Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 27 May 2009

• WT:FPC

FPCs needing feedback view edit
	War on drugs
	Brumadinho dam disaster
	delist/Skull with cigarette by Vincent van Gogh

Archives

12 Feb 2004 — 15 Nov 2004 15 Nov 2004 — 23 Jun 2005 23 Jun 2005 — 17 Nov 2005 17 Nov 2005 — 31 Dec 2005 31 Dec 2005 — 09 Feb 2006 09 Feb 2006 — 15 Mar 2006 15 Mar 2006 — 12 Apr 2006 12 Apr 2006 — 30 Apr 2006 30 Apr 2006 — 1 July 2006 1 July 2006 — 31 August 2006 31 August 2006 — 24 November 2006 24 November 2006 — 18 March 2007 18 March 2007 — 3 August 2007 3 August 2007 — 30 October 2007 30 October 2007 — 31 January 2008 31 January 2008 — 29 February 2008 29 February 2008 — 23 May 2008 23 May 2008 — 28 October 2008 28 October 2008 — 8 February 2009 8 Feb 2009 — 26 March 2009 26 March 2009 — 26 May 2009

Boycott of FPC

I am joining Shoemaker's Holiday in his boycott of FPC until the promotion and closure problems are resolved. Will defer to any reasonable consensus; this is not an attempt to force a particular outcome.

Will not be responding further to comments, questions, or requests at existing nominations until this is resolved. Ceasing reviewing, and ceasing new nominations until further notice. Durova 01:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Internet: Serious Business

I have been a bit bold and archived the arguments going on above as they have degenerated into non-constructive nonsense. Please don't take things personally and direct your energy towards Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process, which seems more likely to get somewhere. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, I don't have to drag down the list. ZooFari 03:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, probably not a bad move. wadester16 | Talk→ 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but looked like you messed it up a bit. The dates were wrong and you didn't add Archive 21 to the list. ;-) Fixed. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've brought back Durova's boycott notice (and Shoemaker's, by proxy), as I believe it was inappropriate to create an archive with the effect of removing this notice, at such an early time. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What can we do on the quality assurance side?

^^ Essentially, how can we tweak the process and the criteria so that crappy images don't get into passing territory (and hence making discretion calls less necessary)?

FP? 1

Most poor reviews are deficient with respect to WIAFP 1, so here we go. I think this would hopefully reduce the learning curve a bit (from unwritten rules to explicit ones) and help adapt the criteria to other forms of imaging. A crude draft:

1. Is of a professional technical standard.

a) Optical and sensor quality: The image should not suffer from avoidable distortion or tilt, especially in architectual photos and scans. Blown highlights, crushed blacks , vignetting and noise should be minimised. There should be no chromatic aberration and dust spots.

b) Post-processing anomalies: The image must not have visible compression, posterization or oversharpening artifacts or other signs of inappropriate/incompetent post processing.

c) Exposure, lighting and tonality: The picture must have an accurate exposure, encyclopedic white balance and appropriate lighting. The image should have good contrast. Portraits should not exhibit the red-eye effect nor should they be taken with strong fill flash (typified by strong shadows and harsh highlights).

d) Composition: The image has good composition. The subject must not be cut off or obscured without good reason. All important aspects of the image should be in focus, while those unimportant should be deemphasized (see depth of field). There are no distracting elements. Consideration is given to macro photography where the depth of field is often constrained by physical limitations and so the entire subject may not be fully in focus.

e) Panoramas should have no stitching errors. The frames must be consistent in exposure, focus and lighting.

f) Restorations, scans and historical images. Images should reproduce the original work faithfully, though correction of deterioration is encouraged. There should be no spots, scratches or other damage.

This is not an exhaustive list of technical problems. For more information, see Commons:Image guidelines. Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find, create or improve a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.

Quantitatively, typically 0.02% of all pixels each. This comes from experience, in a 5 Mpx image this translates to 1000 px. Images with more (0,0,0) or (255,255,255) pixels than this don't tend to succeed.

Apologies if I've left out any major technical errors. MER-C 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any immediate comments on the above other than to say at a quick glance it looks OK. However seems highly weighted to digital photos (five points on digital images vs one (the last one at that) on historical images, and where do diagrams, maps, animations, etc fit in?). However I'm less optimistic on an actual solution to your lead in question - in short, we can make the criteria as detailed as we like, it doesn't mean they'll be applied. And the more detailed you make them, the more intimidating they are to newbies and the more likely to scare them off before they even start, or that they'll ignore them. I could again raise that horrible spectre of 'approved reviewers', but I don't think many people are interested in that. Just some thoughts. --jjron (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree there's nothing to object to here in content but nor do I see anything which doesn't basically reiterate or elaborate what's already in the criteria. Worse, as has been said many times before, over-prescriptiveness simply alienates rather than attracts new users; perception of quality is, ultimately, a subjective matter and –ultimately– the quality of submissions won't improve by virtue of more objective criteria.
  I'd probably agree there's a paucity of real guidance there, and there may be a case for some essay-based spinoff pages, or more elaborate gallery-based ones, like the Examples of Techincal Problems, for those would-be contributors inclined to seek out as much info as possible about image evaluation and the FP process. --mikaul 02:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also like to add that Jjron's proposal for "expert reviewers", however contrary to the ethos of FP it may have been, is the only one I've ever considered which might actually provide some kind of reliable, authoritative benchmarking in real-world image evaluation. It's just one of those areas which consensus is extremely difficult to establish because there are no real facts, there's no logic to follow, any more than there is in music or other performance arts. Who here would claim to never have been influenced by an informed reviewer's opinion before going to the theatre or buying a CD? Opinions of other reviewers have a similarly huge influence here, without open acknowledgment or formalisation, something which strikes much closer to the heart of the matter than the influence of abstract criteria.
    Anyway, that's probably more relevant to the debate on nom closing, so I'll drag my heavy soapbox over there... --mikaul 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

For restorations, we ought to be including documentation requirements: the image hosting page should provide a detailed summary of what edits were performed and the FPC nomination should be clearly noted as a restoration, with a link to the unrestored version for comparison. Durova 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the restoration requirement only allows a full restoration of any historic work to be promoted. This is, frankly, a very, very bad thing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I think the non-digital photo requirements would need some fleshing out. I don't think it's always necessary or even desirable to fully restore historical images, especially if being aged is part of their EV. In other words, we shouldn't preclude 'encyclopaedic aging' through the criteria. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it obviously applies mainly to digital photography... I think some of the points are perhaps slightly too strongly worded. Eg "There should be no chromatic aberration and dust spots" should be replaced by "There should be no significant chromatic aberration and dust spots should be removed" as chromatic aberration is something that can occur using even the most expensive pro lenses in some circumstances (more so with ultra-wide angle lenses and areas of strong contrast). Of course the closer should be able to determine if it is within reasonable tolerances (as could a number of us) but I think stating things in absolutes like that may scare off contributors who have an image that isn't quite flawless, but would probably be of sufficient quality to pass.

Other than that, I think it's a good idea but the main problem is that the majority of us would use this criteria already (without it needing to be written down) and the newbies that are not aware of our photographic standards may not necessarily understand it. In short, this criteria may be preaching to the converted, while those that really need the understanding might find it going over their head - if they read it at all. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, except I couldn't put it in words :) --Muhammad(talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the Featured picture process

Please help determine the future of the Featured picture process. Discussions regarding the current issues affecting featured picture contributors can be found here. We welcome your input!

