than the sticker. With FPC, you encourage and reward good quality, high EV images with not just a sticker but an eventual placement on the Main Page. VP has no similar draw. Also, even though it's a nice idea, what is acknowledging images that support encyclopedic content doing for the encyclopedia? Part of the idea with FP is that good photographers will bring excellent material here - the chance to appear on the Main Page encourages quality image contributions. VP doesn't bring in content like that. I think I just said the same thing twice... Makeemlighter (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It could bring in content just like that, especially from people who don't have expensive equipment, but are in the right place at the right time. Apart from user boxes to advertise the project, we could design an ad banner for VP if there isn't one at present. I'm prepared to look in on VPC (I hadn't realised it was in danger of becoming moribund), and we could feature a VP on the main page once a month ("this month's valued picture") -- based on good technical quality and outstanding encyclopaedic value, rather than outstanding technical quality and marginal encyclopaedic value. Just some ideas. --JN466 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- A few comments regarding the last part of your comment: I think technical standards have actually been decreasing at FPC. A lot of images have passed lately that I don't think would have passed a year ago. It seems to go in cycles of increased emphasis on EV to increased emphasis on technicals. Moreover, we've always allowed exceptions to technical criteria for historical or unique images. Also, I've noticed that the pictures that pass FPC often have better encyclopedic value than the ones on VPC. Finally, the FPC Header specifically states that FPs "add significantly to articles" and the criteria assert the EV is more important than artistic value (and is at least as important as technical quality). If marginal EV pictures are passing FPC, that's a problem with application of the FPC criteria, not the project itself. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Add significantly to articles" does not specify what kind of article it is, and whether it is a core subject or not. Having an excellent close-up picture of a particular type of spider or insect undoubtedly adds huge value to the article on that spider or insect, but having a good picture of, say, a world statesman or celebrity, or any other core topic that we would be expected to have exhaustive coverage of, arguably adds more value to the encyclopaedia. --JN466 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but I can't say I agree. I feel like there's some policy that says everything is important. So-called core topics are no more worthy of a FP than niche ones. FA has tons of video game articles and not so many about math or philosophy(Talk:Main Page FTW). High EV is high EV, whether it's in an article with 5 page views or one with 5000 page views. But if VPC can somehow encourage good pictures for all our articles, I'm on board. I'm just not sure that's the case. Makeemlighter (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- "Add significantly to articles" does not specify what kind of article it is, and whether it is a core subject or not. Having an excellent close-up picture of a particular type of spider or insect undoubtedly adds huge value to the article on that spider or insect, but having a good picture of, say, a world statesman or celebrity, or any other core topic that we would be expected to have exhaustive coverage of, arguably adds more value to the encyclopaedia. --JN466 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- A few comments regarding the last part of your comment: I think technical standards have actually been decreasing at FPC. A lot of images have passed lately that I don't think would have passed a year ago. It seems to go in cycles of increased emphasis on EV to increased emphasis on technicals. Moreover, we've always allowed exceptions to technical criteria for historical or unique images. Also, I've noticed that the pictures that pass FPC often have better encyclopedic value than the ones on VPC. Finally, the FPC Header specifically states that FPs "add significantly to articles" and the criteria assert the EV is more important than artistic value (and is at least as important as technical quality). If marginal EV pictures are passing FPC, that's a problem with application of the FPC criteria, not the project itself. Makeemlighter (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It could bring in content just like that, especially from people who don't have expensive equipment, but are in the right place at the right time. Apart from user boxes to advertise the project, we could design an ad banner for VP if there isn't one at present. I'm prepared to look in on VPC (I hadn't realised it was in danger of becoming moribund), and we could feature a VP on the main page once a month ("this month's valued picture") -- based on good technical quality and outstanding encyclopaedic value, rather than outstanding technical quality and marginal encyclopaedic value. Just some ideas. --JN466 11:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not to pick on you, but this seems like an "it's a great idea" argument that ignores how poorly the thing actually works. In theory, yes, it's nice to recognize highly encyclopedic images, but how is this actually working out? The whole problem is that few people come to VPC and there's nothing to it other than the sticker. With FPC, you encourage and reward good quality, high EV images with not just a sticker but an eventual placement on the Main Page. VP has no similar draw. Also, even though it's a nice idea, what is acknowledging images that support encyclopedic content doing for the encyclopedia? Part of the idea with FP is that good photographers will bring excellent material here - the chance to appear on the Main Page encourages quality image contributions. VP doesn't bring in content like that. I think I just said the same thing twice... Makeemlighter (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion per my previous arguments and JN's above, but more importantly for keeping Wikipedia Open and diverse which last time I checked was a core Wikimedia value. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support deletion The venue suffers from chronic inattention to the matters at hand. The hits-per-month has not increased whatsoever over the last year so it is unrealistic to think that the state of affairs will change anytime soon. