Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 6 September 2014

FPCs needing feedback view edit
	Zhangjiajie National Forest Park
	Rocinha
	delist/Skull with cigarette by Vincent van Gogh
	E Ink screen updating

Archives

Feb 2004–Nov 2004 • Nov 2004–Jun 2005 Jun 2005–Nov 2005 • Nov 2005–Dec 2005 Dec 2005–Feb 2006 • Feb 2006–Mar 2006 Mar 2006–Apr 2006 • Apr 2006–Apr 2006 Apr 2006–July 2006 • Jul 2006–Aug 2006 Aug 2006–Nov 2006 • Nov 2006–Mar 2007 Mar 2007–Aug 2007 • Aug 2007–Oct 2007 Oct 2007–Jan 2008 • Jan 2008–Feb 2008 Feb 2008–May 2008 • May 2008–Oct 2008 Oct 2008–Feb 2009 • Feb 2009–Mar 2009 Mar 2009–Jun 2009 • Jun 2009–Jul 2009 Aug 2009–Sep 2009 • Oct 2009–Oct 2009 Nov 2009–Nov 2009 • Dec 2009–Dec 2009 Jan 2010–Feb 2010 • Mar 2010–Apr 2010 May 2010–May 2010 • Jun 2010–Jul 2010 Aug 2010–Jan 2011 • 32 • 33 • 34

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing the Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates Misplaced Pages page

• WT:FPC

FPC urgents

FPCs needing feedback view edit
	Zhangjiajie National Forest Park
	Rocinha
	delist/Skull with cigarette by Vincent van Gogh
	E Ink screen updating

We're currently in a slow period, so a lot of things could use a few more votes. Adam Cuerden 13:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Red Skelton

Would like some eyes here, if possible. Adam Cuerden 04:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Hereford Cathedral set

Some eyes on this would be helpful too. It's going to fail due to insufficient votes. Please don't let the (extensive) discussion put you off. And If you want to oppose, please do so, I will say no more on the matter. ;-) It's better to know for sure what the consensus is than let it flounder under the minimum required votes. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say renominate it in a couple weeks. I'd have voted Support had it not slipped through the cracks somehow. Adam Cuerden 02:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar

Hey—I'm new to FPC, but I have a collection of images at commons:Category:Video game files uploaded by czar that I believe has a few good candidates. I'm looking for advice on potential candidates from the several hundred uploads, perhaps a good set or two? Let me know what you think? I'm particularly curious about what videos and GIFs would work best. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll check back later this week. (@Sven Manguard and GamerPro64, I know you've expressed an interest before.) czar ♔ 03:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492, since you nominated one from Solipskier, perhaps you can take a look at the rest of the category, if you have a moment? I'm fine with doing the nomination cleanup and legwork—I'd just like some advice on worthy candidates czar ♔ 08:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I left an inquiry on the subject at your FTC nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to decrease the minimum number of supports from 5 to 4

