Template talk:Featured articles/October 2011

Uwe, once agaain you have done something I specifically asked you not do: Deciding by yourself which articles to put in the Featured Articles box. This is something which you must at least discuss in the Google mailing list beforehand.

Why is this a problem? Because the featured articles are supposed to be a showcase of our best work. These are pages that we would like future contributors to use as models to follow, too.

Unfortunately, you once again have chosen pages which are still full of un-attributed photos, and ones with no image rights tags either. As I'm sure you have noticed in the recent activity log, several of our contributors have been spending many, many hours tracking down and fixing bad photo credits in the wiki. I notice this is not work you have done much of.

If you would like to take some of your time to put the image rights of your chosen pages into good order, then I would be much more accepting of these article choices. Otherwise you're simply dumping a load of work onto other people (as you did last time with the Polaroid 600 article, which was loaded with bad photo credits). --Vox 07:33, 25 July 2011 (PDT)

Vox, the mailing list is no good place to discuss this. I've reviewed the linked articles and found one with missing attribution. This is fixed now.

So let's discuss here if the selection is well-made for October. I've chosen an article of Jack, a returned author, one of Dirk, a camera-wiki founder, and one classic article worth to feature. Anything wrong with this selection? If You want a totally other selection please take the time to make one carefully, and we can use for example my suggested selection for October for only one month - enough time for you to make a complete new suggestion of featured articles. In the years 2008, 2009 and 2011 I was the only one who made the "featured articles" lists and nobody complained about the selections I made. But anyone who has better ideas can always join discussion - here. Please no theoretical discussion in the Google mailing list. The featured articles are, that's my true experience, a practical thing to do onsite and none of theoretical discussions elsewhere. Best regards, U. Kulick 13:11, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

The discussion is not "theoretical." It is that the front page of the wiki is how new visitors learn about us, and decide whether we are worthwhile, reliable, and perhaps worth contributing to. Our whole reason for splitting with Camerapedia.wikia.com was disgust over their lazy and sloppy treatment of photo rights. Therefore every image in a "featured article" needs to have confirmed image rights and be attributed correctly. I have no objection to you putting forward good choices for featured articles. But it is simply a matter of politeness to ask others if they have an alternate suggestion, and please don't dump work onto others of repairing bad image credits if they are inadequate still.--Vox 13:18, 19 September 2011 (PDT)

Please note that Gitzo shutters article had many image-right problems when you first suggested it; those were fixed by me in August.--Vox 13:32, 19 September 2011 (PDT)