Wikipedia talk:Valued picture candidates/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Just slow down a bit. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 02:34, 3 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)

Unfinished closes

It seems that User:Elekhh has left a bunch of closes unfinished today. I have left a note on his/her user page and am leaving another here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tony for the alarm bell, I've been interrupted during editing, hence the unfortunate delay. I appologize for any inconvenience this has caused. Staying by the topic, there is a long Q waiting for closure, any help welcome. --Elekhh (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

For logo

Which one? Although, I like the second one:

• 
• 
• 

--Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 2; matches the user box. --JN466 19:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

just stumbled across this...

I'd be willing to help out! Let me know if there's anything I can do. (I'd imagine working on VPICS isn't as intense as, say, writing an article...) =) Edge3 (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing so, just help by giving your opinions on the nominations and try nominating pics which meet the criteria. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Status notice

I have put a status notice on the Project page to summarise the current situation.

There has been talk of taking the Project to MfD, and people are free to do that, though Projects are generally only taken to MfD if they are disruptive (though it has been claimed that this Project was) - the usual course with Projects that are not working is to mark them as Historic. The Historic tag is there to indicate that the Project is either seen as problematic (which this one is) or inactive (which this one is not, though apparently activity was recently very low). People are able to reactivate Projects which have been marked as Historic after getting some consensus to reopen the Project, so an Historic tag does not bury a Project, though it does require some energy and good ideas to reactivate any Historic project.

The valid options for moving forward is that the Project is either marked as Historic or is restructured. The discussions on restructuring have so far come to nothing, while the discussion on marking as Historic had a clear consensus. My suggestion is that there is a reasonable time given to coming up with a restructure plan, and if people cannot reach an agreement by, say, the end of this month, then the Project is marked as Historic. To draw in new people to the discussion, then a posting on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) might be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The disruptive argument is pretty much old, I don't think anyone now is claiming it's disruptive to FPC. The problem is really, lack of any real purpose and because of that participation. — raekyT 23:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Raeky, you can also help. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