We've had a number of nominations fail recently due to insufficient votes rather than any real opposition. I can't find the original discussion, but a number of years ago, I recall that we discussed this and decided to stick with five votes as we felt that contributions to FPC were on the rise and we could expect five votes for a worthy image. I'm not sure that this is necessarily the case currently as most nominations are struggling to get five votes. The biggest problem that I see is that we have mostly the same small group of voters who contribute to most of the nominations, and a few others that contribute sporadically. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be (the health of FPC would suffer even more without them), but the end result is that nominations pass or fail on the basis of a couple of regulars. Obviously, reducing the voting numbers isn't going to change this, but at least it gives a nomination a fair chance of succeeding. Looking at the current list of nominations, about half will fail not because there is significant opposition, but because of insufficient votes. It's been rightly argued in the past that this is often due to indifference and as such, the nomination probably deserves not to pass, but I'm not sure this is always the case. Thoughts? Ðiliff «» (Talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've just gotten interested in Featured Pictures lately and I will agree that there is a struggle for images to reach five supports. I'm all for decreasing the minimum to four. GamerPro64 02:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Just two months ago the supports were flowing free. I think it may be because people are going back to school, or the regular seasonal ebbs and flows. If this continues into October, I might agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed it looks like the usual summer lull. I would also give it a month or two before declaring it a problem. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think the votes were flowing freely mainly because of that small group of regulars. For example, Coat of many colours and Hafspajen were recently voting on nearly every nomination and are now conspicuously absent. As Colin mentioned above, we are dangerously close to not having sufficient members to really be seen to be a broad community. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• It's important to balance the desire to the desire to promote as many worthy candidates as possible with the need to ensure that a candidate receives broad enough support before succeeding. If changed to only 4 supports, it can have 2 opposes against it and still pass - which is too many in my opinion. Something I would be in favor of is the notion of net votes: supports minus opposes. We could make the threshold 4 net votes, so a candidate would pass with 4 supports against 0 opposes but fail with 5 supports against 2 opposes. (The threshold can be lowered if necessary.) Alternatively, or in conjunction, we could allow for relisting of candidates that have received few votes (the details of which could be worked out if people like this idea). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The current system of minimum 2/3 majority in favour to pass seems to have served us well thus far. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't be keen to lower the quorum requirements and think this is partly a summer lull combined with a general trend towards lower participation levels on wiki. There comes a point when the opinion of so few people really doesn't represent a community decision wrt the "best on Misplaced Pages". And lowering the quorum makes personal and wikiproject bias even more likely to influence outcomes. If it becomes a regular situation that great images can't get five people to review them, then this forum should be suspended, sadly. -- Colin° 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm actually fine with the current system as well. Just saying that I would prefer what I have suggested to reducing raw supports to 4. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Give it another month and see what happens. If the numbers remain the same I could support this but agree that, at the moment this doesn't seem to be a priority ...yet.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Happy to wait and see. I do appreciate that some of the slowdown can be attributed to summer holidays, but on the other hand, it's a dysfunctional project when it fails to function properly for 3-4 months of the year (summer and Christmas-New Year periods). Every year we have the same slow down and every year, nominations fade into the void without any real consensus. An alternative arrangement could be that (as is documented for the Christmas period) if a nomination does not have a greater than 1:2 oppose ratio (ie is not looking like failing due to opposition) but does not have the required 5 votes, it could be left open for an additional x days. I know this adds another layer of complexity for closers and I'd much prefer to keep the system as simple as possible, but it would certainly assist in getting the 'right' decision in periods of low participation. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

May I point out that I am merely absent because off Coat's vigourous opposing off my nominations? And harrasment and uncivility. He is not doing any good to this project, it is just a lot of disturbance and not many good points. Maybe Sagaciousphil, if we ask her nicely or Belle, will be a replacement.Hafspajen (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well it's disappointing that you feel that way about Coat. I caught bits and pieces of it but didn't really know enough of what was going on to get involved. Rather than stopping, perhaps we can somehow sort the issue out? Agree not to comment on each other's nominations perhaps? I don't think any of us should tolerate harassment but without going back and reading through it all (I'd rather not), I can't say who was to blame and I'd rather find a solution than a scapegoat. ;-) But problem noted and I hope we can sort it out without you disappearing for good. Would be nice to keep Belle around too. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 16:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If you make "Ooooo pretty!" one of the criteria, I'll definitely be round here more often. Belle (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Preferably along with some insight into what makes it pretty and how it helps the article, sure. ;-) Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am disappointed, too. And I did asked several times him to not to comment on my nominations, or stopp doing it - but it was unstoppable. And I NEVER commented on his, by the way, just mentioning it. No, you didn't understod, because you were not the target, Diliff. It was pretty violent harrasment, and not only here but at different talkpages, that you probably don't watch. Also possible different depths to it, that it would take time to explain... Not possible so sort out, sorry. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can't sort out the original source of the harrassment or stop it from happening on all pages (although there are certainly avenues to pursue that), but we can at least try to make your contributions at FPC comfortable and ensure we don't tolerate it there. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• An IBAN could be a simple solution for some of those problems. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Diliff. If he retuns, than I would suggest that nothing more than a simple support or oppose should be added by him to MY nominations, that would be a big help. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with those who want to wait and see what happens in a month or two. If the situation does not improve, I would be more supportive of the extended time (up to 4 additional days as we have done during the end of year holidays) per Diliff versus lowering the number of supporting votes required.--Godot13 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I will participate - if these conditions above are imposed - a simple yes or no from Coat, but nothing more - so I don't have to feel like sitting in the lion's den with each and every nomination... Hafspajen (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

