Commons talk:Featured media candidates

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

Update[edit]

Hi, I updated this with more sensible standards:

I've added Commons:Captions as a recommended feature, but not as a requirement because I realize many older files don't yet have Timed Text files. FallingGravity (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope survey[edit]

Please participate in a survey designed to refine the scope of COM:FPC, which will also define the scope of FMC as anything which does not fall within the scope of FPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's about Commons:Featured media candidates/File:CG Heart.gif. I support GIFs on FMC. // Eatcha (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quorum[edit]

Hi. I noticed that (at least in FeaturedMediaBot's code), there is a requirement that at least 7 people vote in favor (fpc.py, line 412, cc User:Eatcha) of promotion for a nominee to be promoted (this isn't documented, as far as I can tell). In my opinion, this isn't a good idea given current levels of participation (see, e.g., Commons:Featured media candidates/File:High quality skull.stl). Should this be lowered/changed in some way? Best, --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mdaniels https://github.com/eatcha-wikimedia/Featured-Media-Bot/blob/master/fmc.py#L405 . Forked from the fpc script. // Eatcha (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in research to understand how you work with media[edit]

An invite to participate in a research, has been extended to media creators by MRaish (WMF). Take a look at WikiProject Photography. --Cart (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a good drone video?[edit]

It's great to see that we're getting more drone videos, and that many of them are created using good quality equipment. Thanks to the uploaders and the nominators for these.

As I watch them, I find myself thinking: what is the difference between a drone video and a featured drone video? I'll share my thoughts, and would like to hear from others.

Assuming decent equipment and a nice day, it seems like too low a bar to say if you put a drone in a place, fly it up, look around, and then edit together a few different shots, then you have a FM. So what are we looking for?

I find myself thinking about the different components to FPC. I usually tell people that a featured picture includes technical quality and some sense of educational value plus a "wow" factor, where high marks in one of those areas can make up for another that's only so-so. Ultimately we're looking for "our very best".

A drone video of a random town, road, or park has some educational value, but once you move past the "we're up high!" sensation of a drone video, it doesn't have a lot of wow. So I'm looking for the technical aspect. Some of that is addressed by having good equipment. For the rest, I'd think about technique and editing. That brings me to my chief complaint about some of the drone videos currently nominated: unless the subject of the video is directly related to drones themselves, a drone video has value not because it was shot from a drone but because it allows you to look at something from up high. It moves your eyes to a place they cannot typically go. The drone itself shouldn't be visible in the video, either on camera or through its movements. As soon as the camera jerks with a mechanical movement, uneven acceleration, or awkward stopping/starting, the viewer is distracted from the scene itself and reminded that we're not just watching a video of a place -- we're watching a video of someone flying a drone over a place. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation with most of the drone videos is to give an overview of the environment in which an object is – usually we get limited angles and beauty shots of it. If there's a castle or ruins of a castle a drone video can show its surroundings so the viewer can get an idea, why it was placed at exactly that place – so its only value isnt just that its shot from a drone. The same goes for villages, towns or historical sites – most of us are used to picture Cheops pyramids just one way, but we have no idea of its surroundings. Drone + video allows more freedom and angles to show the subject matter and its interaction with its surroundings (compared to photographs). I agree with the technical requirements. Just wanted to remind that even with featured media we shouldn't discard the educational aspect – that's what Wikipedia is there for--Sillerkiil (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Video2Commons experiences errors[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

I want to mention that Video2Commons unfortunately experiences an amount of several errors, which could make uploading, transferring and converting videos harder or in some cases impossible.

A possible (temporal) solution would be (downloading and) converting the video with tools like FFMPEG.

Read here: Commons_talk:Video2commons // https://github.com/toolforge/video2commons/issues/149

Greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No bot[edit]

@Paris 16, Karelj, Sillerkiil, Sea Cow, MZaplotnik, Adam Cuerden, Wilfredor, El Grafo, Ikan Kekek, PantheraLeo1359531, Skimel, Frank Schulenburg, Steven Pavlov, Yann, WPPilot, HurricaneEdgar, Brateevsky, IamMM, Princess Rosalina, Cmao20, Mysterymanblue, and VulcanSphere: (recentish participants).