Maedin\ 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Wadester16 is incompetent

Since I'm under fire, might as well make it official and split it all up. Anybody else? Feel free to start a new subsection. And yes, the heading is my doing :-) My fingers are getting tired... wadester16 | Talk→ 19:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence from Durova

Pasting the following from Wadester's user talk. This is why I have withdrawn the remaining nominations. Durova 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently I joined the boycott of FPC and requested that you step down from closing nominations. At the time when I did so I had five open candidates, two of which have since been closed and both of which were closed by you. In good faith I would like to suppose that you are doing this in an attempt to demonstrate fairness, but as our prior discussion concluded you created the distinct impression of rather aggressively disregarding my opinions and reasoning. I have over two hundred featured pictures and have no urgent need for more; it would be more circumspect to extend respect. Durova 04:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One should extend respect if asking for it. I will still close FPCs; your wild and unfounded rants about my closures have not affected my day-to-day operations here. But what does it matter? You're now boycotting, which means all this will be moot quite soon anyway. wadester16 | Talk→ 04:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A less hyperbolic reply would be more productive. Note the following:

1. You closed a nomination that had unanimous support without promotion.
2. The sole objection was about artificiality of color, from a reviewer who supported without understanding that it was an artificial color process.
3. The sole weak support was an echo of the misunderstanding.
4. A second edit with adjusted colors was acceptable to everyone.
5. Your closure note echoed the color issue as a reason for not promoting.
6. Upon later discussion, your first response was a qualitative esthetic judgment.
7. After I pointed out that closer esthetics should never overrule unanimous support, you changed your story.
8. You allowed one extra week, during the same time when another candidacy was held open four extra weeks.
9. No credible explanation has been forthcoming for that discrepancy, or for the urgency of rejecting a unanimously supported nomination.
10. Your decision hinges on counting the sole weak support as a half opinion. If any discretion were warranted, it would be to count that as a full support on the basis that the editor who had first raised the matter had been completely satisfied.

Now I don't very much care about one more FP per se, which was why I didn't raise this at the time although it's disappointing to see the limited supply of African historic material wasted this way: countering systemic bias is difficult even when the process is fair. But the specific thing that lost my trust was to see how you shifted ground. It's doubtful the four examples I provided upon your requests were ever read: your later post miscounted them as three examples. The inconsistencies in closures at that process are blatant to a degree that would not have been tolerated this long anywhere else, and you appear more interested in name calling than in winning back the trust of the two prolific contributors who finally resorted to boycotting. Durova 05:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

3.5 supports is less than 4. I would have been happy to promote the edit; but note how nobody ever voted for the edit. I'm no mind reader. I don't care to regain your trust; I lost any inclination when you falsely accused me of gaming the system. Your entire response above is about one nom (as I said before, the greyest of the grey), which others have indicated was closed correctly. And you only gave three examples previously; this first showed up here from what I can tell. You're acting hysterical and are so wrapped up in bias and POV that you can no longer breathe fresh, fair, non-judgmental air. But again, moot point: you will have no more FPCs going in a few days anyway. wadester16 | Talk→ 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. You still have no answer to why you allowed only one-quarter the extension that a different image was being given, you refuse to acknowledge that your rationales have changed, and you're substituting another ad hominem attack for rational discussion.

