Forum:Featured image modification
Recently there has been an influx of nominations for featured images by the same person who uploaded the image. This seems to me like it's against our central ethos, and it also turns the entire FIMG process into something it's not. I'm not going to name any names, but some people are trying to "get" an FIMG, as if it's some sort of achievement, which it should not be. It should be a place for the best images on the wiki to shine. In addition, there are times where people are asking for votes on their FIMG, which seems just wrong to me.
My proposal is to have similar rules for featured images as we have for UotM, namely:
- Images nominated to be featured must be nominated by someone other than the person who uploaded the image.
- No asking for votes on FIMGs. I can't decide if this can be grounds for disqualifying the image (which also kind of defeats the purpose of having the best images).
- No gaming the system. No trading nominations or anything like that.
These rules would be in effect only for the actual FIMG nominations, and not for delisting or replacement. It wouldn't be for delisting there's not much "achievement" in getting your image removed. And it wouldn't be for replacement because it would be useless to upload a new image and hope for someone to notice and and nominate for replacement. ʞooɔ 23:22, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
What? - "Images nominated to be featured must be nominated by someone other than the person who uploaded the image." - What? Why would someone go to the trouble of taking a nice image with the intention of featuring it, then need to ask someone else to nominate it :S ajr 23:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
- To stop people from only doing it to get "credit" for their work.-- 23:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Support If an image is good enough someone else will notice and nom it. This will also stop some of the ridiculous revert wars on pics that people are doing to try to make theirs the better one, solely to have it featured. I think people are getting too caught up in the pics around here half the time. Pics are nice and all but they aren't worth the arguments I have seen over them.--23:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I saw your discussion with said person and this does seem the best way to stop them doing this and "wanting credit" for there pictures.00:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as is, support with modification - I like the general idea, except that I think we should only block users from nominating for a certain amount of time. I'd say a reasonable limitation is two weeks. Blocking the user from nominating indefinitely seems wrong. --LiquidTalk 01:38, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean you oppose my "modification" as is, but support my modification with a modification? Okay. ʞooɔ 02:43, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't solve anything...people will wait 2 weeks. HaloTalk 04:15, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Support - (Still looking for the Wikipedia essay on this or a similar topic) While I don't usually look at FIMG, I have noticed in the recent changes about obtaining credit for images. This trend reminds me of the Tari images/animations and the templates. For those who are all about obtaining credit, don't declare ultimatums and just write a damn encyclopedia. Spouting about support X image for FIMG should be taken the same way as RfA's, no tolerance. This isn't a campaign but is a volunteer service. Ryan PM 03:27, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- There is no Wikipedia proscription, de facto or de jure, of nominating one's work or one's self for anything. Any essays (which I do not believe exist) suggesting there be one are thoroughly ignored as senseless. (wszx) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Can we add a point that says "If anyone adds a bullet point to Halo's statements they will die"? Because that is really hacking me off. I would prefer it if no one would use bullet points, but people are addicted to those... HaloTalk 04:25, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Support - Per all10:02, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I agree that this has been getting out of hand lately, but would nominations for replacement also follow these guidelines? As far as I know, you aren't supposed to change a featured image, so a replacement image is often uploaded as a brand new image rather than a new version of a current featured image. Others would not notice the brand new image unless the uploader replaced the link of the current image with the new image, which you shouldn't do because it would render the current image unused in the mainspace. It would only make sense for the user who uploaded the new image to nominate it.14:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- No, it wouldn't be for replacement. You pretty much summed up why :) ʞooɔ 18:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- -facepalm- I just realized you already mentioned it. My bad for not reading more closely. 00:02, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. I would like the nominator to explain why proposing one's own images is "against our central ethos" or what the FIMG process ought to be that such occurrences impede instead of just using such glittering platitudes. There is nothing wrong with receiving credit for one's work. (In fact, receiving such credit often encourages more participation, which is ultimately a positive for this project). Actively seeking recognition may not be honorable, but it should not be disallowed. Editors should be generally permitted to participate here as they wish, and this includes allowing them to identify themselves as one who actively desires recognition. Their reputation shall develop accordingly and the wiki gets high quality images. (wszx) 21:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support - Per Bluesonic; I personally think that all of the images that I've uploaded are beautiful, but I'm sure others may not have the same opinion. The FIMG is for images recognized by others as being great, not for people boasting their own images as being "number one". Sir Punchula 17:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC)