Jump to content

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Valued pictures (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was 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, they do not represent the consensus of the community and are disregarded. Claims of canvassing are without any evidence; unsupported inflammatory statements are in bad faith and do not represent the consensus of the community, they have been completely disregarded. Attempts to analyze the number of comments at WP:FP that were related to WP:VPC in proportion to the number of nominations at VPC are irrelevant and are ignored for lack of supporting policy. Claims of bad faith, and in particular of the the supposed motivation of those who mention VPC at FP to fill up the VPC rolls are themselves a failure to assume good faith and are not supported by the far more relevant percentage of times such comments are actually made. These bad faith claims of bad faith are likewise disregarded as not representative of community consensus. Claims of a chilling effect on donations of media are nothing more than emotional appeals; no policy supports quashing the efforts - even if poorly organized - of editors in order to appease Dutch museums and such arguments are likewise ignored. It is somewhat humorous that those most avidly in favor of deletion seem to say this is a well organized effort to thwart FP; whereas the less adamant deletion advocates win that argument by convincingly taking the position that if anything VPC is on the brink of collapse and may never have been well organized. After ignoring the arguments discussed above, these last are the only remaining deletion/historify arguments; that is those which relate the relative inactivity, perceived uselessness, or lack of focus of VPC. The relative inactivity is a serious concern, the last comments on the project's main talk page were in July! However, determining the activity of a project is often difficult as much of the work of a project is commonly done outside the project talk pages. The usefulness or lack thereof as well as the focus or lack thereof can best be addressed at WT:VPC and if it were actually seriously addressed it might have the additional benefit of showing substantial activity, at least in discussing this point. In the final analysis, forcefully closing down an active project is an extreme remedy rarely sanctioned at MfD; considering the relevant points made by those in favor of deletion/historification, this is not an extreme case which would warrant such action. A second nomination so close on the heals of the earlier one was unwarranted and the discussion below does actually overlap the earlier discussion even where there was some attempt to avoid the same. The only benefit of the discussions is that they bring more attention to both projects. The VPC participants/members/advocates are cautioned to take active steps to invigorate their project or it will surely become inactive/historical. The FP regulars are cautioned to assume good faith and not be so defensive about VPC treading on their perceived terrain. 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)[reply]

Valued pictures 2

[edit]


Per Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Valued_pictures, this minor process, with no well-defined scope, continues to be a source of disruption, occasionally severe, to the Featured pictures process, and, after nearly having been deleted over it in that previous MFD, the continuing disruption should be sufficient reason for it to be deleted or marked historical. As explained below, for every 10 Valued picture candidates, Featured pictures is disrupted or canvassed about 4 times[1]

Valued pictures was set up as a solution in search of a problem: There is no coherent reason for it to be necessary, unlike the version on Commons, there is little clear distinction between it and FPC. It has been grossly disruptive, however, as almost all the recruitment has happened by way of canvassing on open featured picture candidates, usually within 24 hours of them being proposed, before any clear consensus could have emerged.


For the period before the last nomination for deletion, see Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Valued_pictures. This list attempts to show continuing disruption, and thus begins at June 1st, since the previous MFD opened June 4th.

Note: UpstateNYer has complained about every single one of these. I think I'll just say that I disagree with him, in many cases strongly, and leave it mostly at that. Anything more and this'll get unreadable. Admittedly, I do not claim perfection in description - I was juggling several windows - but there clearly is canvassing in every one of these noms. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly leave me no choice: you claim that each user is "canvassing", and define the term as being "attempting to divert an open FPC into VPC before the FPC has even closed". It is not possible for your to prove this, unless you have developed the ability to read minds; sleuthing for some non-existant cabal is not going to get you anywhere. Most of these comments are reassurances to nominators (regardless of the nominator's reaction) and none even offer a whiff of intentional "derailment" (so much for WP:AGF, and my plans for cabal domination). Your arguments reek of POV and if you have to start an argument with glaring POV, you're already off to a bad start. If you had phrased it in a more neutral way, say maybe, "In the following cases, at least one user made a reference to or suggestion of bringing a nom to VPC; make of it what you will", I probably wouldn't be so annoyed, but when you implant a viewpoint into the reader at the very beginning, that's not fair. At least play fair here (and no, I didn't complain about every one; I tried hard to restrain myself, but an opposite viewpoint was necessary at many, if not just to level the slanted playing field you started everyone on). upstateNYer 06:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


