User talk:JovanCormac/Archives/2009/October

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Gypsum var. selenite from Andamooka Ranges - Lake Torrens area, South Australia.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gypsum var. selenite from Andamooka Ranges - Lake Torrens area, South Australia.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyrite from Ampliación a Victoria Mine, Navajún, La Rioja, Spain 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamison Valley, Blue Mountains, Australia - Nov 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

POTY

Hi JovanCormac. Please consider to join this year's POTY committee. See this page for more info. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I didn't see the committee before and thought there was nothing going on yet. -- JovanCormac 06:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

POTD yet again

Yes, I know you're bored with me. But could you please take a look at this gallery? This is my concept of a perfect POTD set for February. I don't really know why I did it, but I guess I wanted to prove a point: that you can make a diversified POTD gallery every month, without too many bugs and stuff like that. The main concept is constant overlapping of natural and man made subjects. Airwolf (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell yes! Fantastic work. And, I can scarcely believe it, only two bugs! Make sure to put it in place as soon as the page for February is created. I'm going to be celebrating the arthropod-free month. -- JovanCormac 21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be verry happy to do it even in January, but I'm afraid some people might frown upon one person arranging a whole month. Airwolf (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they won't. People just don't care enough, as evidenced by users placing two butterfly pictures on consecutive days and nobody complaining, or even noticing. -- JovanCormac 07:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I've arranged most of the month of January (ComputerHotline interrupted a bit with his butterfly...), there are some bugs, but not too many and I've tried to keep them spaced. I think 2-3 bugs per month are fine given the number of them we have as FPs.

And by the way, I sometimes have the impression that all pl.wiki FPs should automatically become FPs on Commons. Why? Due to pl's users' absurd requirements and expectations. Open the Google Translator and take a look at oppose votes (Przeciw) in, for example, pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Red Arrows or pl:Dyskusja pliku:Łukasz Sówka wisniowy.JPG. Airwolf (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

They are watching you

I just did, and have to agree with you. -- JovanCormac 11:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Of course the thing people care about is getting their pictures on POTD, they may trust the process and not bother doing it themselves, but one day they will notice their bugs never show up and there will be a back-lash : a whole month of bugs ;-) ;-). So beware, the world is run by bugs, they will get their own back if you plot against them --Tony Wills (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How about introducing it as a rule/advice/whatever? The overlapping, I mean. Airwolf (talk) 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, but there are quite a few people here (see the FPC talk page) who seem to be opposed to introducting new rules ("instruction creep", they call it). -- JovanCormac 09:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So no rules. Let's make it an experiment - say, January to March - and see whether this works out at all or not. Let's announce it, see if nobody minds and see if it's doable. It should be, I think, and bugs will get their rightful share, if they need to, they just won't appear on consecutive days. Airwolf (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a sidenote, so I won't start a new thread: how do you see the quality of this photo (as opposed to the one we already know)? Airwolf (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a little better quality-wise than the other one, but as noted before I think airplane shots showing only the belly are less interesting than some we already have. -- JovanCormac 20:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Do take a look at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_day#POTD_for_October_5, please. This is Urgent - capital "U" - and potentially very important. And could I email you? There's something I'd like to discuss in private. Airwolf (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I posted my opinion(s) in the thread. -- JovanCormac 06:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Angela Merkel (2008).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angela Merkel (2008).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I've contributed to the discussion here.

Also, you might want to think about archiving your talk page. It's getting very lengthy...

