Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 03:25:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by unknown ukiyo-e artist - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Extremely rare example of Japanese art depicting Commodore Perry's visit which led to the opening up of Japan. Restored from the Library of Congress copy, which is, at most, one of only a handful of copies. As time has not been kind to it, I have not attempted a complete restoration, as the unrestorable parts would look awkward next to the restored ones. I did, however, do substantial work in the name of readability and to remove highly distracting damage, such as a large stain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Wonderful work. It's always amazing comparing the initial uploaded version with your final product. --Notyourbroom (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC) No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what, precisely, does this have to do with this image? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Wikipedia has this "rule" that you should not Wikipedia is not there to make a point. I find that Alvegaspar is not assessing the picture but making a point. Arguments about restorations as I understand it are about what makes a great restoration. They are hardly about what makes a featurable picture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia, sorry to disappoint you. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, this is not wikipedia but the points discussed in POINT IMO apply here as well. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought that the base policies on Wiki carried through the entire project. Am I wrong? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) This is a fine pictue it has relevance for the WMF projects and it is therefore featurable.. It is a fine restoration as well.[reply]
  •  Oppose – WikiCommons is not there to make a point. And that is exactly what this page is set out to do. So I will join Alvesgaspar in his protest vote. And on another note, why do you have to fill your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each (sic) within a few days before you are satisfied? This can better be done off line. If you must preserve the history of your different attempts, then why not upload those at lower jpg resolutions? Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Looks as if the main reason for this dissident vote has been removed for now, so is this opposition. Lycaon (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lycaon, I have not participated in any discussion related to that page in a week, because I only started it as a favour to a friend. There is a thread on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates that you are, of course, able to participate in. This is not the place for such discussion, and as you say, WikiCommons is not here to make a point, which is what this hijacking of a Featured picture candidacy to harass someone can only be described as. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating issues. Your very argument is what may make the featured picture candidates a battle ground. This is to argue the merits of THIS picture. You are using your vote as an instrument to protest, to make a point. Please desist from such nonsense because this damages Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lycaon, your actiona are unbecoming of an administrator. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has this to do with being an admin? A bit confused? Admins are regular users that have taken upon them to perform extra maintenance tasks for which extra access is required. Am I not doing my job? Are admins supposed to be opinionless? Lycaon (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a comment appropriate to the context of FPCs, but I have to second what GerardM has said, and what several others have said before him in other threads. I have only been an active Commons member for about a month, but Lycaon's behavior has often confused and bothered me as well. In this thread in particular, his sniping about "...fill[ing] your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each" boggles the mind. As I understand it, one of the pillars of Wiki-style collaboration is having a rich version-history archive to work from. In providing a gradual buildup to his final restoration, Adam Cuerden enables future restorers to branch off from his work at a point of their choosing, rather than having to pick between fully-unrestored and fully-restored versions. I think it's commendable, forward-thinking behavior, and is not something to be belittled. How an administrator could become mixed up on this point is beyond my comprehension, and so his words just come off as a weak attempt at a personal attack. I have no prior investment in any of these controversies, so I hope this viewpoint is accepted as a third-party assessment of the situation. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So nice not everyone joins in the Lycaon-bashing day today :-)). Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Not bashing, merely examining your conduct and attitude, in light of your admin status. I agree wholeheartedly with Notyourbroom; we are here to judge pictures on their own merit, and not let anything else influence that. Whether or not you agree with the establishment of Meet our Restorationists (who do a fine job, by the way), that has no bearing on this picture. Evaluate the picture, nothing else. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, please read the discussion page before commenting on this! It is precisely the object of evaluation in FPC that was implicitly subverted by the way the page was created! Sorry to be so bold but I'm already tired of repeating the same thing over and over again: one thing is to assess the value of a picture, a completly different thing is to assess the quality of a restoring. And these two things cannot be mixed up in FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you PLEASE stop disrupting FPC, and go to the talk page? Furthermore, as this message by Alvesgaspar continues his harassment and disruption campaign even after I disowned meet our restorationists and removed my name from that page, it is clear that appeasing Alvesgaspar is not going to work. I hence have resored my name to Commons:Meet our restorationists, and will fight for the right of restorationists to be recognised with every tooth and nail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar you conflate two issues and you are wrong in doing so. You can assess pictures that are to be featured, that is what this is about. If your point is that you cannot assess restorations, then do not do that. It is not possible to technically assess restorations anyway because Commons does not have the technology to make that possible. We are slowly moving in that direction because we can now upload the work files as a tiff. These file cannot be shown in a thumbnail or otherwise yet. This information is not new to you. Now desist of further nonsense, you agree that these pictures are important, the only argument you are left with is being uncomfortable that restorations are in a category of their own and that there has been no lengthy discussion about it. As you already implicitly agreed that restorations are in a category of their own, there is not much to discuss. My problem is that you make it seem as an "us and them" conflict. Commons needs digital photography, illustrations and restorations. We need a friendly atmosphere in order to do well and this bickering is counter productive. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no one can assess restorations, how are the MOR members elected? By the number of FP's? Then, anyone who has uploaded at least five vintage pictures which have become FP's may claim a membership, provided he/she makes a statement that they were all restored by himself/herself (one to go, in my case). Better call the page "Meet Our Uploaders"! Can't you see that the absence of clear and just election criteria, based on the quality of the restoring job, makes the proccess arbitrary? Before accusing people of saying nonsense and trying to interpret their own discomforts, please have the humility to admit that you just don't understand (or don't want to). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Making this page the battle ground for this issue was inappropriate. At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations. The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present. This is the wrong place for this argument, this is the place to assess if this picture may become a featured picture. Now, let us discuss this at a proper place the criteria for what makes an appropriate and best practices based restoration. This seems like a good place to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. At least not in the context of this picture. Whether or not MOR should exist and how to run it has nothing to do with the issue at hand; that is, judging whether this image is worthy to be Featured. The FPC talk page, or MOr talk page is where you want to be for this sort of stuff. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Gasshukoku_suishi_teitoku_kōjōgaki_(Oral_statement_by_the_American_Navy_admiral).png&oldid=19831894"