Zelda Wiki talk:Featured Picture Nomination

Votes
Can I vote for the same picture twice or more? --Link hero of light 13:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)


 * I don't really think that would be fair :) --Adam 14:12, 18 December 2007 (EST)

Too many pictures
I'd just like to point out that this page has too many Currently Nominated images...--Bigrageous 00:53, 28 December 2007 (EST)


 * Well it used to be six. Adam, left six when there were like seven or eight, I think.  So I think were over and he allowed it this one time, but after one more picture becomes featured the rule will be enforced.  So were free from the rule in that there are five pictures, but we can't nominate anymore.  Sorry I'm tired so I'm not as clear in my words.--Green 01:03, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I'm still kinda new here, but who is Adam?--Claire 00:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Adamcox82 is a sysop. He is probably the most active member of the wiki.--Link hero of light 00:52, 29 December 2007 (EST)

Inconsistent Featured Time
It seems a little bizarre to have one image/article featured for less than five days, and then another featured for a month. Perhaps instead of putting up the next one as soon as its voted on, just add it to a list that's rotated weekly (or something along those lines)? --Douken 19:57, 15 February 2008 (EST)


 * I've been thinking the same thing for a while now; to be honest I'm still trying to decide whether the rotation should be weekly, hourly or daily! I'll work on the coding, if you guys could let me know what you'd prefer. To be honest, this has become such a popular feature that each picture will inevitably become featured at some stage (except if the original nominator removes or replaces it), so this would be a more reasonable than what we currently have (where, by rights, I should now be replacing the picture featured only 36 hours ago with a new one!) --—Adam (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2008 (EST)


 * OK, so made a decision and I've set up a schedule which will allow the pictures to be automatically rotated every 48 hours. When a new picture reaches 10 votes, I'll override the auto-rotation and leave it up on the main page for about 7-10 days, than switch back to auto-rotation. At the moment we have Sheik, which will stay up until of next week, then I'll replace it with the pigs until the end of the month, then on to automatic rotation until another pic gets 10 votes (of course, that may change if we get more votes sooner...)
 * As a side thought, we may have to add a subsection for voting AGAINST a picture being featured, since otherwise a picture which some may have legitimate objections to will eventually get featured anyway; thoughts? —Adam (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2008 (EST)


 * The schedule definitely sounds like a good addition. As for voting against a picture being featured, it sounds genius.  I suppose there would be a page listing all featured articles with vote listings underneath it, and ten or twelve votes would be able to disqualify from being featured? --Douken 10:48, 16 February 2008 (EST)


 * I was thinking more like this for adding opposition to nominations. I'd say three votes against should be enough to disqualify an article (after all, if there is justifiable criticism against it, this should carry more weight than votes in favour). —Adam (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2008 (EST)

So after looking at the featured material rotation schedule, I have to ask... what happens after there are over 15 featured articles / pictures? --Ando (T : C) 13:40, 26 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Good question. Short answer; I don't know! This was the only solution I could come up with for automatic rotation, and I realised at the time that it could only work temporarily. Suggestions would be most welcome! —Adam (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Ok, so the hour is nigh, and the schedules are full:
 * Zelda Wiki.org:Featured Article schedule
 * Zelda Wiki.org:Featured Picture schedule
 * The only immediate solution I can see is to remove the current duplication in these lists, and have each article featured for only 24 hours. My problem with this is that it seems an awfully short time, and also that the rotation would then only work for the first 2 weeks of each month. This was only my interim solution to the rising activity in this area. Maybe we need to change to something like a simple chronological list, whereby the article is manually changed to the next in sequence each week (or whatever period is deemed appropriate)? Thoughts? —Adam (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Hold on...
I've read the rules of voting, and although they're almost entirely what I need to know, one thing eludes me.

