Forum:Allow FIMG self nominations
- See also: Forum:Featured image modification; Forum:Featured images self-nominations; Forum:Changes to RuneScape:Featured images
As we grow as a community we evolve as well. If you didn't know, we used to have quite a number of credit whores. While this is a bad thing, we have created a rule in attempt to counter them that prevents users from having the community discuss the work that they have done and are personally proud of.
I think it's a silly rule to have. We don't allow anyone to claim personal ownership of an image, but there's nothing wrong with being proud of your work. Of course there are people who seek nothing but recognition *cough* Hairr *cough*, but are these follicles not few and far between? On top of that, we are told not to ask another user to do the nomination. Even more sillier. There is nothing wrong with getting someone's attention and asking that if they think it's worthy, to nominate it on their behalf (but not stating such).
As for the narcissists, we can deal with them on a case by case basis. If you really think that someone is trying to promote their own work rather than the beauty of an image, confront them. Tell them to stop touting their own images and that if they continue, you'll have it considered a breach of the ownership policy.
To please any neigh-sayers, I propose a pseudo-rule that prevents any user from self-nominating their own images a certain amount of times as well as a limit on how long they must wait to nominate their own images and a limit on how many of their images can exist as currently featured images via self-nomination. AND a rule on how long a user must wait before self-nominating after a self-nomination of theirs has been delisted. But of course, all these "rules" will simply be to uphold the spirit of the ownership policy. We would allow someone who is sincerely modest yet proud to have a number of images featured via self-nomination and on the opposite end a known credit goblin to not have any featured at all. These are only extremes though; we should deal with any egotists on a case by case basis.
Support – as the self-nominator. MolMan 17:25, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I see nothing wrong with users self-nominating their images that they took. If it is good, it is good. If it is bad, it is bad. Regardless of the image taker, the same consensus is going to be made over the image... Hair 17:33, April 7, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Does it really matter who the nom is? If it's terrible it'll get oppose-stormed, so we may as well allow people to say "hey I did this image a few days ago, FIMG pls?"
As for a limit, that's probably a good idea, since otherwise some users may flood the FIMG requests with 10 images they took that afternoon. Perhaps a maximum of once a week? I know it sounds harsh but it may be the best way to prevent nomination creep. Real Nub 09:47, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Self-nominations are fine as long as we can properly manage them. Although placing a limit on the number of images through self-nomination seems unnecessary. If it's passed, it's automatically good.
Also, as I've been told by Hairr that I can be bold about this, I would like to change the format for RS:FIMG. Separating nominations into new and replacements/delisting will help us manage our requests better, in my opinion. Maybe not the ideal place for it, but I would love your inputs for this proposal. Alchez 13:35, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- The limit will not be a true limit. It'll be more as a reminder to self-nominators to stay true to the ownership policy. I would word it to sound more like a suggestion than a law. MolMan 18:55, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Support - So funny that I proposed just about this in the last thread, haha. Anyway, yes, this seems fine - I can't imagine any egotists that would flood FIMG with their own images, like random villagers' bracelets or pizza dough or ridiculosities like that. That being said, we should abolish the rule. *prepares assault on FIMG*18:43, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- [[:File:Villager armband detail.png]] is a damn fine image. Thank you very much. MolMan 18:45, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- I already called out Hairr. The one and only credit whore. MolMan 23:56, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it to yourself. 12:30, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
- GTFO tbh. No one should be singled out here. I kinda believe that no one is truly that much of an egotist for there to need to be intervention. We all have our own perceptions of who does what with what motive. Whether you are correct or not, keep it to yourself and don't make these insulting suggestions because no one cares to see that. MolMan 18:41, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I heard free caek was given to those who support. Cblair91 (9 more options) ▸ Choose OptionUser Cblair91Talk to Cblair91Contributions Cblair91Achievements Cblair91Sandbox Cblair91Slayer LogSqueel of Fortune LogDaily Challenge LogMy Pages 23:57, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
I support removing this stipulation for the same reasons I opposed its implementation when it was proposed. (wszx) 05:41, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I'm not too sure on "a limit on how many of their images can exist as currently featured images via self-nomination". I dunno, I feel like this would deter those who you described as "sincerely modest" from taking and uploading amazing screenshots. 13:00, April 10, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I've always found it rather ridiculous how people can self nominate for things like RfAs, which if passed could be a lot more damaging and requires very little knowledge of the wiki, yet not self nominate in FIMGs, which requires a lot more technical knowledge from a new user. Which one is more likely to cause harm, and which one is currently barred from self nominations?12:12, April 12, 2013 (UTC)
i nominate [[File:fakevandlizm.jpg]] as a candidate for FIMG If a user takes a good screenshot they should be able to nominate it - it doesn't actually affect the outcome if another person nominates it Sherlock 18:47, April 13, 2013 (UTC)