If you hadn't noticed, these last few months we have had several new nominators at FPC who were doing similar work to Shoemaker's Holiday and myself. Most of them have left the process; while I was urging them to stay we had offsite discussions about the erratic closures. At that time I tried to make excuses for what was happening at FPC. Enough is enough; per this conversation I am withdrawing all existing FPC nominations. Please reconsider your course of action while people are still willing to return. Durova 16:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have received 4 emails now of support from various FPC regulars telling me that I need to "stay the course", ignore your "hysterical bantering", and offering me praise for my "thick skin" when it comes to your "unwarranted and untimely attacks". Many are as baffled with you as I am. Granted they would prefer not to get in any altercations, and rightly so; it's just that you outright attacked me, so I had to at least respond. I still can't believe, though, that you're so upset about a nom that had 2.5S at more than 7 days. I was nice enough to leave it open for you another 7 days, in which time you only got one more S. I assume if you got an O after that S you'd be complaining that I only left it open so the closing cabal could win against your nom. You argue the point that suits you best at the time. wadester16 | Talk→ 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Any of those purported emailers are welcome to contact me; none have. MER-C deserves respect for at least standing by his rationales and arguing them on principle. Here the ground has shifted in so many ways that it becomes impossible to rebut all the errata concisely. Here is the post that contained the example whose existence you denied. One wonders why it is I who must provide examples to substantiate the notion that FPC has problems after a process review is already underway. If it is above reproach as you appear to assert, then please address the substance of the ten listed concerns directly (without gratuitous insults). Your words of 22:27, 24 May were "Yea, I can see your points, but the dramatic shift in color (in the original) is, admittedly, a cause for concern. Either the original was done poorly or aged poorly". You wrote this as a personal assessment of a process which employed sixteen colors at the utmost. It simply isn't possible to squeeze any more nuance from the technology of the 1890s, and that was your first rationale for refusing to promote a unanimously supported nomination. Have you nothing more to say about that? I am a patient woman, but have wasted many hours and days upon research and restoration that has been sunk by inappropriate closer discretion, and more importantly have wasted long weeks and months coaching people who departed from this process due to its gross inequities which you still refuse to address. Perhaps these objections ought to have been raised much sooner, before the problems went so far. If that my fault I heartily apologize for it. But I would like a straight answer. And if anyone else thinks I'm going nuts, please say so where I can see it. This boycott exists because we want to set things right. Durova 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Pleaes reread this diff. I already acknowledged the heckler. I'm looking for the fourth example, which finally showed up here. I don't deny its existence, I question where you mentioned it; feel free to tell me. But again, burden of proof is on you; you're the one with the complaints about me and so far, you have only used the Tunis one, which is hardly an example to ask me to step down from closing forever. I appreciate your understanding that this shouldn't have been bottled up. You really should have said something if you didn't agree with a closing that I did. That's why I'm so confused by your comments; I had no idea you were dissatisfied, and there's no way for me to know. I'm not a mind reader. WRT the Tunis nomination, you mention how difficult it is to find an African FPC; I respect that, but I don't see special treatment helping us just because examples are rare. Systemic bias is not the fault of the closer. Additionally, my comments came from Kaldari and Dr. Blofeld (though mainly Kaldari); they were simply a reiteration. You yourself just recently asked why I didn't promote the alt, which apparently implies that you agree with the color shift assessment ("A second edit with adjusted colors was acceptable to everyone.", which, notably, is not true: not one voter even mentioned the edit). Now, since the earlier discussion about closing times, I have not let noms go past 7 or 8 days (save for Shoemaker's, because I don't care to close his noms for the time being) and have not requested added votes. Moving a nom to the "older than 7 days" section with a request for more votes was common by many closers, and it didn't necessarily mean I'd actually close it. Just because I put a nom in that section, asking for more votes, didn't mean I'd close it. You're looking at it like I'm obligated to close the nom; that is not the case. I'm not obligated to do anything. Anybody else could have closed these noms and it is more than likely that I could have forgotten about them, or been gone and unable to close them. Essentially, I think you're blaming me for things that are not my fault and/or not under my control. Either way, current closures are fairer than before in that they all close at about the same time and none have requests for more input, which leads to more failures, but a more fair process. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• The vanishing example. Wadester, wouldn't it be more gracious to admit just once that your actions were less than ideal? Rather than drive away the people who provide a quarter of the material to this process? Durova 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I was on the lookout for a piped link. My mistake. I still stand by my closing of Tunis and it all boils down to 3.5 < 4. I'm sorry, but I'm following the rules here; put it this way: if I had it to do all over again, I'd do the same thing. If you can find better examples, I'd be happy to admit a mistake, once I recognize one. But you aren't offering me anything; you've tossed one closure at me (Tunis) and I've asked again and again for more—clearer—examples. Maybe it would be more gracious to not try to make yourself seem more important than the rest of FPC community just because you nominate so many FPCs. So, back to burden of proof... wadester16 | Talk→ 19:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please address why you allowed this unanimously supported nomination only one extra week, while a non-unanimously supported nomination was held open four times as long. Please address why two of your posts (both in the closing explanation, and as first rationale when questioned afterward) cited personal taste as a reason for overriding unanimous opinion, in contradiction to the limits of existing technology. Durova 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Nomination time discrepancy: Addressed in post above. Here is roughly the last half of that post, which is exactly how I feel about the situation. Did you not read this? I have added some emphasis italics Quote: "Now, since the earlier discussion about closing times, I have not let noms go past 7 or 8 days…and have not requested added votes. Moving a nom to the "older than 7 days" section with a request for more votes was common by many closers, and it didn't necessarily mean I'd actually close it. Just because I put a nom in that section, asking for more votes, didn't mean I'd close it. You're looking at it like I'm obligated to close the nom; that is not the case. I'm not obligated to do anything. Anybody else could have closed these noms and it is more than likely that I could have forgotten about them, or been gone and unable to close them. Essentially, I think you're blaming me for things that are not my fault and/or not under my control. Either way, current closures are fairer than before in that they all close at about the same time and none have requests for more input, which leads to more failures, but a more fair process." I didn't do these actions to allow noms to fail or pass; there is no cabal; I'm not conspiring against anyone.
2. "Personal taste": Also addressed in post above. My rationale was fueled mainly by Kaldari and Dr. Blofeld (mainly Kaldari). I just reiterated their statements. And—the phrase of the day—this still boils down to 3.5 < 4 supports. I'd like to point out that your use of "unanimous" is misleading. This nom had unanimous support; only caveat is that the number of votes < 4. Sounds familiar. Also, like I said above (I might as well have just copy+pasted that post, as I'm just reiterating myself...), you seem to be on the side of any personal taste that may have gotten through since you agreed with the idea of promoting the alternate, even though not one voter mentioned it in their votes. Based on that assessment, I'm glad you don't close often. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