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I've also set up MiszaBot to archive my talk page. -- JovanCormac 07:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Img_metadata

Hi, thanks for your guide to use the commons dump. It helped me get the import through quite quickly. I referenced it at Commons:EXIF. I was wondering if there was a script I could use convert "img_metadata" into a separate table (possibly limited to a predefined number of attributes). -- User:Docu at 13:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware that a script like this exists, but I can imagine it would take only half an hour to cook one up in any scripting language. Simply SPLIT by semicolons, then split the substrings again by colons, take only the first element of each subarray (which appears to be the actual attribute), strip the quotation marks and your done, ready to rearrange the pieces in any way you wish. I haven't read the official EXIF specification, but it looks like that's how it works. -- JovanCormac 14:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Put that way, it does sound easy. Thanks, I will try that. I had in mind something like "SELECT functiona(img_metadata) AS make, functionb(img_metadata) AS model FROM image", but the other way round is probably easier. -- User:Docu at 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

VIs

Hi. I have a certain idea and I'd like you to tell me whether you think it's logical or quite the contrary. I'd like to nominate a certain (larger) number of images in two series of scopes. One "set" of scopes would fit the pattern "[airline]", and the other - "Military aircraft of [country]" (or perhaps "Modern military..."). Thus for example a VI for the scope Centralwings would be File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings.JPG, and for the scope Military aircraft of the Unites States I'd choose File:USAF F-16A F-15C F-15E Desert Storm edit2.jpg. The idea for the first set of scopes would be that they should present an airplane which is quite representative for the airline (i.e. constitutes the majority of their fleet), but more importantly, shows the airline's livery. That is why File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings.JPG is in my opinion better than File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings 2.JPG which is a better image itself. As for the scopes "Military aircraft of [country]", the image would have to present at least two types of aircraft - also representative in the abovementioned sense. Airwolf (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

People at VI tend to be picky about scopes. I can pretty much guarantee that a candidate set called "Military Aircraft of the U.S." won't make VI unless it contains all of the aircraft currently in service. The 737 picture, given the scope "Centralwings", will also likely not succeed, because users will ask: "How can a single airplane represent an airline? What about logos, staff, airports, headquarters?". VI is quite a strange system. -- JovanCormac 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see your (or their, perhaps) point about military aircraft, but as far as airlines are concerned... If they asked me such a question, I'd say the logo is on the airplane, and airlines generally don't have their own airports. The only weak link would be the HQ, because saying that a picture of the staff is essential would be like looking for a hole in the whole (it's my random translation of a certain Polish idiom I think you get the idea). After all they're not the essence of the company, even though they let it run. Airwolf (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agalychnis callidryas

It is quite disgusting to have to listen to the 'expert' opinions of someone who has probably never seen a frog in his life, never mind an Agalychnis callidryas. The least one would expect from someone with your eloquence is a little bit of research into the subject before declaring such nonsense. A. callidryas is nocturnal and arboreal. Whenever disturbed during daytime it will quickly climb to safety. No time to change lens, mount a tripod nor a flash light. Add continuous rainfall, ambient temperature of 28°C and 100% air humidity and you indeed have a situation hard to imagine any easier. This is insulting and provocative. Lycaon (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it calm, as I shall.

The picture looks like a daylight shot to me, and probably to anyone else as well with its bright, yet relatively distant background.

As for the overall quality: There are 6 pictures on Agalychnis_callidryas, one of which is the candidate picture. I would argue that at least File:Agalychnis callidryas.jpg and File:Red eyed tree frog edit2.jpg (especially that one, which very much looks like a daylight shot as well) are superior in both quality and composition. A Google search brings up [1], [2] and [3], all of which are better as well.

The candidate picture does have a very low depth of field, no use arguing that. And since two superior pictures on Commons and at least three on the web prove that one can do better, I believe it is justified to say that the picture is below optimum. -- JovanCormac 18:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentially, I believe you want to be careful complaining about expert/amateur issues. This is one of those slippery slopes, which could quickly lead to nominators accusing half of their opposers that they aren't qualified to judge their nomination at all. It would be fine with me if we set up an expert panel which promotes FPs, with everyone else degraded to observer status, but until that happens, everyone can write what they want, as so many voters prove every single day. -- JovanCormac 18:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Darwinius masillae.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Probably the single most important fossil ever discovered. Already being hailed as the long-sought "missing link". High quality photograph. The fossil is still being moved, therefore geocoding is not applicable. -- JovanCormac 10:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
•  Support best in scope, good nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

FP delisting

Hi, Jovan!

