Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hagia Sophia Segment.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2012 at 09:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ground plan of Hagia Sophia

FPX: Below 2MP minimum - A.Savin 10:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Savin, you can't FPX a nominated picture that has support other than the nominator's. And looking on computer-generated featured pictures gallery, it seems like 2MP rule is normally not applied for computer-generated diagrams. Tomer T (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vector image. Of course pixel count rules do not apply. --Tgr (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Dear nominator and supporters, think about this: Let's suppose you are part of a community. You post pictures to see if they are selected among the best content of commons. You work hard to make photos/images/diagrams and then wait for people's votes. Sometimes your pictures get featured sometimes they don't. Images are selected over a consensus of many users who regularly come and vote and somehow set the standards to define whether the pictures should be featurable or not. You have to wait for more than a week, in order to see if your picture gets featured, having to deal with people who are very demanding (that's the whole point on selecting the best content). Then one day comes a person who told other users to support his image, and gets enough supports to be featured in less than a day. I'm not even saying this person forced anyone to vote. But this guys who supported haven't even been active on this forum, don't know the regular standars, nor have they posted many pictures. Do they have the right to vote? yes. Are they doin' it out of any personal interest or as a favor? Hmmm. If you really think it was featurable, then that's ok to feature it on Huwiki where you all are active and have been active for a while. But to come here and vote all at once without having been active is suspicious no matter what. So, think about this, how would you feel, seeing this person get its photo featured with no effort? Would you feel he cheated (be honest with yourself on this point)? How do you think the members of the community would take it? Do you really think this is ethically correct? My personal opinion is, of course everyone on FPC is gonna think "hey, not so easy" and are going to oppose. Before giving any vote myself I want to see if any of you would reconsider your support vote, and what does the nominator have to say about this, as well as other users. This is a good diagram, in my opinion, it would have been featured anyway. But now I'm not so sure: Wiki projects are based on voluntary work and ethics should always be kept high. I think this kind of behaviour should be punished. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but you are talking as if this were some kind of a conspiracy. Do these people come over to vote for other pictures? maybe not. Then again, it's not in their interest and not many photos have ever been nominated from a huwiki user because no one bothers to nominate them, or the uploader doesn't know how to nominate them. I have been asked to nominate this work because the huwiki community thinks this is really an exceptional work of art in quality and the people who voted here voted for it in huwiki as well at the local featured process. They did not vote out of favour or personal interest. Simply when they got to know that it is also up on commons, they voted for its quality. What the hell is wrong with that? Are we not valuable contributors? hell, you are making it look like a bunc of kids are playing around. All these people are long time valuable contributors to wiki, check their contribs yourself, most the of these people have several featured articles and some of them also work with photos on commons, including myself. I am also an OTRS agent and an image patroller on my wiki. So if we are not spending 100% of our time on Commons, then we are morally ineligible to vote on a work of art transferred from our home wiki? Are you friggin' serious? You know what? I start to believe that Commons is becoming an elitistic circle where local users and admins decide on what is right and what is wrong and deny a piece of true artwork and quality image its right to get featured based on nonsense reasoning. You know, this is exactly why most of our users are not keen on uploading anything to Commons anymore, or work with images here, because you guys make everyone feel like a criminal. As a regular contributor of 7 years to Wikipedia, with over 80 thousand edits and 24 featured articles, I REFUSE your accusations and find this utterly disgusting and ridiculous. Why you people can't talk about the picture at a procedure about a picture?! Teemeah (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As expected, you did not read from a neutral point of view, only focused on yourself taking it as an accusation and "REFUSING" and finding "disgusting" etc etc. Can't have an adult conversation like this. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paolo, you make it sound as if featuring is some sort of reward for enduring the hardships of the featuring process. Ideally, it should be be about the hardships of creating the image - if the featuring process itself is also hard, that's just an unfortunate byproduct, not a value that should be defended against all the villains who are unscrupulous enough to mention on their home wiki that they made a nomination. The image itself seems to be on par in quality and difficulty with other featured vector images like [3] or [4]. If there is any problem with it should be explained (opposing without explaining how the author/nominator/reviewers could do better is, as the voting guideline points out, quite unhelpful); if it is of sufficient quality, then what exactly is all the drama about? Opposing an otherwise worthy image out of jealousy that the author would get the star easier than others did is not exactly what I would call higher ethical standards. -Tgr (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One clear point was made. People never participating on FPC, suddenly give 8-9 support votes to a candidate. Does not seem fair to the rest of nominators. No drama to me. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      How the hell is voting for a featured-quality image to be featured unfair? What is unfair is opposing a perfectly good nomination just because you suspect that the supporters gave the right vote for the wrong reason. You are basically threatening to use your vote to disrupt the quality standardization process COM:FPC is meant to be, just to spite some of the other voters. That is petty behavior, and hugely disrespectful to the author, the nominator (who probably should have known better than to make an announcement on the local wiki, but that is no reason to treat her as if she tried to cheat or something) and all the supporters who actually took the time to read up on COM:FP standards and compare the image to other featured vector images (and I'm fairly sure there were a few). I do respect that you at least took the time to explain what your problem is, and did that in a friendly and constructive tone; and I do agree that inviting the friends and co-contributors of the nominee might bias the process, but trying to correct it by "tactical voting" is horribly misguided; especially since you yourself agree that the result is, in this case, correct anyway. --Tgr (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I might be wrong, I might not. So far I have my personal opinion. I understand yours, but don't share it. Let's see what other voters think about this situation; there's still more than a week left. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The texts seem to be given as paths, which makes localization hard. It would be better if those could be replaced with <text> elements (probably not that important for the numbers, but e.g. the N for North might not be obvoius in all cultures). --Tgr (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose now; agree with Paolo Costa and other opposers. There is no meaning in repeating the same opinion at huwiki or any other place here. Here people from all locations are participating so you will get a global feedback. So it is better to keep sitlent after the nomination so that you will get an unbaised review. Here you ruined the chance. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Thank you, Tgr, these are really objections that can be corrected or modified. For the debate: I – as the creator of the picture – really do not miss that star, I will not be more or less as a consequence of getting it or not. From a certain respect I am happy that I or the community of the huwiki is accused of being meat-puppets because of a picture that is approved even among the editors of huwiki. It can be seen from the lot of votes that the community is glad to bear the fate of the work of one of their associates. If the too many voters of huwiki disturb you in judging the quality of the picture (in fact it would be unethical to prevent someone from _this_), object. I would have been happy if the quality of the picture had been discussed on this page, and I am still embarrased. Ogodej (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you didn't understand the point we raised. There is a rule "Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes"; so we just tried to block it and make enough time for a real review. Now you can see some constructive comment below. But my advise is to withdraw and make a fresh nomination even though I'm nobody to advise. (There may be a chance of language problem too for these heated arguments; I afraid.) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral Thank you for all the opposers for not talking about the merits of the picture but mentioning unbiassed arguments such as "meat-puppeting", "should be punished", or "ruined the chance" instead. Csigabi (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Neutral" is a vote. If I'm not wrong, you have already voted "pro" (see above). You can't vote twice, sorry, that is the common rule here in FPC page (where you are obviously welcome...).--Jebulon (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral picture is good.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think it's very clean job (among the most visible issues, the supposedly right angles don't seem soo right, same for parallels lines). There's no point in vectorizing something if it's to end with so many inaccuracies (since zooming only emphasizes the flaws). I'd be happy to see the source (of the jpeg) to compare and eventually prove myself wrong. - Benh (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reflection, this picture is a composition from multiple sources issued in the description, cannot be uploaded here because of copyright law. Ogodej (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see a Jpeg referred as source in description. Am I right? Jkadavoor (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This svg version based on jpg [5] and others. I made an svg version because of the Huwiki nomination. Ogodej (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The description only mentions one source though. The (now deleted) jpg version on huwiki said it was a composition from multiple sources but did not name those sources (just pointed to the sources section of Hagia Szophia article, which is completely useless for identifying sources). Ideally, the image description should list what information has been taken from which sources. --Tgr (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the copyright, scanning book pages and mailing them to someone is legal in Hungary as long as you don't scan the whole book. Scanning and uploading to some non-Wikimedia hosting space is technically not legal, but I doubt anyone would care. --Tgr (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Benh. --Citron (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Let's talk quality first: The transparency of walls and floors renders the image unusable on all but the palest backgrounds. There is also an inconsistency in the shading on the roofs (direction of the light). These flaws are of course not helped by the vote pushing. พ.s. 05:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The canvassing that was done on the local wiki was unfortunate, but I do not think it was done as a bad faith action. So let us be a little welcoming here. All the Hungarian editors voting here are well estalished on Commons, most of them for years. They may not be frequent visitors at FPC, but we have no requirements for voters in the guidelines, which says you need to have that. Having said that, I found it very discouraging to see the foul language and angry reply to Paolos "Dear nominator/voters..." comment. (I hope I will not be met with such hostility when I come to Hungary later this year to participate in a concert in one of the churches in Budapest.) The comment was an invitation to reflect, and not intended to harass Hungarian users in my opinion. But opposing to counterbalance canvassing is equally bad style IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for expressing a balanced view. I agree that people should vote on the merits of the picture and not based on whether or not they like the author or the actions of others. --Malatinszky (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Ignoring all above. It is a good attempt at producing an SVG version of an existing jpg, but in photos we require technical quality for FP and we should look for the same in SVG. (A) This SVG fails validation (See w3c validation results). (b) The fonts have been converted to paths while Commons:SVG specifically asks that it not be converted. (c) The image is not categorised within the Category:SVG tree. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good attempt, but has many major issues: (1) the rendering of flat surfaces is similar to that of the domes and therefore confusing; (2) there is an inconsistency in explaining the spaces: two labels on the drawings, the others as numeric keys; (3) no scale bar; (4) North sign incorrect; (5) windows are not represented correctly and appear as entrees; (6) File name is wrong (should be "section" not "segment"); (7) In the file description English and Hungarian should be separate not mixed. There's more but I stop here. --ELEKHHT 22:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the description. North seems to be a different direction on pretty much all Hagia Sophia plans (the exonarthex faces west on the current image and here (I think - the compass is hard to make out), north-northwest on yours, west-northwest on this and this one, northwest here etc). Google maps shows northwest but I'm not sure how accurate their projection is. --Tgr (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Google maps is fairly accurate, so all maps point towards north-west (with small variations) except the drawings which indicate west, which appear to be a gross simplification. Thanks for fixing the description. --ELEKHHT 20:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hagia_Sophia_Segment.svg&oldid=70327533"