Since a number of editors questioned the purpose of this project, and this being a fundamental question, I suggest discussing this in detail here. If we can agree on the function this project has (or aims to have) for improving Wikipedia, than we can go on with adjusting the project so that it best serves its purpose. Please feel free to expand and/or amend the list I am starting below based on previous comments. --Elekhh (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rewards authors of valuable images, which improve Wiki articles, yet are not among the ca.0.1% best images currently distinguished as FPs
• Provides a forum for discussing the encyclopedic value of images (which otherwise wouldn't be discussed at FP for not meeting technical requirements). This process often leads to improvement of images through editing, or image re-take as well as improved selection of images in articles.
• Tags a broad range of images (including historic ones) which the community finds to have high educational value, providing guidence to editors regarding the use of those images.
• Broadens Wiki participation by attracting those who are excluded from FP for either lack of required technical equipment or other reasons, yet make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.
  • I second this and cite an image I nominated that recently passed at VPC. I don't believe this image could pass at FPC, but it's definitely very encyclopedic, educational and deserving of recognition. --I'ḏ♥One 17:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really consider that a great VP, myself. Anyone could just come along and create the diagram again- with that, you're just saying "it's good, but not quite good enough for FP- instead, it can have VP, a beautiful silver medal!" For me, valued images should be the kind of images you really don't see very often- the kind of images we should be very thankful to have, not because of their high quality, but because of what they show. Decent shots of dead recluses, the only known photograph of a historical figure, photos of animals now extinct, arial shots of uninhabited islands... That's the kind of thing we should be showing off here. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with you, J Milburn. I think we can see quite clearly that the "silver medal" idea doesn't work too well; people simply don't like to hear that their work is "good, but not that great". Perhaps a completely different focus is needed, and I'm starting to like J Milburn's idea. Edge3 (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • As I say, we'd very much need to start over, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I intend to propose some wholly new guidelines once I have mulled it over a little further. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • But no one did make that diagram but the guy who did and no one else was going to, and FPC isn't very hot on things like charts and maps. J Milburn's dramatic request sound more like stuff people usually take to FPC, so we need a better distinguishing between what should go there and here. I guess J Milburn is saying VPC needs more tasks, purposes and responsibilities? --I'ḏ♥One 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Take something like this. Not really FP material, by any stretch of the imagination, but that's the kind of thing we should be displaying as highly valuable; this species is extinct. We have a free image of a living specimen of an extinct animal. How good is that? No, the image doesn't warrant FP status. But yes, it warrants recognition- not recognition of "oh, well done, you're second best!"- this isn't about an image which is "good but not great"; this is about "God, it's impressive that we have that". J Milburn (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • That's a fair idea and it does emphasize "valued", but two problems with that are 1. It could lower the participation of VPC significantly because rare images like you describe and example are, probably even for Wikimedia, are just that: Rare, and 2. I don't like that leaves almost no official way to recognize great, but not perfect or highly rare images. --I'ḏ♥One 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
              • In response to one; well, yes, they're rare- that's the reason they're something to get excited about. If they're something to get excited about, just maybe they will attract the attention this project sorely needs. As for your second point, no, but, as I have said, recognising good images as good images is the job of Commons. On Wikipedia, we should be concerned with the encyclopedia. J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Then by that same argument why even keep FPC? --I'ḏ♥One 03:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think IdLoveOne raises a good point that the idea to distinguish rare images only, in a way further reduces the scope of VP, while the potential expansion over FP will have a degree of duplication. The frog you linked to would easily become a VP as it stands. But since you're looking for changing the "silver" status (as seen by FP regulars) to gold or else, how about VP having separate classes, with basic VP retained for current standard and VP(platinum) -or other name- for images which are not "just" among the most educational on Wikipedia, but also extra-rare, like the extinct frog. Maybe the FP community would agree than with non-exclusivity with VP(platinum). This would address some of the current ambiguity as to why an image is considered "most educational" and might create more competition/thrill within VP. --Elekhh (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I like J Milburn's idea, but haven't we already set something of a precedent in accepting rare and irreplaceable images in FP with pictures like this? Cowtowner (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Elekhh, if I'm honest, I really don't like that idea. We won't fix VP by making it more complicated but keeping all the old problems. Cowturner, yes, that image is very much worthy of FP status; equally, it would be very much worthy of VP status, under the alternative scheme. By comparison, the frog would be worthy of VP status and not FP status, while, for instance, this FP would not be a worthy VP but is a comfortable FP. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

such a shame...

