Forum:Featured images self-nominations

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Featured images self-nominations
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 May 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

Remove the rule disallowing self-nominations on RuneScape:Featured images. It was completely silly to add this rule in the first place.

Having this rule in place discourages uploaders from nominating their own images, and there could've been many more images featured if the uploader could nominate the image. Not only that, but it discourage users from uploading images, as they know they cannot nominate it for featured status, and it sort of defeats one of the two main purposes of having them. Let me be honest, good/featured articles are one of the three main reasons I still edit on Wikipedia, and I don't know if I would still be editing on Wikipedia regularly if I wasn't allowed to nominate articles I've significantly contributed to for that status.

Previous thread: Forum:Featured image modification. In the previous thread, it is was mentioned that nominating the image one uploaded themselves is "against our central ethos" and "turns the entire FIMG process into something it's not," although there is no evidence to support that. Receiving some credit for helping get an image to featured status only encourages more participation, which is clearly a positive. If they want to brag about it, they can go ahead and do so. Their bragging could encourage others to upload their own images (people's bragging encouraged me to edit regularly on Wikipedia). There's absolutely nothing wrong with nominating your own image.

Another thing that was said is it may stop some revert wars. First, if there are revert wars going on, the image should definitely not be featured, and other actions will need to be taken (user's are already told not to edit an image while it's being voted on). In addition, revert wars can result in a positive if the users discuss the changes and decide on the better one. This doesn't warrant having the rule in place.

Lastly, this doesn't stop people from taking credit for their own work. Even if someone else nominates the image and it gets featured, the uploader can still brag about it. It doesn't eliminate that possibility. I personally don't think it even discourages the possibility. Smithing 23:02, April 24, 2011 (UTC)


Oppose - I think it would cause more people to upload more junky images or duplicates or images that have nothing to do with RuneScape just to get them featured. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:07, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

No, it definitely would not. People know junky images will never get featured, and they wouldn't bother uploading that type of image just to nominate it. Duplicates would probably be deleted (a warning can be added on RuneScape:Featured articles telling them to check to see if there are any duplicates). Smithing 23:14, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately some human beings do not think this way. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:26, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Then those images will fail and be deleted. That still does not take away from the fact that this will overall widen our repository of great images. ajr 02:52, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - RuneScape:RuneScape Wiki is not...#... Wikipedia. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to any rule or policy, just my own experiences that directly relate to this topic. Smithing 23:17, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - First: Wikipedia is SO great and it's wonderful you edit, but please keep that kind of things on the place it's supposed to be, thanks. Then I think it's good to keep this rule. It's preventing unneeded discussions over images only the uploader likes, and if the uploader really likes the image, he should just ask someone else to nominate it. If he can't find anyone who would want to nominate it, it's probably not going to pass anyway, so unneeded to go through a nom. Also, could you explain how this would reduce edit wars? I have seen some reuploads during FIMG noms which caused another revert then. That's more revert warring than what would happen if the images weren't nommed, so less useless FIMG noms, less revert wars. Kthxbai. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:24, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

So what if its not going to pass? Only 20 % of images here pass anyways, even with other people nominating it. Please identify the problem. And I never said it would reduce edit wars, its just the very minute greater chance of it occurring doesn't warrant disallowing people from nominating their won images. Smithing 23:35, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
yay for winning images =D
And, if it's 20% passing now, the amount of noms passing would be reduced even more if we'd allow self-noms. Just saying there are amounts lower than 20. It's amazing, isn't it?
The problem is that it's useless discussion. hot air. (CO2 is bad!) We could also spend that time on making more good images, for example. Who cares if they don't get FIMG? It improves the articles they're used on, which is actually the main goal. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:44, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
I look at disallowing people from nominating their own images as disallowing IP's to edit on this Wiki. Sure, there will be less vandalism if we didn't allow them to edit, but that also means there would be less people editing on the Wiki and lower quality articles. Same thing goes with the featured images. The chance may be lowered, but the quality of images will increase, and users will be more encouraged to edit here. That's how I look at it. Smithing 23:53, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Regarding your second paragraph... of course having the rule discourages users from nominating their own images. It's why the rule is there in the first place. Also, I don't see how it discourages users from uploading images, since many of our images are simply item inventory images or maps. Not all images are taken with the intention of eventually having them featured. We have several users who continue to upload excellent images even with the rule in place; they do it to make the wiki better, not nominate them and feel good about it.  Tien  23:26, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Because people know that they can nominate it themselves to have it featured, and not wait ages to have it nominated. Smithing 23:35, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

...I've done lots of self-nominations. Blush dont ban me pls --Iiii I I I 23:43, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

sry ur b& ur so bad
bad fetus JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:46, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Slight Support - While I understand and kind-of agree with what the others are saying. I believe people should have the right to self-nominate images because of a multitude of reasons: For RfA's we can self-nominate ourself. So, if we went with fergie's idea of it would create a large amount of people self-nomming their images, wouldn't the same happen for RfA's, except probablly more so because Adminship is much more popular then just having a image become featured. Secondly, if a person REALLY wanted to get their image nominated, they could just make a fake account and nominate it with this one, so it wouldn't really hold back anyone. Also, for the common troll that would nominate horrible images that serve no purpose for featured images doesn't really know of FIMG as well as other things, probablly. And if they did, what's to stop them from doing it anyway as a self-nomination? Per iiiiiiiiiiiii up there. Just my 2 cents :D  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spamnub (talk).

Comment - People need to SHUT UP and stop whining about Smithing mentioning Wikipedia. RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA specifically talks about policies, and nothing more. Let him mention his editing experiences there, it isn't breaking any policies and is perfectly acceptable. 222 talk 01:00, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We still have an issue with people trying to do things for nothing more than credit. This should not be a motivation for nominating featured images, and the idiotic fighting over images would most certainly intensify if we reopened the floodgates like this. ʞooɔ 02:20, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Allowing self nomination gives more incentive for people to take and upload really high-quality images. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:32, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Extreme bukkit support - Never done one of these on a serious forum before, but I could not support this proposal more. FIMG is not being used nearly enough, and all that this would do is help people get interested in it again. Heck, I might even try my hand at it and see if I can get a good image or two :) - There are only benefits to this, including but not limited to:

  • Developing a larger repository of excellent and visually appealing images.
  • Making an inactive area of the wiki active again.
  • Making me happy.

Additionally, I see no problem with Smithing referencing Wikipedia. Even though I personally don't really like enwp, it is the largest wiki out there, and I definitely think that we can learn a thing or two from them. ajr 02:50, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

You silly smoker rabbit, no one cares if this makes you happy or not. --LiquidTalk 11:18, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
I do. Now you made me, Aj's entertainer very sad!! Rewards Trader (Christmas) chathead.png User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:23, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per supporters. If one would upload an image of something that is not visited often, it likely won't be seen, or at least very late. I don't think the rule should be completely deleted though, but modified:


