Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2 results

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.

Two different summaries were proposed; two weeks have passed since the last summary's being proposed. Participation was markedly lower than at the actual poll, and, except for a single relatively later edit, was within the first week of the first summary being posted. Aside from the first summariser, twelve people participated in discussion.

Summary of proposal support

The first proposed summary was fully endorsed "as is" by six individuals (excluding nominator), the second proposed summary by two (including nominator). Additionally, the first proposed summary was opposed by two individuals.

Summary of amendment support

The first proposal had 6 amendments proposed; the first (NauticaShades) was immediately rolled into the summary itself as it had immediate unanimous support; the next (raeky) was opposed (one opposer: Jujutacular); the one following (Kaldari) was opposed (three opposers) leading to a modified proposal (by Jujutacular, let's call it amendment 3.i and come back to it); the amendment proposed next (Brandmeister) was opposed (two opposers); the last amendment (TomStar81) received no comments for three days, probably because there were too few watchers of this page by that time. However, the penultimate proposed amendment (Avenue) received one endorsement (Jujutacular), as did amendment 3.i (endorsed by Avenue). Other than the very first proposed amendment, none received significant support.

Review of proposed amendments

Several amendments referred to issues not directly touched on in the original poll or were contrary to the consensus established in the poll. These notions would be difficult to accommodate in what was intended to be a summary of the outcome of the poll; these kinds of proposed amendments were either opposed or unsupported, which is not to stop the issues raised being included as options in a future review. The two proposed amendments that received some level of support (one to change the wording of 1.4 to "Percent in support required for promotion" and another to change the wording of 1.2 to "when the required number of support votes has not been achieved") do not essentially change the meaning or intention of the poll, but are improvements worth keeping in mind in the interpretation of this review.

Conclusion

The original summary received significant support (6S, 2O) with one amendment accepted. The alternative received two supports including the nominator's. Hence there is fairly clear support for the first summary, and its implied changes to the wording of instructions should be made and henceforth followed. Also, any follow-on proposals should now be made (esp. point 3.1 of the accepted summary). Once a decision has been made on megapixels (section 3.1), the implications of 1.5 ("strictly dimensions of the image") can also be added to the criteria.

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Summary of poll results

Poll: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2

This listing is a derivative from an earlier version by Alvesgaspar. In the absence of a snowball outcome, discussion of this first proposed summary will last two weeks.

1. Items that can be implemented because consensus was clear; to be implemented by changing instructions and/or criteria to reflect the consensus position, with new instructions and criteria becoming effective from the moment this discussion is closed and the affected text(s) changed:
   1. Nomination period should be: fixed, 9 days
   2. What to do in case of no consensus or no quorum: close the nomination normally keeping the possibility of re-nominating
   3. Outcome should be determined on the basis of: vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count
   4. Majority is understood as: at least 2/3 of the !votes, i.e. 6S 3O is a promote
   5. Pixel resolution should be: strictly the dimensions of the image
   6. Weak support or weak oppose counts: ½ of a full !vote
   7. Delisting period should be: fixed, 2 weeks
   8. Nominator’s support should be: considered
   9. Creator’s support should be: considered
   10. "Quorum" Minimum number of supports for promotion: 5 (status quo -> no action) Minor amendment per Nauticashades and Alvesgaspar
   11. Withholding EXIF info is: OK
2. Items where a marginal majority will be accepted unless there's further discussion arising:
   1. When FP size criteria are raised: old FPs can stay (marginal majority)
3. Items in want of discussion/proposals:
   1. Minimum image resolution should be (proposal already prepared)
   2. Quorum refers to (proposal already prepared) Would be redundant per Nauticashades' amendment
   3. Not uploading the maximum resolution available (if there are takers): Current leaning: is not a problem
   4. Criteria: should be (if there are takers): Current leaning: the same for all categories

We also need to decide where to keep a record of the result on EXIF data; since there's no current section about this and the consensus was to not include it as a criterion, I'm unsure where this decision should be noted.