It's such a shame that a good-intentioned project has to go... I really liked the idea of rewarding photographers who took photos that are not excellent, but still great. Are there any other ways we can accomplish this? Edge3 (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not shutdown yet, without a plan of action to shut it down and a successful MfD to do so, imho it's still open for business. This isn't a simple project, and shutting it down will require a plan on what to do with the many pages in this project and the already promoted pictures. — raekyT 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Awarding the work of photographers is more Commons's domain than ours. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly that is the best argument for shutting this down, unless we can change VPC to be unique and valuable enough outside of Commons's projects... — raekyT 23:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget that Commons rewards images as stand alone images, not as images illustrating an encyclopedia. --Elekhh (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. The point is that "rewarding good photographers" sounds more like it is awarding standalone images. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have some ideas, but my ideas are, quite frankly, for a different project that may or may not have the same name. J Milburn (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point we're pretty much ready to dump this project and go with something that works, or change this project so drastically it's nothing like it's former self. Basically anything goes at this point, lol. — raekyT 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is what I mean- the ideas I'm working with (which also fits in with suggestions from others) would literally mean scrapping the lot and starting again. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can your ideas work on Wikipedia? If so, I'm sure we'd all love to see them. Edge3 (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The thought I'm sitting on right now is more about the replaceability. Free images which are not going to get replaced but add massively to the article- the kind of thing we should be really thankful to have. I'm also toying with the thought of importance of image/article. The "pretty picture of a bird" type images that are currently getting passed at VPC just wouldn't fit in (unless the bird was extinct or something). The important thing for this to be respected as a project in its own right is to stop VPC being the silver medal for those pictures that just aren't good enough for FPC. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think to do that you need to make the criteria not a scaled back version of the FPC criteria (less harsh but basically the same) and either ban FPC candidates from being VPC or make it so an image can be both VPC and FPC... The whole idea that a FPC can't be a VPC combined with the virtually identical criteria for promotion is what makes VPC the silver metal. That and it doesn't help when a certain someone nominates every single one of his FPC failures to VPC the minute it's closed not-promoted. — raekyT 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My half-formed ideas would leave room for FPs to still be VPs, but I'd strongly imagine the majority wouldn't. I agree with what you are saying, but I think banning FPCs from being VPCs is silly- stopping a worthy image from being a valued image for procedural reasons is a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but short of that, you have to make them coexist with completely separate scopes and purposes to prevent the silver metal problem. — raekyT 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll thinking about this further and make a real proposal tomorrow if I can align my thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just see a VP becoming an FP as a promotion, you know, like at a job you can't be on two different levels of the ladder, you're generally either one position or the other. If an image is decided to that it's quality, rarity, value or whatever is so high that it should be featured that's a good thing, but if a valued pic doesn't get consensus for feature, it doesn't mean that it's not of Wiki's best and most important media, it's just not quite perfect enough, but it's still better than the majority of what well-meaning uploaders have given us.

I think VP also isn't as well-known as FP, consider we also have featured articles, featured lists and a bunch of other featured stuff. What if we relabelled, for instance, our A-class articles Valued Articles? It's a slightly bit nicer of a title than a letter, I think, and it links VP to something. Others have also suggested linking it to portals, though I don't fully understand the jists of that. I'm not really scared to change VP if it'll help, but I see people here are a bit afraid of change, as Greg L demonstrates by constantly pointing out the POTD issue that most people don't really concern themselves with. It doesn't seem to me that VPC is much of a nuisance or burden for Wikipedia, if it was maybe I could understand removing or ending it, but it just seems to be neglected =\ but I'm glad we're keeping the discussion open. --I'ḏ♥One 09:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Myself and Raeky are saying that "two different levels of the ladder" is exactly what we do not want VPs to be in relation to FPs. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where will this division between the VP as GA and VP as FP2 groups will lead, but I see how it splits the supporters of the project. --Elekhh (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't personally think I fall into either camp- they sound like the same thing to me. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a thought: If FP, FA, FL fall under the same category, wouldn't, even if nobody ever went for it, it make sense for VP to be parallel with GA? --I'ḏ♥One 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No. "Good images", as a project, would never get off the ground- that's for Commons. On a more pragmatic level, a VP with a "silver medal" aspect has been tried and has pretty clearly failed. If valued images is to survive, it needs to become something else. J Milburn (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There is no good image in Wikipedia, but the VP criteria is almost equal to FA and GA. It also serves as an alternative to FP. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 01:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No. GAs can become FAs. Almost all VPs are incapable of becoming FPs. I think the key to GA is that it provides a stepping stone to becoming better. Cowtowner (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Extra, as has been said many times, we really need to get away from the "silver medal" aspect of VPC if it is to survive. J Milburn (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Let it die in dignity Hive001 contact 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending nominations

We have 58 candidates currently pending. Why don't we temporarily "suspend" new nominations as we discuss the fate of VPC? All nominations that were already submitted will be debated and closed as normal. Edge3 (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I move for business as usual. --I'ḏ♥One 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The odds are that things are going to change in a big way. Our efforts should be put towards sorting the issue out, rather than continuing as normal. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Our efforts are put towards improving Wikipedia, we just have different views on how is best done. Many editors see value in this project as it stands, and would prefer improving it rather than closing it. --Elekhh (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not a nice way. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the mean time is it ok if I close nominations even if I voted on them? Or will someone else? There are maybe 10 that have clear consensuses +10 days old just collecting dust. --I'ḏ♥One 00:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If your vote is not determining the outcome (i.e. is on top of 4 other supports or one of a row of opposes) I see no problem if you close them. --Elekhh (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Instead of suspend we should just close all nomination older then 7 days that has votes(if it doesnt have any votes leave it). Spongie555 (talk) 04:21, 28 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 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, the nominator not replying I've noticed happens pretty commonly on FPC as well. --I'ḏ♥One 01:18, 3 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 think is a good idea, as long the emphasis is on the future (not death). --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 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)