This will likely stop junk nominations, as people would not want their quota to be wasted. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:44, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Two or three? Are you kidding me? There were only four nominations in all of April. ʞooɔ 16:50, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Apathy - I really don't care either way, but the "encouraging people to contribute more" argument used by so many supporters sounds awfully familiar... --LiquidTalk 11:18, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - As Spamnub points out RfAs can be self nommed, and although there [[RuneScape:Requests_for_adminship/Sssssddddd|are]] some bad cases, there have also been good cases. So whilst we do have some rotten eggs, we also have plenty of excellent eggs. If that is what it is like for RfAs with self nomination, it may in turn become like this in FIMGs. I believe it's worth the risk of a couple of bad eggs if we get lots of good eggs in return. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 12:38, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Wake up from your delusions DO you see some of the crap that is nominated? Boring, ugly, dull, bland featureless blobs that barely deserve to be in an article half the time. This will TOTALLY bring us tons more of the crap and very little worth featuring. I seriously doubt that even 1/3 of you supporters have even browsed the last 20 nominated images. We do, however, already have a large number of pics that are featured. It is not like we are in short supply and are in desperate need for more of them.--Degenret01 12:54, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Something about "the more the merrier" comes to mind... and even if only 1/3rd of the images nominated are good, we are still getting more good images than we had before. ajr 13:12, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
It's not a crime to nominate a bad image. If it's bad, it won't pass. I remember the time I just joined this wiki, where at times there could be 8 nominations at once. Now we have to be happy if there are 4. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:19, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
And who wants to deal with the bad images? I'll admit that we had more good edits in the achievements trial, but the bad edits were so much more that it was overall negative. If we have a few more good images, but many more bad images, I do not think it's worthwhile. --LiquidTalk 14:04, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with a nomination. Again: if it's bad, it won't get featured. If there will be too many nominations (which I doubt; it went perfectly fine before the implementation of the rule), we can set a max. noms at a time limit. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:28, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
I meant bad images uploaded onto pages on the wiki. Who wants to tag them for deletion? --LiquidTalk 14:32, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Heck, I'd do it. If they are bad images that have failed an FIMG nom, they should be deleted. Perhaps we could even establish some image guideline (not a rule, because there would be some obvious exceptions) for speedy deleting images, rather than needing to start an RfD for each of them. ajr 14:47, April 25, 2011 (UTC)
Liquid, If the wiki needed a group of users to go through bad images, and mark them for deleation, I'm sure a good load of people would sign up for it. Including me. So that wouldn't be a problem. Spamnub 20:03, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - What makes images worthy to be featured? If they're taken with the orb of oculus, most likely. There are also other factors, like how graphically detailed or colorful the image is and the angle at which the image was taken. Now, we can't help it if an image is boring or empty, even if they're taken with the orb of oculus. We can probably all agree that this image would never be featured (no offense to uploader), just because the detail and color are naturally poor. However, images like this and this will probably always be featured-worthy, regardless of angle, simply because of the great detail/texture/color (and don't say that it wouldn't look good from behind; no uploader would take a screenie of a mithril dragon's behind and use it as the main image for the article, even if RS:FI didn't exist). What I'm trying to get at is... I don't think our images will increase in quality because featured images are often determined by their in-game features - something we don't have control over. Played-determined factors, like angle, are minor. Very few images become featured solely because of angle. This image comes close, but that's because the detail is very nice (and again, the detail is just a natural part of the image). If the detail was bad, it would never become a featured image, no matter what angle it was taken at. The orb of oculus is important as well, but pretty much every image is taken with the orb anyway. Just my two cents.  Tien  14:24, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - In the end it's an image. If that image looks awesome and had a ton of work put into it, does it really matter that it was the uploader who nominates it? Smuff [kthnxbai] 14:59, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Encourages people to upload crappy images with fancy angles and colors, rather than images that are actually useful. bad_fetustalk 15:06, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

And how are visually appealing images not useful? We can delete the crap, but ultimately, having lots of nice images is a net positive, not a harmful thing. ajr 16:00, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Although I love to live in my delusions of a world where things like FIMG and such don't matter much and people love to contribute for the joy of bettering a common cause, I do know that it is rather nice to be appreciated for a job well done. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:29, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

I enjoy and agree with this statement greatly. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:31, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Slight Support - I like fswe1's idea, however I think if we do allow self nominations we reduce them to only 1 nomination a month. That was it will hopefully force those that do want to nominate an image they upload to be of good quality. People might spam the wiki though with images so we should prepare for that if this does go through. User:Exor Solieve 03:51, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Let's develop a criteria for image speedy deletion (not to be followed at all times, of course). This criteria will allow us to remove the bad FIMG candidates after they have failed a nomination, but allow good/OK ones to stay. I'll start another forum on this should this one pass. And, I know, all of you opposers don't want to spend your time deleting them, so don't worry about that when it comes. I can delete them all, if you really want. ajr 13:16, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