Let's say I vote on, say, April 20. Does this mean I have to wait until May 20 to vote again, or can I vote by May 1? —Yuvorias 22:31, 22 March 2008 (EST)


 * Well Adam made a vote on the 23rd of February, and then the next less than a whole month after, on the 20th of March. So I'd say that if a sysop can do it, so can you. As long as the calendar month has changed, go for it. --Ando (Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

Righto, thanks. --Yuvorias, 12:36 23 March, 2008 (EST)


 * Yeah, that's the intention; 1 vote per calendar month. So you could vote on the 31st of March and again on the 1st of April, then leave your next vote until the 27th of May, for example. 3 calendar months, 3 votes; the spacing of those votes is immaterial (also, I don't think I could manage to count 28 days between everyone's votes AND retain my sanity!) —Adam (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

Young Link with the Master Sword
Hey, since the picture has 10 signed votes, isn't it ready to have be a featured picture now? Or does the fact that some of the votes aren't "signed correctly" (i.e. they just typed --theirname instead of -- ~ )? --Ando (T : C) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Yup, my vote was the clincher, just didn't have time to do the business. Done now :) —Adam (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Supporting and Opposing Votes
You can normally only vote once a month, if I'm not mistaken. Does this limitation apply uniformly to both supporting and opposing votes (so one could simultaneously support one image and oppose another)? --Douken 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)


 * WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, SIR --Ando (T : C) 21:28, 4 April 2008 (EDT)


 * Ah, sorry, you're right, I should have checked both nomination pages first. (Still, was the hatred really necessary?) --Douken 14:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not hatred, but surely uncalled-for annoyance. Really, block caps? Harsh ;) —Adam (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Aw, poop. I didn't mean to pass myself off as annoyed. Sorry about that. It was more so just trying to be humorous? Bah, it's hard to explain. Just know that I wasn't annoyed with you or anything! :D --Ando (T : C) 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding a picture
Can just anyone add a picture to be nominated? I had some ideas and wasn't sure how. ZeldaGirl96 20:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead, just follow the guidelines at the top of the page :) 20:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Replacing Old Pictures with New Versions.
How are we going to do this? When a old featured image has a new and better replacement created, how are we going to get that featured. I've thought this through and I have a few ideas.
 * Option A
 * Nominate the new image, make a note in the summary that it is intended as a replacement for an existing one.
 * When voted in, the new image replaces the old one in the gallery at the bottom and on the featured image template.
 * Option B
 * Nominate the new image, make a note in the summary that it is intended as a replacement for an existing one.
 * When voted in, the new image replaces the old one in the featured image template. But the old image is automatically disqualified and is marked as such.

I would prefer option B as it is better for records. So let's decide. I know that we need to do this with the Faron image and Death Sword image. I think this could work. 17:30, August 29, 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd go with B too. I'd also suggest that maybe these substitute/improved images should be excluded from the normal limit of four nominees at a time, otherwise the process of upgrading existing images may begin to interfere with choosing new ones. 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in another section of the page? 20:36, August 29, 2008 (UTC)

what?!
somebody deleted my nomination before anyone voted.Dragonstetraforce 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, you haven't made a featured picture nomination at all. 20:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

i JUST SAID it was DELETED. *breaks keyboard*Dragonstetraforce 20:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Grow up and cut out the attitude. What Ando (correctly) pointed out was that you've never made an edit to the Featured Picture Nomination page . So neither of your above comments make any sense. 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

yes i did. but just to be sure is the featured picture format differnt than featurd article?Dragonstetraforce 22:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

oh wait i forgot. server crash. ignore my last 3 comments.Dragonstetraforce 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Like... a Zelda Wiki server crash? Am I the, uh, only person on staff who doesn't know anything about this at all? 12:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

i wouldent exactly say it was a server crash. more of a error that was on this page a few days ago. it said something like "cannot edit#{ – } login error" or something. im not sure if im the only one who saw it.Dragonstetraforce 21:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

links piggy pals
already featured.Dragonstetraforce 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No one put it on the nomination page, or did they? 20:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, I think DTF is confused because it's back on the main page. The featured articles and featured pictures are on a rotating schedule, so you'll see the same ones pop up every now and then. They change every 2 days. 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

i get it. Dragonstetraforce 18:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

More nominations
I think that more nominations should be alowed. The only reason four was made the maximum was because once there was about 10 nominations. I think the maximum nomination should be moved up to six at a time. Lately, the pictures have been getting very few votes and we haven't had a new picture in awhile. If Six picture were allowed, we could have a new picture more often.--Link hero of light 02:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is okay by me. Sound great. 02:50, November 4, 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a vote?--Link hero of light 03:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure we'll have new featured pictures more often, but I don't see the harm in bumping it up by one or two. 03:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... when the one or two more opposition votes didn't have any harm and you rejected it? You, sir, are terribly inconsistent with your standards. This could let in "average content" just like it was claimed for the opposition votes. And I'm all for it! 03:42, November 4, 2008 (UTC)