NOTE The two "prepared proposals" will be posted after this summary or an amended version has been approved. These as-yet-unseen proposals are NOT part of the summary, and an opportunity to approve, discuss and/or amend these will be given before any action is taken with regard to the "prepared proposals".

Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Endorse summary as-is

NB: Only the first 11 list items are binding.

• Yes, I support it, except for my amendment below. NauticaShades 15:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) (Great, thanks! NauticaShades 18:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
• Endorse summary but drop the concept of 'quorum', as proposed by Nauticashades -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Happy with this. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 15:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
• Not 100% happy with the outcome, but the summary is ok ;-) --Dschwen 19:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• I assume these are the consensus views; ergo, I endorse. Greg L (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• for me also OK. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as a summary of the votes, but not as consensus. I don't agree that the process so far can support a binding decision. (I have commented further on this in the oppose section.) Would other endorsers please clarify whether they are endorsing the summary or all the proposed actions? --Avenue (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request amendment

If there are amendment proposals with significant support that have only been reviewed by a minority of commenters, a second or subsequent round of voting specifically for that new summary or amendment may be posted further down.

• Proposed Amendment: If "quorum" is going to mean a minimum of five supports from now on, can we stop using the word quorum? Because that isn't what the word means and it's really confusing matters. Let's just call it what it is: a minimum number of supports. NauticaShades 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given current unanimous support, I've taken the liberty to change the summary to reflect this proposed amendment. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Proposed Amendment: Withholding EXIF info is OK, but for long exposures where the EV would be greatly enhanced or dependent on knowing exposure information it may be requested. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose amendment. The corresponding section of the review had no one supporting ineligibility based on withholding EXIF data. I understand your point (and agree), but I don't think we need to write that into the rules. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Note: I should say I believe it's always ok to request EXIF data, but never okay to oppose solely based on it. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I believe it should be a valid oppose if the exposure information is necessary to understand the context of an image (long exposure of say a bioluminescent plant), in such a case withholding the exposure information greatly lowers the EV of the image. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • To me, that just isn't enough alone to withhold FP status. I'd respect it however if others agree with you. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Raeky but the possibility shouldn't be mentioned in the guidelines. To me this is similar to opposing a picture whose file does not contain the appropriate information and explanations about the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Proposed Amendment: In item 1.4, "Majority" should be changed to "Consensus". "Marjority" always means >50%. What we were voting on was the applicable definition of "Consensus". Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose amendment. Item 1.3 defines the outcome as a vote count except in cases with particularly strong or weak reasoning. Item 1.4 defines the percent majority we want to see in that vote count. Consensus refers to the interpretation of which !votes are "strong" or "weak". Jujutacular ^T · C 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amendment. Indeed. 1.4 is not the right place to make that change, even if one deems it necessary. NauticaShades 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Kaldari is correct here. Majority will always be >50%, at least until its definition in the dictionary changes. The consensus required for promotion is what's in question here. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    • We could just simplify it and write "Percent in support required for promotion". Jujutacular ^T · C 07:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Support Jujutacular's proposed wording, or perhaps "Supermajority required for promotion", because it is clearer than the existing version. Oppose the proposed amendment, because two thirds support is not a consensus. --Avenue (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Proposed Amendment in item 1.10. The number should be reduced, in my opinion to 3. Brandmeister[t] 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose amendment. See corresponding section of the review. A minimum of 5 had very nearly unanimous support. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I missed that section. Why an image with 3 or 4 supports without no opposes should not be promoted? Brandmeister[t] 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I believe the feeling is that few supports shows a lack of interest in the image. Note that this is status quo. Previous discussions of this: [1], [2], [3]. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Amendment. There was clear consensus on this in the poll. NauticaShades 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Proposed Amendment: Item 1.2 is worded in terms of consensus and quorum, but both concepts would no longer apply. I propose changing "in case of no consensus or no quorum" to "when the required number of support votes has not been achieved". --Avenue (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Jujutacular ^T · C 05:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Proposed Amendment: Item 3, "outcome should be determined on", currently leaves no room for justification of snow closures. I've had FPC's closed early on SNOW grounds, as such I would like to see this amended to read "Final outcome should be determined on the basis of: vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count". I'm open to delaying such a motion if others would like more time to discuss the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose summary

If choosing this option, please state how you interpret the consensus differently.

• The discussion that was supposed to take place after the straw poll never occurred. Now we're voting on things we never discussed. And the outcome of this vote will probably be based on whether it gains the 2/3 support that we're (in part) debating calling consensus. Furthermore, concerns that have been expressed since the beginning of the poll have never been adequately addressed. It appears that I will be unsuccessful at stimulating true discussion about any of the changes that will occur at FPC, but I'd be remiss if I didn't continue to push for one. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Ditto. This process is just wrong. Some things need more discussion than this. And the headings here are deeply misleading, because they hide a second (and more important) question. One can agree that the summary above reflects the votes accurately, without agreeing that this reflects a well developed consensus, or that all the points should be implemented. I think this final issue has been buried too far in the fine print for this review to have legitimacy as it stands. --Avenue (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative summary of "binding" items

I think we lose the "straw" in straw poll if the majority view is substituted for consensus. While we do operate by rough consensus rather than complete unanimity, a majority in a straw poll isn't the same as a rough consensus achieved through discussion, is it? Here is my summary. I have copied Papa Lima Whiskey's summary and added a response.

1.1 - Nomination period should be: fixed, 9 days. A majority favors this outcome, but the concept of fixed duration vs. consensus-forming had some debate with Makeemlighter, Avenue, Snowman and Spikebrennan having different points of view. Large majority favored 9 vs. 7-day duration.

1.2. What to do in case of no consensus or no quorum: close the nomination normally keeping the possibility of re-nominating. This one needs discussion... many people supported this outcome, but a large number of people disagreed with the question, and it was amended to allow for the possibility of "failing" a nom by barring renomination. But it doesn't look like people realized they should follow up their comment under this new option.

1.3 Outcome should be determined on the basis of: vote counts except where particularly strong or particularly weak reasoning affects the count. Rough consensus: While four people did not want vote counts, vote counting is currently the status quo, and the minority that doesn't want this is not enough to overturn.

1.4. Majority is understood as: at least 2/3 of the !votes, i.e. 6S 3O is a promote. Near consensus, only one or two opposes to these questions, and they are swimming upstream against current consensus.

1.5. Pixel resolution should be: strictly the dimensions of the image. Near consensus: but a lot of people, including supporters of the idea, wanted some flexibility in interpretation, allowing for opposes if the image seems to have unnecessary "padding" at the edges which brings it up to the minimum. If that can be taken into account we can call it consensus.

1.6. Weak support or weak oppose counts: ½ of a full !vote. Consensus reached, keeping in mind reasoning still matters.

1.7. Delisting period should be: fixed, 2 weeks. Majority favors this, did not seem to attract strong opinions. I'm actually not sure what the status quo is. If we are to change the status quo it might warrant more discussion.

1.8. The nominator's support should be considered: Rough consensus: but 2 say it shouldn't count when nom is creator. However, status quo is to include nom's support.

1.9. The creator's or editor's support should be considered: Consensus reached IMO.

1.10. Minimum number of supports for promotion: 5 (status quo -> no action): Consensus reached for 5 supports IMO, though I am confused as to whether we are going to adopt the separate concept of quorum (which refers to number of participants, not supports).

1.11. Withholding EXIF info is OK. Consensus reached IMO. I believe only Raeky is fighting the existing consensus. However, a number of people think EXIF should be provided, just not required to promote.

Summary of summary:

• 1.1 and 1.2 are not clear consensus.
• If you agree with me that this process doesn't need to have discussions on items where only a minority favors overturning the existing consensus, 1.3-1.6 and 1.8 can be considered settled. If you don't agree, then you may want discussion on these items; for example Kaldari and Makeemlighter do not favor vote counting at all.
• 1.7 may need some brief discussion if the result would change the status quo.
• 1.9-11 probably do not need more discussion, although any concept of "quorum" probably still does, if we are to use one.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Me. Fletcher (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
2. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:22, 7 June 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.