wadester16 | Talk→ 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidence from Shoemaker's Holiday

I didn't edit your words; I restored an edit that you added then retracted. Anybody could still see you did that; after you press the "Save page" button, what you write exists forever. Once you put it up, it is the right of any user to restore it (GFDL!). Not one letter of content was changed (okay, admittedly, you spelled "for" wrong and I fixed that for you, but I thought that was a favor). wadester16 | Talk→ 19:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You presented it as me saying it intentionally, not as a quote, then added a section header naming it as "Evidence from Shoemaker's Holiday", further giving the appearance that I had intended for it to remain up. Further, you even fixed some broken formatting (Diff: My version vs. version Wadester claimed was a simple undo of my deletion), to make the quote actually display, and so the text of mine you claim to have restored was actually something I had never gotten to show up correctly in any revision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I admit I removed the quotes, but if you look at the original, the formatting screwed up and only showed the last two lines. I was trying to fix the error; that's why I included the two lines (----). The current way you're showing it works for me. wadester16 | Talk→ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I find dealing with him an examplar of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You and I disagree often, but here we're two peas in a pod. Is it possible to keep him on topic? Durova 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

One to talk. I'm still waiting for you to supply evidence of my mishandling of closings; now that would be on topic. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, by all means, leave this here. I think most will agree: if you're going to be WP:BOLD, please make sure you do what you plan on doing fully and correctly. But at the same time, this was an exemplar of WP:POINT. wadester16 | Talk→ 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no requirement to leave up statements I don't want to if noone replied, and Misplaced Pages policy forbids you from forcing me to make a statement. I have replaced it with a disclaimer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If Wadester's four putative supporters exist, please post or email. Shoemaker's Holiday (whose boycott I have joined) has been articulate and active. We care about this process; we don't want to see it wither. If we are two voices in the wilderness, then other participants--please set us straight. Durova 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)