Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Clumsy wagon

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

Clumsy wagon, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2018 at 06:59:19 (UTC)

  • Version with hands.
  • Version without hands.
Peulle, Benh, is this not a photo. Credits at the end of a video are standard practice and a way of giving credit/attribution/licence information appropriate to the medium. Other FPs with credits include File:La Piragua.ogv, File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv, File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv to pick a few. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Disregarding the fact that I am of the opinion that the first two of those videos are so poor in quality that they should be delisted,  Question by which guidelines should we judge videos if not by the image guidelines? --Peulle (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? Watermarks are a standard practice too (albeit a slighty more distractive one). I'm just annoyed that I'm forced to watch the ending credits. Again, the file page seems enough to me. - Benh (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watermarks aren't really standard practice on professional work. Amateurs with an inflated view of the value of their work, yes. Video and film credits are absolutely standard. However, the internet is changing that. If this was on Youtube, you'd have to watch five minutes of the guy thanking you and welcoming you to his channel and telling you what he's going to do today, and then at the end, five minutes of him telling you how to subscribe to his channel to watch more awesome videos like this. -- Colin (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more example of why is this community is outdated
First @Benh and Peulle: this is not a photo. Different from a photo, the ending do not corrupt the massage, and didn't take the attention of the main content, also do not difficult editions. All reasons to not "tag" a photo here, I didn't put a watermark at the corners, the equivalent of "tag" a photo here. So you should understand the rule, before apply it.
Benh the solution to the problem is the same size of some Wikipedia articles. I didn't have workforce or time to do it yet. And this is an addition, as a link for a Wikipedia article in other files.
  • I'm sorry, but in itself, that video isn't very self explanatory. The english caption should give us enough clue to understand why the wagon moves following that pattern. This is even more frustrating because the problem is actually interesting to me. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Peulle we should already created specific guidelines for it, it's already 2018 and we can't have videos VI, QI almost always videos take longer to be evaluated, and most of the time none gives a single opinion and expire. Is more than time to do it.
Colin if you google it, you will find this, the CC-by only asks for the by, not for a list of whole crew. And I'm here since 2006, former OTRS volunteer, and giving workshops about free license since 2008, I can guarantee you that all credit was given. Just to you calm down, the mix is based in another cc-by [1].
And I didn't "just who set up the camera", for the second video I took the ~1000 photos to create it, I did all light set up, all the direction, edited the audio (modifying the music to fit), edited all the video... sorry, but who moves the blocks is not a copyright information needed. When a script was necessary I gave the credit: File:Aritmética das engrenagens.webm
For the boring part:
"Not interesting in my opinion, sorry. My reaction is "So what? A wooden model bus is jerkily traveling back and forth along a curvy line for no apparent reason."
"While the video has obviously taken a great deal of time and effort to make and it is fun to watch that little woody thing finding its way along the track (and it is technically well done since I first thought the wood-thing had some electrical connection to the "rail" in the same way an electric train runs)"
That's the why I created this set, and uploaded this videos. To those that couldn't understand that had a person manipulating it. That's why we have the "boring video"
@Benh, Peulle, Basile Morin, and Peulle: this is not a "self promotion", we are creating content for the Humankind, and most of times this media runs without given credited, as I already said, this do not disturb the content, so nothing that you are saying fits for videos. And this is an evaluation of set, because the community completed about a version without the hands. Furthermore, this is a partnership, so given 2s to the partner at the end of the video, after they open theirs doors for the Wikimedia Movement, is not much.
So, yeah, we are in 2008.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am not against creating specific criteria for judging videos or other media, but currently we have only the existing guidelines to go by. My vote therefore stands.--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Definitely a VI, but per Colin the first one, like any single-take video, gets really boring really quickly. Secondly, while your explanation of the music credits is welcome, I would like to see it explicitly stated on the file description page that the music is CC-BY-SA as well (Separate music credits are yet another major impediment to people making their own videos for our projects, and we need to have examples of how to do it right IMO). Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case this is not a VI, because people in VI do not accept videos. Simple as that.-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodrigo.Argenton: One day they will. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about license
  • This is an audio-visual work. The audio is "CC BY 3.0 Stefan Kartenberg" yet your video claims "CC BY-SA 4.0 Matemateca (IME/USP)/Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton". There are several problems here. The first is that your licence to the music requires you to credit the author "Stefan Kartenberg" and although this appears in the video it does not appear on the file description. It must. Secondly you are not legally permitted to mix CC BY with CC BY-SA. See CC Licence compatibility. If you want to use this music in your work then you need to release it under CC BY, without the SA, as you are trying to impose more restrictive terms than the author of the music required. If you disagree, then I suggest you send it to DR to find out rather than patronising me. Wrt your comment about people being confused why the model bus is moving around, the one with the hand isn't much better. It just looks like someone is doing some kind of tedious puzzle game, rather than that this is an explanation of some mathematical importance. So the video needs an introduction to be properly appreciated. Hopefully any re-user of this work will provide an introduction somehow. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are totally wrong about CC-by, totally.
Just go and find I'll not argue about it.
Since when deletion request is a place to find answer about license? Jesus, you are out of mind.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Unsure what you mean refering to this chart: CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are marked as compatible there. Ankry (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ankry, I see that now. Sorry, I misread the chart -- the font is rather small and I'm getting old. That's my excuse. I believed "SA" was a restriction like "NC" and "ND" which cannot be mixed with less restrictive licences. It appears that although it is a restriction, CC don't mind. There is still a problem that RTA has still not provided correct attribution on the file description page, which is a licence requirement. The BY aspect of the music licence requires both attribution and also a correct declaration of the licence the music work is used under. So the page needs some declaration that the music is CC BY and the name(s) of the writer/performer. So the works are still not correctly used per-licence. The abusive nomination responses and careless use of other's works falls far below the standard we expect at FP. -- Colin (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I could see supporting the second on its own, modified, but I agree that the text at the end is problematic for FPC. Ultimately, the text does not itself add any educational value to the video, and thus if I were to add it to a Wikipedia article, I would likely edit it myself to remove that text beforehand. So I have to ask myself, which one would be the better FP -- the one that maximizes the educational content of the video, or the one that has text that doesn't add educational value. I would also probably even remove the music, which doesn't seem necessary (that is not to say that there isn't any possible musical accompaniment -- just that I don't know what it would be). To be clear, though, since I know a series of opposes can give the idea that people don't value the content, it is definitely a good, valuable contribution and I hope to support a version of it in the future. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Rodrigo.Argenton: Take a breath and calm down. And notice I didn't oppose because of the credits. Which still feels too self promotion to me, whatever the rules. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Benh well, so why are your opposition? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 13:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Set/Clumsy_wagon&oldid=296809178"