 * ...How did you get that? I saw harm in doing that. I don't see harm in this, meaning I don't see how it could let in any average content. I mean, we've got unlimited featured article nominations, and that hasn't proven to allow average content. If you could enlighten me, though, please do so. I'd like to know any risks this will carry. 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly!!! I could not see how you could think that there was harm in the opposition votes. You cannot see what harm is in this. It doesn't make sense. Either of them! Why? There is no harm in either. It was a test. 04:33, November 4, 2008 (UTC)


 * I've increased the maximum amount to six nominees. IMO, this will not enable images to be featured more frequently; the opposite will happen, since the votes cast will be spread more thinly between the available candidates. But time, and not opinions, will tell.
 * Also, Matt (and, to a lesser extent, Ando), please stop arguing about every single word which the other writes. This is a completely different issue from those previously raised, and should be treated as such. I find it absurd that two people who share the same opinion on something should still use it as an opportunity to disagree with each other. P.S. this is just my opinion, and not a reason to start a secondary dispute ;) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't really arguing. I intentionally made an absurd claim about this policy. Just to so you two how I felt when you unintentionally made the very same absurd claim about my policy. They are both ridiculous claims. I've clearly spelled out that the downsides that you two pointed out in it do not exist, yet you will not change your minds. Now who is being unreasonable? 20:25, November 4, 2008 (UTC) Are you biased here Adam? You approved and implemented something you liked without hesitation. But we had to vote on one you didn't like. That doesn't look quite right.


 * OK, I'll say it again. This and the voting policy issues are entirely different, so if you want to flog that dead horse please could you do it here? On the subject at hand, the limit of four was a purely arbitrary one set my myself, in order to combat a particular issue at the time. It has no bearing on general voting policy (which the other suggestions do, hence the difference) so I see no need for a vote when there is already a consensus of 4:0. (Also Matt, rest assured that, as frustrating as it may be for you that nobody else can see things from your point of view, it's just as frustrating for them that neither can you!) 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Nomination limit changed
'''As stated above, the limit for concurrent featured picture nominations has been increased from four to six. If you have any concerns, comments or suggestions relating to this change, please add these below for due consideration. Thank you. ''' 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Can Nominations be Placed in Advance?
I've got an image I hope to nominate the next go-round. I was wondering if it's possible to go ahead and put it up for the next month. Not really sure how it works. Also, when do they restart? 07:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! Our nominations don't work on a time-limit basis. Once something is nominated, it remains there until either:
 * It gets enough Support votes to become Featured (10),
 * It gets enough Opposition votes to be disqualified (3), or
 * It is removed/withdrawn by the user who originally nominated it.
 * The only real restriction is the maximum of six nominations at any one time. At the moment, we have six so nothing new can be added until one has been removed by one of the three methods described above. A hint; Faron needs only one more vote to become Featured, making way for whatever you want to nominate ;) 17:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just voted for faron. I went ahead and put up the image I wanted to nominate (I hope that's ok).

New header
This was discussed in Skype with some agreement, The negated comments make the page look sloppy, One suggestion was to remove them entirely, but I (and some others) think a better format would be to add a new header "Negated Comments" below "Neutral Comments" as needed only. Since it's a wiki at work here, the best thing to do is get some opinions. 07:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for this, a great idea Axiomist. This would of course also apply to Zelda Wiki.org: Featured Article Nomination if agreed upon. 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Death Sword Opposition
I for one was in support of the semi-transparent version, but I noticed there were three votes there were negated because they apparently went against the rule set for opposing images. My problem with this is that this featured picture nomination is supposed to be highly opinionated, and basically a popularity contest. I for one love that the new image is rendered and transparent, since I think it just looks a lot cleaner on the Wiki. Others like that it was originally placed on a black background because it added to the ghostly feel to it, which was likely the original intention of the image. Nevertheless, in both cases I think its just a clear opinion. Since its a direct comparison, and we are pretty much voting which we prefer, I think that those negated votes should actually count. Otherwise... I would say my vote shouldn't even count, right? Mases 18:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a necessary evil. And they go against the guidelines. They were voting on the subject. Not the picture itself. It clearly says not to do that. There is no debate. 19:01, May 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * How were they voting on the subject? They gave their opinion. Those votes are valid. 19:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Matt does a face palm. It says quite clearly at the top of the page "not liking the style or subject of a particular image is not why it can't be featured." They don't like the style of the image. Voting on the style or subject is against the guidelines. "It doesn't have that ghostly quality"- that's the style of the image. The votes are out. 19:22, May 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * If that is how you judge the validity of a vote. Then just negate mine as well. My vote was not any different than the ones you said to be invalid. 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

