Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 20

Portrait photography

Hi, I am a bit sick of people making silly comments about depth of field being too shallow in portrait photography. A shallow depth of field is feature, and that's how good portraits are made. See basic courses online: Normally f/2.8 and wider are the best, but for longer focal lengths, you can use up to f/4.0., [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. Please learn the basic techniques before voting. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yann Whoi is commenting it?, it's a very basic rule. --The Photographer 13:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yann is angry with me for 'opposing' at this FPC nom and should say so up front intead of making insinuating comments. In another recent nom, f/4.0 was used and no one complained about the DoF being too long or against the rules of basic portrait photography then. (Or f/8.) --Cart (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the f-numer is only a part of the truth in terms of DoF. f/5.6 will have a different DoF depending on the focal length, 30 mm will have a poorer DoF than 80 mm, so that's also important. That's why the boy face and the soccer player look better than the painted face. Poco² 15:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Poco for that info, I shall read up more on lenses. This little incident is exactly why people are more comfortable just avoiding to vote than speaking out in an 'oppose'. If you do so, you risk being dragged out here for a public flogging and be told that you don't know basic photography techniques. I could take offense for being told such a thing, but I'm pretty sure that Yann just said that in the heat of the moment. --Cart (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Knowing him (I also had the pleasure in person) I am sure about that, too :) Poco² 17:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe that a shallow DoF is necessary to make a good portrait. It always depends on the respective photograph. You can create a wonderful portrait at f/11 and a bad & messy looking one at f/1.4. So regarding the photo Yann is referring to I don't think it's worth being featured (I personally don't like the painting, the focus is not really on the eye and some other issues) but I wouldn't say DoF is an issue here. --Code (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC) P.S.: I think neither this nor that photo should have been promoted FP as both suffer from visible motion blur (while the DoF is perfectly ok IMO).

Code, what you say makes perfect sense. If applied at the right "starting point", a shallow DoF can be quite enough. Place it wrong, and it looks like you should have increased it. It is possible that the photographer of the face paint shot used auto focus instead of pinpoint focus and therefore it landed on the finger and nose. --Cart (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Poco see Wikipedia DoF. "for the same subject magnification and the same f-number, all focal lengths for a given image format give approximately the same DOF." For example, on a FF camera, 100mm lens, f/4, subject at 3m gives DoF of 0.21m. You get the same DoF in a 50mm lens at 1.5m distance. And the same DoF in a 25mm lens at 0.75m distance. You have to move closer to get the same subject size. While the DoF is the same in all three, the telephoto will include less background than the wide-angle, so it will often appear less busy, but both are just as "out-of-focus". The problem that portrait photography is usually trying to solve with shallow DoF is to isolate the subject from the background and to avoid the background becoming a distraction. There is nothing in portrait photography that encourages the front of the nose or the ears to be out-of-focus. Nor, for a photo where the subject is facing the camera, is there anything that makes it desirable, never mind acceptable, for only one eye to be in focus. These things are all negative consequences of the photographer trying to isolate the background. For a studio photo, it is really up to the photographer to ensure their background is plain and neutral and far enough behind the model for it to be out-of-focus, and then they can use whatever aperture they want. Obviously, for a smaller aperture, they need a more powerful light, which could be a technical problem. For a photo of face painting, where the whole head and neck is painted, I can't understand why you wouldn't want all that to be in focus. The choice of focal length in that image is untypical (equivalent to 50mm full frame), and will exaggerate the model's nose and chin and head curve, compared to a more typical portrait focal length (85-135) -- and this is a result of having to be closer to the subject, rather than a property of the lens focal length or optics.

I agree that we often don't review portraits very well, as our pixel-peeping UI lets us too often focus on parts of the image rather than the whole. And sometimes the shallow DoF is just fine, and we don't need the sort of focus-stacking-front-to-back-sharpness obsession we see some voters apply everywhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion the amount of DoF necessary in a portrait depends on the portrait itself. That painted face draws the viewers interest to every part of the face that has color painted on. The viewer wants to examine the whole painting on her face, so it needs to be sharp from at least her middle finger to her ears. When I shoot "business portraits" in conjunction with a studio setup and flash lights I mostly set my f-Stop to 11 to get the face and the visible part of the clothes worn completely sharp. The mentioned portrait of Kristina Inhof was shot with the sun just going down so I did not want to close the aperture too much and keep the ISO at a reasonable low level. Code, yes there is some motion blur. This sometimes becomes visible with my D850 even with the shutter speed being more than twice of the focal length, but you are the first one to pixel peep that much to forget the fact (25 pro-votes in five days are quite factious) that overall the image seems to be quite good. btw: You can always nominate that image for delisting. --Granada (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• The funny thing, given how this thread started, was that when I made my vote on the face paint photo, I had in mind an illustration from one of the very first photography books I've ever read. (Yes, I have read such! ;-) ) In the section on portraits there were two photos showing when a shallow DoF should be used in portraits and not. The "not-photo" was a woman in almost exactly the same position as the face-painted woman, only she had a microscope in front of her face instead of a hand. Of course the best DoF depends on the photo and situation. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• @Granada: Well, my words above might have been a little bit harsh and I apologize for that. It's a good picture overall and you're right that one shouldn't pixelpeep that much. --Code (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion here is about portraits of people of course. I am a portrait photographer, but of animals, and here a large-as-sensibly-possible DoF is alwys better. And with macro, that is really tricky to manage of course as it is if I am using, say, a 400mm lens, quite close to the subject. Charles (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Counting FPs

There is a template which I and many others use on our user pages to count our FPs:

Charles has uploaded 479 featured pictures to Wikimedia Commons.