Very nice :) maybe the VPC font could be a bit bold-er and moved slightly to the right. --Elekhh (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That should stand out now. ;-) — raekyT 05:19, 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)

Changes made, going to start notifying people. — raekyT 23:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've notified all the past participants of the MfD's and everyone on Jan and Feb 09 archives... I'll do more later. — raekyT 03:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, everyone out of the archives has been notified now... now no one can say we didn't give this the best chance and solicit every possible opinion. — raekyT 11:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Interesting discussion, thanks for the invite! --I'ḏ♥One 02:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming Ways to Save

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I'm going to close up the brainstorming, no new ideas are really coming out and it's been over a week. I'll propose a set of changes based on this converation and work from there. — raeky

---

(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)

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)

• Oppose. Yeah, just creates unnecessary duplication IMO. --jjron (talk) 14:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support This might create duplication but it gives VP its own status and can help revive the project. The current rule gives VP 2nd class treatment because most users will approach FP first and then if it fails, they come to VP. Giving VP its own status is just the like the FP, VI and QI at Commons. IMO, a clear distinction need to be drawn between FP and VP. I think, like VI at commons the image must not be reviewed at full size. This should only be done at FP. By doing so minor technical glitches which are visible only at full size will become irrelevant. --JovianEye (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per jjron. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The idea that a FP would not meet the VP criteria for any reason beyond a technicality is a little odd. FPs have to be valuable too... J Milburn (talk) 13:04, 8 August 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)

Comment 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)

Further I don't think we set POST policy. WP:GAN has on numerous occaisions felt that their articles should be on the main page, but that is not how main page content is determined.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 9 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)

Support This is definitely a good idea! --JovianEye (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Don't see why not Acather96 (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Good articles, DYK and other processes are not listed there- it's only for featured content. Space has already been taken away from FPs there with the new format, the last thing we need is less space for FPs as VPs start to fill up the page. J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We could propose a new periodic section that is maybe bi-weekly or tri-weekly that covers interesting non-featured recognized content, that would include GA's and VP's and anything interesting happening at those and DYK and other areas. It doesn't have to be thrown in on the Features & Admins article, it can be a new article that doesn't just cover VP but all related non-featured recognized content. — raekyT 13:56, 9 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)

I tend to agree, removing the 4 day clause. — raekyT 00:22, 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)

Support Simplification of the rules will definitely help! --JovianEye (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - At commons, the images are reviewed at a fixed size. Can we implement something like that over here too? --JovianEye (talk) 23:46, 3 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)

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)

I can see a few processes, just to toss ideas around. One is per Arsonal; one per Raeky with a page nominated; and then there's something more like QIC on Commons, where one person reviews, but it isn't passed until people have had time to comment if they disagree. Although even with the QIC model I'd still go with formalised subjective and objective criteria per GAN, rather than the freeform comments QIC uses, as that way if the image fails people get a minimum set of information about how to improve nomination selection or images in the future. With any model, pass if the reviewer passes it and no disagreements are voiced, have further discussion if the reviewer thinks it is warranted or concerns are raised by others. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I like this idea, I would also support rankings for pictures similar to what is currently done for articles. Basically, the early classes can be assigned by any user, a VP (or Good Picture, if we want to cross things over directly) needs at least a cursory review by outside eyes, and an FP requires a greater review. I don't think we need to trash the system, but maybe changing the criteria to more mesh with good articles (room for improvement, but definitely enough to satisfy a casual reader / viewer) might encourage more participants, both nominators and reviewers. Some articles / pictures might never make it to Good / Valued status, but the process could definitely be more visible / intuitive. Canada Hky (talk) 18:03, 4 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)