The bot has stopped running (last time was in early June, it seems), and the operator hasn't edited since 2021 (I've pinged and left a message already) and appears to have removed this bot's repository on their github.

It looks like a couple people have been adding the review manually, which is great. The other steps are, I suppose:

  1. Archiving the nomination
  2. File page edits (categories, template)
  3. Notifying the nominator

Am I missing anything? It's something we could do manually, even if it would be better to have a bot... — Rhododendrites talk |  15:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the workload for FMC is obviously not all that large, it's fine to do manually. Sea Cow (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Is the code available somewhere? If so, I could look into getting it running again. It seems a backlog has built up since it's not been running... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: Couldn't say. IIRC Eatcha adapted the FPC/QICbot code that Dschwen had been using, but Eatcha seems to have disappeared a year and a half ago. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Thanks. I'm co-maintainer for QICbot nowadays, but I think the situation here is more similar to the FPC process. Maybe @Daniel78 and KTC: might be able to set up a fork of that code to work for this process? Or I could have a go (the FPC code reads well, and I think I could modify it for this process), but I have limited time at the moment. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: That would be great. I think several of us lost motivation to keep going with this project because of the technical challenges involved, but we very much need to keep it going -- video is just too important [and underserved] on Commons. Note, if you haven't seen it, something sorta like a consensus about promotion rules in the section below. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the last bot that was working. Specifically, which Commons and/or labs account are we talking about? User:FVCBot and User:FSCBot were adapted by Eatcha off Daniel78's FPCBot codes. We can revive that if there's no significant changes needed. -- KTC (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KTC: I think it's User:FeaturedMediaBot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many files. Why not to do this just with hand? Kruusamägi (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I close and archived all old candidates. Yann (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting this back on track, Yann. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 or 5 support to pass?[edit]

I noticed there's some inconsistency here, discussed in some recent nominations. I went back to older logs in the absence of a clear discussion, and it looks like it may have always been inconsistent?

Does anyone remember a discussion to change it from 5 to 4? I see even conflicting results from the bot, indicating Eatcha might've changed it or there was just an error somewhere. If there's consensus to go with 4, there are more which were not promoted than I listed here, and we should probably fix that. If consensus has never been for 4, we should fix those, too.

For the sake of simplicity, how about this:
4 support 0 oppose → featured
4 support >0 oppose → not featured
at least 5 support with no more than then half that number in opposition (like FPC) → featured
apply this retroactively (there aren't all that many).
— Rhododendrites talk |  15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support your proposal for the number that is required for it to be FM. Sea Cow (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Sillerkiil (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: Since you're arguing "for the sake of simplicity", the most simple rule would be to have only
  • at least 5 support with no more than then half that number in opposition (like FPC) → featured
Pretty sure that's what it originally was supposed to be, and I don't remember any discussion about changing that. Seems more like an error in the bot's code (potentially due to division by 0 given that only 4:0 ratios seem to be affected ...?). I disagree with changing the criteria just because it's easier not to fix a bot's mistakes. --El Grafo (talk) El Grafo (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I also support @Rhododendrites proposal. There aren't enough people consistently participating to require 5 support votes if there are no opposes. Lorax (talk) 01:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I would like we keep 5 support votes to get a FM. Lowering the bar won't help the contest. In the opposite, it will make it less interesting if lower quality videos get FM. Valued images contest has IMO become nonsense because it is now so easy to get a VI if setting a very narrow scope. Yann (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW where are the rules? Yann (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

book as Featured media?[edit]

Hello. I cannot see whether a book qualifies as media. There's nothing to say it does; nothing to say it doesn't. The book would be displayed as a pdf or, if Commons has the capability as a flipbook. Here are examples of what I am asking about. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_media_candidates&oldid=851086257"