While I have no opinion on the images one way or the other, I will agree with Matt that the votes that have been negated are indeed invalid. All state basically the same thing: "it just doesn't look as good stylisticly", which, according to the opposition guideline Matt referenced, makes it invalid. A proper opposition might state that the new image has a much poorer resolution or something (which, clearly, it doesn't), but an opposition of "it doesn't look ghostly enough" is just invalid, as it references the style of the image, not the quality of it. You can vote FOR something based purely on "dude, that's a cool image", but oppositions are strictly for "whoa, that thing's waaaay too blurry for featured status". 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict. I've got to say that I'm with Mandi and Mases, in a way. I don't think that people should oppose an image because they don't like the character, nor because they don't like that type of art. But... I think that in this case, the votes are valid. I see it as a different scenario. We all know that our votes are biased. I believe that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis. That's just my take. 19:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are there to take personal like/dislike of a vote out of the equation. So that things could be clearly defined and there can't be any debate about why something was negated. They were against the rules, so therefore they are out. The rules exist for a reason. To prevent abuse of voting rights. We can't just ignore the rules just because a few users don't like it. That's life. There are always going to be people that take issue with a rule. That's just how it is. So suck it up and move on. And stop this pointless debate. They broke the rules, end of story. 19:50, May 12, 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I kind of see it as the same basic scenario. They don't like it because it doesn't look "ghostly enough", which is a stylistic choice. Also, we set up the guidelines because we were tired of dealing with them on a case-by-case basis. :P Case-by-case gives us exactly what we're dealing with now: "why'd you negate that??" "It was invalid." "Says who?!" etc. 19:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on what has been said. I don't think there is a single valid reason whatsoever why this image could even be opposed. Since it is more or less the exact same image as before. The resolution is the same, the content of the image is the same, etc... It is just an altered version of the image that removes the background. Which by rule, you can't oppose an image because of just that. In that case, what is the purpose of the altered version even being voted on if it cannot be opposed by the only thing that differs it from the original version. I always thought that the purpose of there being nominations and voting for things like this, was that it was supposed to be what the people thought would make a great featured image for the Wiki. I always thought views of the members were important. If that's not the case, then I've been voting incorrectly all along. Mases 21:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all. I changed my opinion. I wasn't seeing the whole picture when I said the votes were valid. As Ando and Matt have both pointed out, the votes in question were indeed invalid. They voted on the subject, not the image itself. Which passes as an invalid vote. 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If the rules that we have put up were actually enforced, there should be no reason that this image should or could have been opposed. I don't understand the purpose of their needing to be a vote for this image to be changed. It was just a matter of time before it was to be replaced. A vote by definition, is an expression of choice or opinion. Since the original version of this image was already voted in, and the only thing that changed is something that cannot be opposed, labeling this as a vote is just wrong. I'm in favor of stopping the vote right now, and just replacing the old image with the new image immediately. In the future, if edits were made to the image with the intent of improving the image, it shouldn't have to go through a waiting period to be submitted. Mases 23:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * He does have a good point. Yes, the votes were invalid, but if/since they are, it makes no real point to even vote on it. 23:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Link6767's Votes
Has anyone noticed that Link6767's votes seem to be a little odd? All he says it "I think it lacks colr and i little lack of dattail", or "i think it isn;t very detailed and has lack of color." Other than the fact he couldn't spell for his life, these vote seem to be invalid. They both say the same thing, and neither appear to be true. Those two images both have great detail, and the Tingle image definitely has color. I know he hasn't broken any rules, but I think he just doesn't like the style of images, and/or that characters. Thoughts? 19:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is something in the works that might prevent users from doing things like that. but sadly it will only work on new users. Already existing users will still be able to do it. 20:01, May 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't wait to see what it is. Maybe it'll make a difference. :) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Does someone want to archive part of this page? It's getting a little clustered and long. 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)