"Should be, everywhere and on all fields the ideological people nervous and differ by the increased sensitivity. Probably, it so is necessary."

(c) Anton Chekhov

You do very large, very useful and very necessary job on FP with delisting candidates and new nominations. I always consider You as my friend, even if our opinions can strongly differ.

Yours faithfully -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that reassurance, I appreciate it. Do know that I never intend to attack people, only arguments and opinions. I like the work you do here. Cheers, JovanCormac 18:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

re:Oppose votes

I believe you left the your message about the oppose vote policy on the wrong talk page... TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, my apologies. I always get you two mixed up, because of the first name you share . -- JovanCormac 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• These little details are important you know :-). I will comment on the FP talk page --Tony Wills (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are basically very few rules with FP. The are lots of guidelines to educate people on what is a good image and what people are likely to vote for. There are a few rules, like you must be logged in and only vote once, and the time limits for voting, and how to count votes. But there tends to be instruction creep where those guidelines are interpreted as rules (eg size limits), and now you want to start introducing rules about how people 'must' vote.
• Ok I have not addressed your question about how new 'rules' are created. The trouble with creating new rules or guidelines and having a vote on the FP talk page is that most people don't see the discussion or participate in the vote. This doesn't matter too much if the rules or guidelines are just minor twiddles. But when a rule change that is fundamentally undemocratic is introduced, I think it needs a very robust discussion with a large number of participants. I also think that such fundamental changes need a real consensus and that a simple majority vote is inadequate. In this case I don't think the ramifications or implications of allowing people to strike down the votes of others is appreciated. It is a very major change to a basic principle of democracy, it is a bit like changing a countries constitution without having a wide ranging discussion and referendum. I also think that rather than trying to move FP to some new place, it would be better to discuss where you are trying to take it first. I do believe you are trying to improve FP, but how about spelling out the vision before inching us towards it :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• And where, if not the FPC talk page, would be the right place to discuss such things??? That's what the talk pages are for! I have posted every single one of my ideas on the FPC talk page. Where should I go instead? Run for admin and then place them on the main page to make sure every last user sees the stuff, even those who can't be bothered to even read the relevant discussion page from time to time?
  All you ever seem to write about is how things can not be done in your opinion. I'd love to hear what you believe can, and should be done. Sadly, I haven't heard an ounce of constructive feedback from you so far. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• And I repeat once again, you have some kind of work to do on the FPC talk page. You removed the rule and put the discussion up again for revisiting. It hasn't been revisited, so far, and given that you took it upon yourself to change the rule back without consulting and justified it by creating that thread (see changelog), it is your responsibility to see that that happens. -- JovanCormac 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I see that you have started a new discussion about the purpose of FP, which we indeed should resolve before revisiting the proposal. -- JovanCormac 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

More detail

Hi Jovan, I wonder whether you can reword your Purpose #5 slightly to change it from what the FP collection is "A selection...", to why we want to have this selection, what we wish use to use the collection for ? --Tony Wills (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The purpose of such a selection would be to showcase what we do, naturally using our very best images (whatever that means). -- JovanCormac 09:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A better place?

With regard to the discussion happening on the FPC page, it's getting a bit muddled, and discussions about several different issues are taking place simultaneously, rendering the conversations hard to follow. Might it be better to shift it to a separate area; for example Commons:Featured picture improvements? That way, we could create a central page, and link off to subpages for separate discussions; eg. Commons:Featured picture improvements/FP criteria or Commons:Featured picture improvements/Delisting. I'd like to comment on a number of issues, but it's getting hard to see where to go. (I've sent this to Tony as well, since you two seem to be the main players). Cheers, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! This discussion really warrants a page of its own. Could you create them and move the material there? -- JovanCormac 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be glad too; but it'd probably be polite to wait until Tony has had a chance to read about it, seeing as he started (this) discussion. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)