Barnstars, userboxes, sure, all those can be done if we decide to let it live longer, anything to get more eyes. — raekyT 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

{{User VPC}}

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)

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)

Support. As a portal writer, I make use of VPs in my portals. This is a strong idea, but we shouldn't be forcing our project upon others. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 8 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)

• Yeah, I do think it's a good idea and I apologize for indirectly stealing it from you or whoever suggested it first. Wikians seem to be at an impasse, some say delete, some say "keep" but can't discern what separates the two... --I'ḏ♥One 04:13, 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)

This would be worth placing in a separate section. See also Jjron's comments and my link above. --Elekhh (talk) 15:25, 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)

@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)

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)

Then you need to suggest a stronger differentiation between what a valued picture is compared to a featured picture, because what you just described sounds virtually interchangeable. Also, see my 2nd proposal below. --I'ḏ♥One 04:30, 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)

See my comments above. --jjron (talk) 13:20, 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)

Done. --I'ḏ♥One 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Less emphasis on FPC: VPC -> FPC hierarchy

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)
          • I'm going to presume then that you didn't read Greg L's comments that I linked above about how POTD is now backed up by a year and getting worse because of how, currently, ANY picture that gets featured is also supposed to become POTD. --I'ḏ♥One 17:04, 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)
• 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)
    • It appears any good idea will be, seems many people don't want to believe there's a problem or that the time for change has come. --I'ḏ♥One 21:35, 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)
• Strongly oppose VPs being used as POTD. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Release VPC granting authority to WikiProjects

I never liked this process, and I'm thrilled (and overjoyed, and ecstatic, and pleased, and...well you get the idea) to see that there is a proposal to delete/mothball/retire this whole process; that having been said I will approach this from a neutral point of view and suggest another way that you may salvage this process: release the VP process to the individual wikiprojects so that they can find and promote images that they feel are VP-worthy. This is a radical suggest, but one that may work if you are all hell bent to save this process. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retire/MfD/Delete !votes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Going to close this up and summarize the !votes, this wasn't an official MfD or the like, just an idea to see what level of support there was to save this project or not. We'll move onto something more official here later. — raeky

---

• 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)

Yea I decided to notify all the people that also participated in the past MfD's since they may have an opinion on the fate of this as well. — raekyT 10:15, 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)

I disagree that VP would duplicate Commons VI. The later does not assess in any way the eductaional value of the image on the English Wikipedia. --Elekhh (talk) 21:10, 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)

Yes, you're right, some users did perceive it in that way. But as I clearly pointed out in the previous MfDs, backed by data, it seems this perception was very misguided. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 3 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)

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)

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)

Well my point about FPC still stands. VP is simple: Is it a decent or above average attempt at an image, and does it make a useful contribution to Wikipedia? Whereas on FPC not only is everything put under a microscope, everyone's disagreeing about what settings that microscope should be on. Like current official policy says an image, except in rare exceptions, needs a dimension over 1000px, but a bunch of people are now saying that's not good enough! It'll never end. --I'ḏ♥One 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support both historical and deletion processes. I don't see that any of the proposals above address what the real problem with the project is: it doesn't help WP. It's not like GA is to FA: a GA can be improved to become an FA, most VPs have no chance at becoming FPs. As a result, there is no other conclusion in the eyes of most users except that VP really is an FP backwater (and given the propensity to nominate failed FPCs, it pretty much is). If someone can explain to me how this project has, does or can benefit WP, I'll reconsider. Otherwise, this simply remains a recurring headache. Cowtowner (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually proposed an idea about something like that. --I'ḏ♥One 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support (disclosure: I got a 'please help us decide the fate of the VP process' message) I'm overjoyed to see this as an option, and support any maneuver that would shut this process down. As far as I am concerned, its Featured Pictures or No Pictures; I've always concerned VP to be the silver medal, and it was always my opinion that if an image could be a VP then it could be an FP too. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this is a completely useless project that no one seems to care about. It does absolutely nothing to improve wikipedia. There is no useful feedback. I nominated an image recently that greatly improved a GA article, and it was denied because someone didn't think it was perfect in composition. I thought that's what this project was for, but I see a lot of confusion about its purpose. Is this project supposed to highlight encyclopedic images or is just this FPC-junior? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This opinion I deeply disagree with in that the same thing could happen if you'd nominated it to FPC, and the denial of promotion would've been much more anal and possibly detached from its encyclopedic purpose. --I'ḏ♥One 21:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support historical for the main page, and deletion for everything else. I used to make closes here, but I don't see the benefit of the place anymore. As it is, it consumes a lot of time for very minimal gain. Time to cut this project loose. Courcelles (talk) 06:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary

10	Supports for Mark Historical/Delete	SnowFire, Noodle snacks, Makeemlighter, Casliber, jjron, Greg L, Cowtowner, TomStar81, William S. Saturn, Courcelles
3	Opposes.	JN466, Elekhh, I'ḏ♥One,

Based on 10:2, we should move onto MfD, but by the amount of people that participated in the brainstorming, offering suggestions and supporting or opposing ideas I think there is still strong desire to give VPC one more chance, but most likely with sweeping changes. So, I'm going to attempt to synthesize the opinions, ideas and consensus of the brainstorming and make a proposal for change. — raekyT 14:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How did you count that? I counted 8 for deletion and 5 against. --Elekhh (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it's 11 that is in support of deleting/marking historical. I have to be away from the computer for a few hours, I'll discuss in detail later if you still not sure? — raekyT 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Whereas, I counted 9:4. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I got 10:3. How many Wikipedians does it take to count up vote totals? Makeemlighter (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the trouble is that jjron and I both voted oppose for deletion and support for marking historical. That would give you 2 extra opposes. And I had already voted support and didn't strike it through when I clarified my vote. So that would be 1 extra support. Which gets us to the 10:3 I counted. Assuming I'm right :) Makeemlighter (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm counting anything thats not keep it active as one group, i.e. mark historical or delete. So if you vote Oppose Delete and Support mark historical, you wouldn't be counted as voting for keep. So let me List specifically who voted what as I counted.. lol. And yes this is definitely turning comical as we all have different counts. ;-) — raekyT 18:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK I'm going with 10:3, anyone disagree? Now I didn't count people who didn't explicitly state one way or the other and just commented, and some people who have an opinion about this didn't put anything in that part and just commented on the brainstorming I think. Thats why I didn't think it be fair to just go ahead and decide to take it to MfD or not, thus I made a more "formal" proposal below, where it's a either/or thing. Either you want to keep it open and vote on some changes in some form OR put your voice into the mark historical part. I don't think we'll outright delete these pages, since I don't think thats normal operating procedure for projects like this. Marking historical is what we'd end up doing if we decide to end it. So I encourage everyone to put their opinions in below, I only added changes that appeared to have fairly decent consensus support above, took librites a little for the first one about restricting VP's to high value articles... — raekyT 18:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The count as you put it is simply incorrect. Two of those you listed as "mark historical/delete" clearly opposed deletion. Correct count is 10:3 for marking historical and 8:5 for deletion. --Elekhh (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is weird! Why are we counting the votes when the template at the top says "this is not a majority vote...and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. " --JovianEye (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a quick gauge to see what level of support either side has. — raekyT 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Integrate into QI review process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Looks good, thanks! — raekyT 18:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for Change

Of the brainstorming ideas that had good support or I thought had great merit I'll move here for formal adoption discussion. Vote Support/Oppose on each change individually OR if you do not wish VPC to contiune, put your !vote into the Mark Historical section with reasoning. — raekyT 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

High Value Article Requirement

VPC proposed pictures must contribute significantly and be prominently placed on a high value article. These are defined as one listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded or High/Top rating within Wikiprojects.

Opposes

• Oppose - there's lots of scatter amongst importance ratings, and they can be subjective to a project, so I think saying only those images can be valued is very restrictive. An article not necessarily of high importance can have value added when it is illustrated by a good picture. Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Develop a regularly recurring section in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost to promote VPC and other sub-featured recognized content and projects.

Supports

• Neautral Yeah, nice idea but to Milburn. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• As previously. --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• What about getting a add on the sidebar news thing on the signpost. Spongie555 (talk) 05:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Opposes

• Oppose. The Signpost has more important things to worry about- when FPC is covered so sparsely, giving space to VPC is a little silly. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be very frequent though, it could be for instance only when major milestones are reached (i.e. 250, 500, 1000 VPs..) The proposal above is about the general principle. As with the other voting I am afraid the previous discussion was closed a bit early, prior to working out the details... --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, VPC gets a regular weekly section, which usually dominates (or at least does in the current layout of) the features & admins section. Theres always room for more articles I think, and prose about other projects periodically would most likely be very welcome to the Signpost staff. Theres plenty of smaller lower-key projects that this section could highlight and bring more traffic to, not just VPC. — raekyT 00:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Simplify and Streamline Promotion and Demotion

Change to a simple process of majority votes promotes or demotes like Commons' valued pictures. No minimum number of votes for promotion or demotion just one vote is enough. Using the following promotion table:

Result	Action	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

Supports

• I like it, make the process easy and straightforward. Canada Hky (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• As do I, it will also greatly streamline the process, since EV is greatly dependent on use, if images become less favored due to non-use or less used the delisting process would be just as streamlined and defined. — raekyT 00:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I like it but i think if there is no votes i dont think its fair to close it as undecided beacuse then the nominator didnt get any feedback from it and it could have been a good picture. Spongie555 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Common's Banner

Create a banner that will be placed at the image page on commons to let other projects know it's a valued picture at the English Wikipedia.

Supports

• --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• — raekyT 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Link into Portal and Wikiproject images

VP's would become automaticaly selected images on portals and linked into any selected or important picture galleries for related Wikiprojects. VP process becomes an opt-in process for WikiProjects and Portals to use to replace their selected/important image election process. This helps them in regards to participation to use a wider audience to select images.

Opposes

• As I said, and as a portal writer, I do do this, but telling people how to write their portals and certain images that they must include is a horrible idea. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't like the 'automatic' idea. I do see some value in notifying Wikiprojects, and perhaps encouraging them to add 'Valued Pictures' to their Recognized Content sections, if they do not already do so (I haven't seen it on many project pages). Canada Hky (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Wrong proposal, not how it was discussed previously (nobody said automatically). The idea was to provide VP as a platform for WikiProject Selected Pictures if they opt-in (not to replace). Most SPs are dormant or have no real peer review going on. This could benefit both portals and VP. --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll correct. I hope thats better. — raekyT 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, but it already is that. This is a bit of a non-proposal. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely shut down and Mark Historical

I don't think consensus or common sense would be to outright delete this project. But if you feel it shouldn't continue in any form even heavily modified. Add your consensus here for shutting it down.

Supports

• TomStar81 (Talk) 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Deliver the coup de grâce and open a third MFD. Courcelles 03:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Someone should really message those that commented before. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• It's too bad. I just can't see how to make this project work, though. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Some things need deliverance, this is one of those things. Cowtowner (talk) 04:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Let it die in dignity Hive001 contact 17:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Opposes