All this effort for allowing people to nom their own images... I'd rather nom a caek if u don't mind. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger nom nom nom 14:47, April 26, 2011 (UTC)
I see, so because you are very lazy, we shouldn't do it? ajr 03:15, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ajr, images are supposed to be used in mainspace before they are nominated to be featured. Because of that, there would be no need to delete any attempted featured images, and images should not be uploaded solely for the purpose of featuring them. ʞooɔ 06:53, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
OK, in that case, we don't even need this, but rather to enforce the previous rule. ajr 13:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

I support removing this stipulation for the same reasons I opposed its implementation when it was proposed. (wszx) 17:23, April 26, 2011 (UTC)

Wszx, We haven't reached a verdict yet on if we should or shouldn't do this, and as you can see, it's not just opposition anymore. We have a lot more supports. I say we wait until we have some more ideas or compromises before we close anything. Spamnub 01:44, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about. (wszx) 01:51, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
He meant he supported the proposal (as in he supports removing the self-nom rule), not closing it. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:52, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
And I did not call for the thread's closure, so you can understand my continued confusion at why he directed that at me. (wszx) 01:55, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking the confusion came from "I support removing this stipulation". But oh well. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:57, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I was confused because of that sentance. Whoops. Spamnub 16:13, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Question - What's so hard about asking someone else to nominate it? It ensures you atleast one other person wants your image to be featured, which would probably reduce the amount of "I like it cuz I made it" nominations quite a bit, and the nice images still get featured. I absolutely don't see what the big problem is in this, so could someone please explain why we would want to reintroduce this extra amount of useless discussion while we could filter the bad nominations even before any discussion starts. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:41, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, consider that the process is basically unused after that rule was introduced, I'd say that it's very hard. Also, are you learning disabled or something, because it has been stated many times above why supporters find it a good idea. The simple fact is this - far less people want to upload a great image and wait for somebody else to nominate it when they could upload a great image and nominate it themselves. ajr 13:48, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
That "are you learning disabled or something" wasn't really needed.
And no, people haven't said anything about what they think of letting others nominate images for them. Not about letting people ask others either. And like I said clearly, it's not waiting for others to nominate the image, it is asking someone to nominate the image. That is something different, and I don't see the problem with this. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:12, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ajr is right, that has basically been unused. Rarely anyone is aware of that, and people would be much more encouraged to nominate images if this rule wasn't in place at all. Second, it takes much longer to get your image nominated, especially if someone else thinks the image isn't FI status when the community might say that it is, meaning less FI's. Smithing 21:59, April 27, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Joey, I was asking a very honest question. I am always perplexed at how you manage to never, ever read what anybody is saying. But if you aren't, there isn't any need to continue on this. As I said, with the current system nobody wants to upload images when nobody nominates good images, and will never notice theirs. ajr 22:21, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to point out something else in regards to nominating your own images. This in little way encourages bad-faith nominations as there are other ways of disrupting the wiki, such as nominating other people's crappy images in order to start unnecessary discussion or try a breaching experiment. And second, as was sort of pointed out, the rule encourages negative behaviour such as sock-puppetry. Smithing 21:59, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

There has been nothing of the sort. You're hypothesizing things that haven't happened in the eight months that the rule has been in place. ʞooɔ 22:21, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Psycho Robot opposes this suggestion - Part of me wants to say "people who will only upload images so they can nominate it can go screw off, because they don't care about improving the wiki - only about getting a boost to their ego", however that's not really a fair argument. Even if people are only uploading images for selfish reasons, they are still leaving the wiki with a good image. However, that may work for wikipedia, where editors are more mature and there is far more content, so people can spread out, so to speak. However, in RuneScape, our editors are, generally speaking, less mature (especially cook) and there is far less content for people to do featured images about. Sure, there are a lot of items and things, but there's so few interesting things to have pictures taken of. Its all boss monsters and high level equipment. Who really wants to spend time taking a high quality image of a chicken? And even if they did, what are the odds people will vote to nominate it? So, the people who only upload if they could nominate it will all be fighting over a small amount of "elite" content images, constantly voting to replace each other. By encouraging people to upload images in this method, we concentrate a lot of image editors on the elite stuff, so the boring stuff like chicken goes neglected. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:42, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily [[:File:Camp maggie.PNG|elite,]] [[:File:Lumbridge.png|Psycho]]!! Smile User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:10, April 28, 2011 (UTC)
There are thousands and thousands of images on this wiki that have the potential to be featured. Considering the relatively low amount of self-noms that occurred previous to the implementation of the rule, the amount of images and the amount of users, it is unreasonable to assume that it will cause any significant problems in regards to fighting over content images to have them featured (I checked the previous archives when the rule wasn't in place and did not find it to be a problem).
In addition, if they were to nominate images only for some credit, they would not or be very unlikely to upload and improve images on the wiki at all with the rule in place, because they know they may have to much, much longer for it to be nominated. We'd only be encouraging them to help the wiki out when they otherwise wouldn't have. Smithing 08:50, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
Thousands and thousands? Hardly. There are a hundred at the most that would have even a remote chance of passing. The cancerous, credit-begging, ego-stroking attitude that some people have towards images was just starting to heat up, and it has continued to this day. There are revert wars over whose image is better (which really did not used to occur in much regularity), and giving another outlet for this is not something I want to see happen. And if the only reason people are making images is to get them featured (as you seem to be implying), that is a huge problem. ʞooɔ 08:58, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
That is, unfortunately, true. Although I, for example, "participate" in revert was because I think that image is better because A and B, not because it's "mine". User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:43, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if people have to wait longer to have their images nominated. If the pride of getting an image featured doesn't matter... I'd personally feel more awesome if someone noticed and nominated my image than if I nominated it myself, even if it takes months for it to get noticed. And Psycho does make a good point. Boring things don't get featured; it's always the cool, detailed, colorful images that do. As I mentioned earlier, we have absolutely no control over such factors. I wouldn't be surprised if, as RuneScape progresses, we get more featured images simply because of all the graphical improvements that Jagex has been focusing on.  Tien  17:57, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
First, I've seen many more interesting and very good images on the wiki than a hundred, so I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion. And also, I examined over twenty self-noms and did not find one revert war that was caused because one wanted credit. The revert wars as a result of this is not an issue in the grand scheme of things. And no, there is absolutely no problem with doing it for credit. People can try to get credit in many ways, by making significant improvement to articles, by creating a new page etc., and we shouldn't be prohibiting them from nominating because of this. Helping get an image featured can be a very rewarding and good experience for them. And it only improves our images and the quality of the wiki. What's the problem, really?
And Tien, of course I'd feel better if that happened, too. But really, the chance is very low it will be nominated, anyways. If people have to wait longer, they'll be discouraged from making improvements to images, and this wiki will suffer. People need to understand this. The positives of self-noms far overweight the negatives. Smithing 01:22, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
But they really don't. You're talking about these things like there's a possibility of them happening in the future, but they have not happened over the course of the last eight months. We have a very lively group of Featured image discussions going on; nothing is wrong with the way things currently are. ʞooɔ 01:40, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong is that people are denied the chance of nominating their own uploaded image, something which is not bad at all, and that they can get banned for it. That is what's wrong, and something needs to be done about it. Smithing 01:52, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
There is no chance in hell of someone getting banned for nominating their own image. Get serious. ʞooɔ 02:04, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
They can still get banned for it regardless. Smithing 02:39, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
That is utterly insane. ʞooɔ 02:45, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is block (ban) them from nominating, which there was some consensus to do in the previous thread. Sorry for the confusion. Smithing 03:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to remove the current restriction. Suppa chuppa Talk 10:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)