June:

Disruption or canvassing in active Featured picture candidates or delist nominations (In no particular order)

July:

Disruption or canvassing in active Featured picture candidates or delist nominations

Canvassing on Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates


August

Disruption or canvassing in active Featured picture candidates or delist nominations

September

Disruption or canvassing in active Featured picture candidates or delist nominations

October

Disruption or canvassing in active Featured picture candidates or delist nominations

Notes
  1. ^ Comment: This is about as apples-to-oranges a comparison as you can make, in all honesty. upstateNYer 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. ^ Comment: I'm opposed to the use of the word "canvass". In most cases, it is not the intention of the user to cause a negative effect on an FP nom, it is to offer support of the image, especially if the image is near the level of speedy close. upstateNYer 01:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that this disruption is vastly out of line to the size of the process:

Month Number of VPC noms Number of canvassing attempts
on FPC per VPC nomination.
June 15 .333...
July 11 .454545...
August 4 .75
September 12 .25
October 4 .5

Total ratio of canvassing attempts per VPC nominations in the period: 18/46 = .391304


That means that for every 10 VPCs, Featured pictures was disrupted about 4 times, or possibly more if I missed some of the disruption. Furthermore, there were 20 VPs promoted in this time period, so there were nearly as many canvassing attempts as valued pictures created. For such a minor process, this is an excessive amount of disruption to featured pictures. Hence, I believe this process should be deleted, or marked as historical. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break
[edit]

<sigh> Processes are marked historical, not deleted. Can we close now? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where a process is causing disruption, I can't see any better location to get widespread community discussion than here, and there's precedent in the previous nomination. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 210 FCs served 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, MFD listings like this are actually rather disruptive. (see the MFD information about nominating policies and guidelines, which also goes for processes, as far as I'm concerned.) I'm not saying that's your intent, but that's how they often end up. :-/ It's usually wiser to negotiate between the diverse projects. Can you point to evidence of having done so? (I think I remember that you're pretty clueful, so I have a feeling you might be able to :-) )--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Also, proposals like these can backfire badly, see WP:EA vs WP:AMA for a rough idea as to how. (AMA tried to take over or shut down EA... <sarcasm>that worked really well</sarcasm> ;-) ) [reply]
  • Mark historical. With respect extended toward Kim Bruning's comments, there appears to be no other effective way to do this. Prior to the last MFD, yes, multiple efforts were made to discuss the problem. Before the last nomination 43 active featured picture candidacies had been canvassed for valued pictures, plus the number listed above. So in total the ratio is greater than 1:2 of FP nominee disruptions per VP promotions. That's unacceptable long term disruption to a featured content progress. Durova321 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where is the disruption? It just looks like reviewers said "hey, this isn't good enough to be an FP; try VPC." It's not really canvassing either. Simply mentioning that a picture would do better at VPC seems reasonable to me. It's just a suggestion to nominators who may not be familiar with VPC. Things have certainly been quiet at VPC lately, and I think the project needs some work, but I don't see it as disruptive. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the previous discussion for quotes from an FPC nominator who was very disappointed at the way people referred him to another program before his nomination could run on its own merits. Durova321 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This makes me think of TomStar81, who typically responds in unreasonably hostile ways to anyone who suggests VPC, even on an image that obviously does not meet FPC requirements. Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Oklahoma city bombing is a great example of a bad-faith response from the user in which he is openly hostile toward an editor that was only trying to help. In the end, the nomination failed (miserably) at FPC, but passed after I nominated it at VPC, where it should have been nominated in the first place. It's not canvassing, it's offering a more promising option (it's better than saying Speedy close, isn't it?). If suggesting VPC scares a user like this away, good riddance. I don't care how much good he may do elsewhere; his behavior towards users that are trying to help should be much less mean-hearted. upstateNYer 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict x2)Right, but two things. One, it's not really VP doing the "disrupting"; it's users. Two, most of the noms were going to fail anyway. Saying "try VP" was meant as encouragement not canvassing or disruption. Makeemlighter (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's been the persistence and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT aspect which has sunk this program from minimal value to active problem. This website has over five years of FPC archives which could be combed for potential VP material, but VP enthusiasts have refused to look there. Instead they disrupt active candidacies, ignore nominators' complaints, and propose FPs for delisting with the express intention of populating the VP program. Although it could be encouraging to the nominator of a failed FPC to receive an invitation to VP,it's off-putting when the active nomination doesn't get a chance to run its course. The result is that both programs suffer. Durova321 02:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nominator (TomStar81) is reacting because as a VP it's disqualified to be a FP and only FP's get any real recognition (front page, etc..), as it is, you'd be silly to nominate an image you thought was good as a VP before trying it as a FP. I too was a bit miffed at having my most recent nomination canvased for a VP, I didn't respond the same way, but thats just me. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not true. Any picture can be nominated to be a FP. Nothing in the FP criteria says the image can't be a VP as well. It's the VP criteria that say that VPs can't be FPs. This just prevents duplication. If a picture passes VP today, someone can still nominate it at FPC. If it's promoted to FP status, then it'll lose its VP status, but that's all. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Couldn't have said it better than Makeemlighter. These are good faith opinions and reviews (not canvassing) that are not meant to be disruptive and, frankly, aren't disruptive. The use of the words "disruption", "fishing", and "canvassing" are not fair IMHO. upstateNYer 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Canvassing is a reflection upon certain users and not the page. Triplestop x3 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Deprecate in Spirit I see little point to this process, however, I do agree that raising this in an MfD is not a particularly appropriate way to build a consensus to abandon it, so for the purposes of this MfD, Keep without prejudice to later deprecation Gigs (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag as historical, not even so much for the so-called "disruption" to WP:FPC but because after months of operation I do not believe that the process has any clearly defined scope or purpose. I really don't see how it's helping the encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The question that has to be asked with any rule or project is: Is this doing harm to the Encyclopedia? I'm not sure that it is. If someone provides a convincing rationale, I'll oppose. Some of the contributors there need to be reminded not to try and derail FPC, but that's an issue with users, rather than the project. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reason the historic media editors have objected so strongly is our difficulties obtaining access to material. We negotiate with cultural institutions to expand access, and one important factor that motivates curators to choose openness is the prospect that highlights from an institution's collection might be selected as featured pictures and receive their day at the main page. The value of that prospect was among the reasons the Tropenmuseum of Amsterdam has commmitted to donating 100,000 encyclopedic images to Commons, and has already uploaded several thousand images. Spaarnestad Museum of Haarlem has also partnered. The tendency of valued pictures enthusiasts to move the goalposts for FP, coupled with some of those editors' resistance to feedback, places other negotiations in a difficult position. Durova321 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally I am no longer involved in VPC at all and don't particularly care, but I have not seen any evidence of VPC canvassing nor disruption at FPC. Sorry, just mentioning an alternative project as a suggestion is neither of those things. I would suggest being told "maybe try VPC" rather than "this is rubbish" is preferable to most nominators. Think AGF needs to be remembered, as I would say every mention of VPC as an alternative option has indeed been made in good faith. --jjron (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The canvassing seems to be having little effect: at the time of writing, Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/October-2009 has four concluded nominations, three of which failed for lack of comments (and one of those, my first and probably last VPC nomination, had no comments at all in a fortnight). The fourth nomination was successful, although it includes the entertaining confusion of Nezzadar suggesting that the photograph wasn't up to scratch for FPC and should be nominated at VPC, only to be reminded that this, er, was VPC... I can see the theoretical benefit in having a GA/FA-style relationship between FP/VP, but having a 75% failure rate for simple lack of comments suggests that the project is running / has run out of momentum anyway. BencherliteTalk 09:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical or dramatically change VP's scope so it doesn't directly compete with FP's (as in VP's can be FP's). There is virtually no participation in VP as it is, many GOOD images go through there with almost no votes. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean allow a picture to be both? I understand that the perceived problem was that people were trying to demote FP or derail FPC so that they could nominate at VP. If a picture can be FP and VP at the same time, then there would be no conflict, afaict. At least, that's my analysis, and what I'm proposing as a change to the VP process. Am I getting it right? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That would remove the most serious objection. I'd consider changing my position if that happened. Durova321 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be pretty slow to catch new participants; if this trend continues it may warrant closing shop but that discussion can take place on its talk page. Regarding the reasons for this nomination, I don't see significant disruption in the links presented above - virtually exclusively, they are about taking a picture from a process it will fail to one it can potentially pass. I can't see any convincing evidence that this has ever had an impact on the outcome of an FPC, which tells me "no disruption." Perhaps people are mentioning it too often at FPC given its size, but (1) this is a user problem not a process problem and (2) FP appears to be a natural place to recruit interested editors (ie people interested in recognizing good images). Christopher Parham (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical: Looks like a failed project to me. --Carnildo (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote this above, but I think it's worth repeating here: "Any picture can be nominated to be a FP. Nothing in the FP criteria says the image can't be a VP as well. It's the VP criteria that say that VPs can't be FPs. This just prevents duplication. If a picture passes VP today, someone can still nominate it at FPC. If it's promoted to FP status, then it'll lose its VP status, but that's all." So when someone suggests taking a picture to VPC, they aren't trying to prevent it from passing at FPC. I think maybe this will clear up some confusion. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As with the last deletion nom, it seems the intent is to try to convince enough people that aren't aware of the real situation so that the nominators can push a deletion through - as in war, truth here is the first victim. UpstateNYer and Makeemlighter have already highlighted some of these misconceptions and intentional falsehoods.
    Many comments here from people not involved at FPC/VPC for example seem to take as stated that even if mentions of VPC aren't actually disruptive at FPC, then it is at least being mentioned so regularly as to be an issue. In the figures listed above, what is not stated are the FPC figures. Since the above starts at June, I will start there too:
June: 58 FPCs (based on FP archives)
July: 139 FPCs
Aug: 114 FPCs
Sept: 155 FPCs
Oct: 39 FPCs (so far)
Total: 505 FPCs (plus maybe 20 deletion noms)
As stated above there have been a grand total of 18 mentions of VP/VPC in that time, including so called canvassing on FPC Talk (in this time I would guess there's been perhaps 50 talkpage sections).
Even ignoring the deletion noms and talkpage activity, 18/505 is a puny 3.56% of FPC noms; add in the deletions and talk, and it would be around 3%.
If you took it as a percentage of comments, rather than noms/sections, lets assume an average of 6 comments per nom, and it would be maybe 0.5% of comments that so much as mention VP in any way. For those not so comfortable with maths, that's 1 out of every 200 comments at FPC that even alludes to VP/VPC.
And that's disruption? What a joke. --jjron (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a FPC (ir)regular, I don't see how those comments prevented us from going forward with our noms. Furthermore, I notice that most of theses noms failed, many for obvious reasons, and were indeed not suited at all for FP. I don't know nor care about what VPC does or is supposed to do but I won't support the "deletion" of this project based on this flimsy "it disturbs FPC" argument. Ksempac (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Maybe the process has its flaws, maybe it is semiactive. So? Does that mean we go around stopping it? I think VPC should stay  - we can get enough users to get the process running. VPC is for those images which have failed FPC for few concerns. VPCs if improved can be made FPs too. The VPC process, as I view it, is good for the wiki. Pmlineditor ∞ 12:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark historical. Don't really buy the "disruption" argument, do buy the "confused process of unclear scope." And still don't like implications that FPs are "pretty pictures" and VPs are "useful pictures" (yes, I know I'm being unfair here, but the point remains - most VPs should probably be FPs to me.). SnowFire (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. VP has problems, but I don't think this is the right way to deal with them. And I don't think that it has caused a disruption at FPC. I'd prefer to see a discussion at the VP talk page about how to improve the project. If that doesn't work, then maybe it's time to shut it down. But doing so because of the current reasons just doesn't make sense to me. Makeemlighter (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Valued_pictures_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138544217"