• Strongest possible oppose Can't you come with a better thought. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 13:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think the project still has value, and adds to the encyclopedia as a whole. Canada Hky (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've strongly opposed making historical/retiring/deleting VPC throughout this discussion, made suggestions about how VPC could be used to resolve a POTD backlog we have which could also raise the importance and standards of both VPC and FPC and will do so now. --I'ḏ♥One 10:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is a great way to reward photographers for uploading good pictures. Edge3 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this project serves a purpose for slightly lower caliber high quality images.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeThis project still has a purpose for low quality images plus if articles can have GA and FA why cant images have VP and FP Spongie555 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• My impression is that the previous discussion was closed a bit early. I still have no answer as to how would the closure help Wikipedia in achieving its strategic goals of openness and diversity? --Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Should we re-add all of the votes for the people that said this last week? Noodle snacks (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably, but I think it's starting to be clear MfD is going to be the ultimate outcome of this discussion, consensus wise. — raekyT 04:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think a third MfD may be necessary. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Too much reverting is not helpful at all. Why don't we try to find a compromise before we start running over to MfD? Edge3 (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• SilkTork twice closed the above discussion and marked the project historical, which has been reverted by Raeky and myself. I see a number of active participants which value the project and would like to continue to participate, and haven't heard yet a truelly convincing argument for closure. May I remind the conclusion of the previous MfDs was "keep, take it to the talk pages too, I'd say :-) For a variety of reasons, this proposal has probably generated more heat than light - keep talking about the evolution of both projects on the talk pages, I'd say, with particular attention to smooth running without any project undermining any other (this is self-evident regardless of whether or not that applies to this situation, about which I haven't really formed an opinion). Privatemusings (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)" and "Keep - Claims of disruption amount to nothing more than finding the mere mention of suitability for VPC in a debate objectionable and come dangerously close to violating WP:OWN [...] Both sides are urged to kiss and make up, remember why we are WP:HERE, and to take seriously suggestions of a merger or other formal relationship of processes.Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)" These constant MfDs and threats of MfDs on the project do indeed achieve one thing: demotivate people to participate. Thank you. --Elekhh (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And I see no purpose to continuing these talk page discussions. The consensus is clearly to open a third MfD. Instead of edit-warring over a historical tag, let's just get on with it and open it. Courcelles 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The previous MfDs were very divisive, though. Why can't we try to come to a consensus here? Edge3 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
      • • Because MFD would produce a binding decision. Instead we had two editors edit war with an admin when this discussion was closed. That won't happen after an MFD. Courcelles 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
          • So where is the binding effect of the decisions of the previous two MfDs? did it expire? And what's the point to differentiate an admin's opinion from editors? --Elekhh (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
            • There is a very clear distinction between revisiting what was a borderline keep/no consensus close form 9 months ago, and edit warring over a close from mere hours ago. There's very little difference between editors and admins... except when an admin is closing a discussion. All in all, unless someone comes up with a very good reason to convince me not to, I intend to open a third MFD sometime tomorrow. Courcelles 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Please look below; some discussion on how to proceed is already taking place, and an editor plans to propose an alternative project. Edge3 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think there is enough consensus to do a MfD with the two outcomes of Keep Active or Mark Historical. But I'm not comfortable shutting down a project of this scope without a very firm MfD decision. If the decision is to keep then we can discuss here ways to modify the project, if it is to mark historical then we can come back here and discuss the proper way to shut it down. — raekyT 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe this is a little late, but the only way I can see this working is by creating what amounts to the antithesis of VP as it stands now, which would be a repository of quality images that don't yet meet their encyclopedic potential. However, this already seems to exist as Commons FP. Cowtowner (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm going out on limb here, but may I suggest the best course of action at this point would be an official RFC? It would allow a broad and wiki-wide range of answers, and may help generate enough discussion to determine a course of action IF the options discussed above are listed so those taking part in the FRC can see what has been covered. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• What about making VP like the GA for images? More people go for GA beacuse its easier then FA so if VP is like GA more people might participate. Spongie555 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm a noob here, and just jumped into a long ongoing discussion; but I never even heard of this project until I was following some links about Tony out of curiosity (not stalking you Tony). Not claiming to have knowledge of all of WP, but maybe your issue is a matter of a lack of visibility. I'm no pro photographer, but I have a definite interest. If I'm way off base here, please disregard, but if not I hope maybe you'll reconsider some other options to gain participation and renewed interest. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)