I think that while we decide on an consensus for this proposal, some of us should probably look at the nominations in Template:FPC urgents. With six currently in need of reviewing its no wonder this thread was made. GamerPro64 19:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Not six...not any more . Somebody just forgot to remove two or three. Hafspajen (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be opposed. Truly exceptional images are getting plenty of support, which indicates those not getting enough support may have more to do with their content than the number of reviewers. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That old argument is easy to make, but I disagree slightly with it. Firstly, 'exceptional' is very subjective and not necessarily a requirement for FP. If you mean something that truly makes your eyes pop then yes those images are quite rare and rightly so, at least for me. And yes when they do come around, they do generally get good support. But there are a lot of images that I would consider at or above the standard of similar FPs, but not necessarily 'wow' material for a lot of people. And for those people, they're inclined to pass over them rather than oppose, which is a normal response. But this is where the problem lies. In effect, a decision to not vote results in the same thing as voting oppose in many cases, but it's not a fair way of dealing with a nomination and it also doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the criteria. It's just personal interest. I'm not suggesting we should become criteria-automatons, but I think it's important that we vote on as many nominations as possible, not just the ones that interest or wow us. Nobody is going to argue against a well reasoned oppose, but when silence is essentially an 'it's not interesting to me' oppose vote, then it's not particularly well reasoned vote, and nor is it helpful feedback to the nominator. If we reduce the number of votes required for an image to pass, it may also have the knock-on effect of pushing those lurking members to vote. If they genuinely believe it should not pass, then they may be more inclined to oppose when it's 'live'. And if they aren't interested in it but can't summon a legitimate reason to oppose, then perhaps rightfully they don't deserve the aforementioned silent oppose vote. ;-) Perhaps, or perhaps not, but as things stand, there's not much incentive for these people to vote. Silence gives them the desired result but the nominator is left frustrated. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 22:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not as bad here as on Commons, but people routinely argue opposes, reasoned or not. People and cultures that try to avoid open confrontation would much rather pass than vote oppose in that environment. As such, I think it is just as easy to say that failed nominations are the result of low participation. I've looked at the current list of urgents and went meh. Nothing there is bad, yet I don't care enough about them to vote either way. I am not suggesting they need to be spectacular either, just something more than good and/or adequate EV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• In principle I am in favor of this, though King of Hearts makes a valid point. But these are !votes ("not votes") anyway, right? So if there's four in favor and no significant opposition (that is, just one against, or not much of an argument) it can pass--and I imagine that if you, in the current system, have one good "for" argument, four "per nom", and two well-argued "against" votes, it already doesn't pass. Is that so? I mean, don't tell me that at the end of the day you simply count votes here. In other words, if the vote is 4-2 (KoH's scenario), then it will depend on the arguments and the quality thereof. Drmies (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
• I personally believe that the reason for some of the lack of interest in participating is not due to apathy or disinterest. I too experienced some of the negative rise in atmospheric pressure over the summer, especially with one nominator. I have voted on some photos and paintings, but mostly 'support' because I do not have the technical background to back up an 'oppose' with a good reason, which is fair. Twice, I did vote 'oppose' and was badly wounded in long arguments and demands to strike my vote. There was argument and mockery against others as well, as Hafspajen has said above. I echo Saffron Blaze just above that some nominators argue opposes, even without good reason. It was just too unhappy an experience for me to continue, after I was mocked and talked about to other contributers in the thread in an attacking way. I have no personal preference over four or five 'supports', I don't suppose. I would love to continue to stop in and vote in favour of an awesome painting from time to time. I do have an artsy background of sorts...Fylbecatulous talk 19:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Video review - whole thing to be watched?

I just read that the 25 min movie has been replaced with a longer version. I'm wondering if reviewers are expected to have watched each version in full, or if we're generally willing to trust uploaders (for instance, that quality is consistent throughout). Samsara (FA • FP) 22:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want me to, I'll ping the previous supporters to reevaluate their vote. GamerPro64 22:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Update - I went ahead and just pinged them. GamerPro64 22:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Twas just another 20 seconds, so no problem here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Just want to add that it crashed my computer twice, is this just me or is this our security, that is too high, or what? Actually both videos did, so I don't know how they look like. I mean, I can't really vote - because I can't check them. Hafspajen (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What browser did you use? I have to change from Safari to Chrome to watch videos here so it could be the reason for it. GamerPro64 18:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, have to ask about our browser or security system - I am not good att this kind of things - maybe Monday. Hafspajen (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)