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- On that basis one could go on and kill off most WikiProjects, Portals, 90% of articles and most sister FPs on the other language Wikipedias. Low activity does not exclude improved activity in the future if the project contributes to achieving Wikipedia's goals. --Elekhh (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I haven’t been following the blow-by-blow here of what everyone thinks. But if you have a plan, Elekhh, for making this venue a happening sorta place, I hope you have stated your plan somewhere above. As I understand it, this is the third attempt at an MfD on this backwater. I should think that if it has been MfD’d twice before, the denizens here would have done their very best at making it a happenin’ place. If so, they’ve obviously failed since Raeky’s concerns about lack of participation are quite real and well founded. Given the total lack of any increase in hits over the last year, I personally think VPC is doomed to continue to be what it is right now. Greg L (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't really an official MfD, but the consensus we arrive at here, if it is to mark historical or whatever, will go into a MfD and streamline that process hopefully. The reason nothing changed in the past MfD's is because nothing was proposed to change, so it stayed the same. This time we ARE proposing DRASTIC changes OR to MfD. — raekyT 03:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I haven’t been following the blow-by-blow here of what everyone thinks. But if you have a plan, Elekhh, for making this venue a happening sorta place, I hope you have stated your plan somewhere above. As I understand it, this is the third attempt at an MfD on this backwater. I should think that if it has been MfD’d twice before, the denizens here would have done their very best at making it a happenin’ place. If so, they’ve obviously failed since Raeky’s concerns about lack of participation are quite real and well founded. Given the total lack of any increase in hits over the last year, I personally think VPC is doomed to continue to be what it is right now. Greg L (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- On that basis one could go on and kill off most WikiProjects, Portals, 90% of articles and most sister FPs on the other language Wikipedias. Low activity does not exclude improved activity in the future if the project contributes to achieving Wikipedia's goals. --Elekhh (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment. (Note that I use the acronym to describe the project as opposed to the content.) While I think the English Wikipedia can exist with or without VP as a project, I think Valued pictures in general do have a place. However, I stumbled upon VP expecting something different than what it is. Given the stringent requirements of Featured pictures, it was near impossible to bring up images that are clearly historical and encyclopedic because they did not meet technical requirements; I saw few of these here. VP has been compared to GA, but it's not quite a fair comparison. The GA process is twofold in its objectives: (1) recognize articles which probably will never be comprehensive enough due to lack of resources, and (2) serve as an initial review process for articles which may eventually become Featured articles. VP does not (and should not) exist to serve the second objective for images. Valued pictures should be, in one way or another, unique because of their rarity without having to fulfill the technical requirements. This project needs something equivalent to Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- A quick glance through the FP galleries reveals a large number of historical and otherwise highly encyclopedic images. Exceptions to technical requirements are permitted by the FP criteria. In that sense, we don't need VP to recognize unique, high EV images. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose either deleting or retiring. We need to keep something simpler, FPC is in so much contentious debate, what is a FPC is becoming more abstract and technical, of course even to take one it favors you to have a couple grand to spend on an expensive top-of-the-line camera or wicked photo editing skills and software, otherwise even if you have a good image minor technical errors like slight blurring or fuzziness won't be forgiven. If it weren't for the "prestige" everyone would've just given up on FPC by now too. VP just needs a revamp. See my idea above. --I'ḏ♥One 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not true - anyone can take an FP with relatively entry level equipment. Dan Molter and Benjamint have done this plenty of times in recent history. I've also taken plenty with a 450D and 18-55mm IS - an entry level SLR combination. I'd really give it a good go before making comments like this. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dan Molter uses a Point and Shoot camera (Canon PowerShot SX100 IS), admittedly a fairly high end one when it was new, but still well within "affordable" range for anyone semi-serious about pictures. Browse through his gallery for example of what a camera you can probably pick up for $100 or less on ebay now will do. — raekyT 04:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Integrate into QI review process
I do not think integration into the FPC process will be a success. The problem is that the contributors to FPC (both image providers and reviewer) see FPC more as a photographic contest than something to support Wikipedia projects. Hardly any of the discussions there consider the usefulness of the image for Wikipedia, all that is relevant is photographic quality and impressive sights. This goes completely contrary to VI, where usefulness is the major criterion and photographic quality is secondary or even less.
I'd rather integrate VI into the Quality Images review process. The QI project cares for documentation of the world rather than the wow! effect of FPC, and for usefulness, thus is much closer to VI as I see it.
The process could be as follows: One can propose any image for QI, VI, or both with a single nomination/template, and another user can review the image and promote or decline it for QI, VI or both. If no one opposes, that's it. Otherwise it can be taken to consensual review, just like the QIs. Just the VI sets don't work this way, but honestly, I never cared much for those, it was too complicated. -- H005 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Addition: Oooops, I just realised that we're on the English Wikipedia here, not on Commons. Please forget my proposal then, I've never participated in language-specific image review processes. -- H005 (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Added to centralised discussion
I've added a link to this discussion to the Template:Centralized discussion template. Please review the wording and feel free to tweak it if it does not adequately capture the spirit of the discussion. --JN466 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
User box
The wikilink for "valued pictures" in the user box actually led to FP when clicked upon. I've edited the template so the wikilink now leads to WP:Valued pictures. --JN466 11:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This user has uploaded ? valued pictures on Wikipedia. |
- Not so, but I like the new one better. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have asked WP:WPWPA for a barnstar. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- We have a lot of graphicy people here that could cobble together a nice barnstar, that wouldn't be a problem. ;-) — raekyT 14:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
For logo
Which one? Although, I like the second one:
--Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.