It seems to me that Commons should have a template to distinguish 'own work' uploads from uploads of other people's work. Both are valuable, but are different. One would recognise photographic skill, the other would recognize users' efforts in adding high quality media to Commons. Charles (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Sure. There are also restorations, which is a significant work, but different than taking pictures. Personally, I only claim FPs as mine, those which I took or did important restoration. For me, among 150 successful nominations, 16 were taken by me, 15 restored by me. I also have one FP nominated by someone else. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I like the way you have handled this. I think restorations or old images should be considered as 'own work', but not changes to living photographer's works. Computer-generated images would also be 'own work'. 'Own work' imgaes are the only ones to qualify for the 'Meet our photogrpahers' page so you should be there. An FP nominated by someone else would definitely count. By the way, what happened to POTY 2017? Charles (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

FP galleries -- unsorted

I post it here instead of Commons talk:Featured pictures, as this place seems to be more widely watched. In Commons:Featured pictures, we have the problem of the overflow of "Unsorted" sections in many of the galleries (especially in the popular themes like "Places" there are lots of unsorted; see Architecture, for example). It's lot of work to move it all and close to impossible to manage it alone for anyone. May I kindly request at least our most active FPC nominators, that they do it at least with their own pictures? Example (it's also useful to fix the descriptions below the pictures, e.g. "Pashkov House in Moscow" instead of "Casa Pashkov, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 36-37 HDR"). This would be a big step towards some order, thanks. --A.Savin 13:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I usually sort a bit if I have business at one of th galleries, I'll try do do some more of it in the upcomming evenings. --Cart (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

+5 countries done -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Basile, I did the rest. Whoever is sorting, please remember to remove the sorted photos from "Unsorted". I came across a few that were still there and this caused some doubles. Easy to fix of course, but better if we don't have to check for that too. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Cart, are you sure ? Here are my 5 edits done yesterday [1],[2], [3], [4], [5] and I don't see any mistake -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Basile, that came out wrong. I was tired when I wrote it. That part of the post was not directed at you personally. I only saw that it had happened, I don't know who made the mistakes and we should try to avoid such doubles. --Cart (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No worry, now I understand. Huge work you did, yes ! Thanks for the clarification -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both who responded, but I wonder if no further colleagues are reading it... --A.Savin 12:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

They are probably waiting for someone to construct a Bot to do this. :-) --Cart (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Terabite: The World’s First Terapixel Macro Image

"To get some idea of size: if we printed the Terabite image at at high resolution, it would be higher than One World Trade Center!". Sounds familiar. You can pixel peep here. -- Colin (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh, DOF too shallow, they should have focus-stacked the whole thing. Scnr, --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what I thought. --Code (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

+1 ;-) --XRay ^talk 09:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There is also an awful lot of dust that should have been cloned out " [food] photography like this demands pefect cleanliness". :-) --Cart (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and it's a terrible portrait as well: the eyes are out of focus. :-P --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently they did focus stack, taking six frames, each with about 1mm DoF to give 5mm DoF overall. For the eyes, I'm guessing a bit of olive on top of a cherry tomato on top of a slice of courgette (zucchini), which probably exceeds the 5mm limit. I think they should have got children to do the artwork. If you are going to all that effort, the image could have been a bit more imaginative. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Also problems joining the images, I can do something better --The Photographer 04:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolution and 100 percent views

We have a serious problem. It's a combination of resolution, lenses and views at 100 percent. I've been watching it since switching to a higher resolution camera some months ago. New cameras with a resolution of 30 MP and more needs lenses for this resolution. A good lens for an amateur photographer is nearly never good enough to respect the full resolution of the image sensor - or it is very expensive. If a reviewer take a look to the photograph at 100 percent level, the image looks unsharp - more or less, respecting the aperture too. The enlargement of only a few square centimetre or millimetre is enormous. IMO it's wrong to evaluate sharpness at 100 percent level without respecting the resolution. I found a really good article about this human problem at gwegner.de (3 Ursachen für unscharfe Fotos und wie ihr sie in den Griff bekommt!). Sorry, it's only in german. But it's a problem of reviews of FPCs with photographs in a high resolution. --XRay ^talk 07:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

An English translation here. I've also written an essay at User:Colin/PixelPeeping.

I think there is a trend with photographic gear towards higher prices for lenses, and technology has improved their sharpness considerably. This has encouraged reviews of gear which glorify pixel peeping or over-emphasise optical flaws by testing wide-open. Btw, my old 14MP Sony A33 from 2010 has a pixel pitch of 5.16 which is very slightly smaller (and thus more demanding of lenses when viewed 100%) than your 30MP Canon 5DIV at 5.36. The highest resolution 50MP Canon 5DS has a pixel pitch of 4.14, which is still larger (and thus less demanding of lenses when viewed at 100%) than the pixel pitch of my 24MP APS-C Sony A77ii at 3.92. So us APS-C shooters have been pushing the demands of lenses for a while. I have some cheap primes that are just great, so I don't feel encouraged to spend the $1000 manufacturers seem to want these days. There are also other factors than optics that mean a 100% pixel peep experience is disappointing. I think the main problem is that on nearly every other website, people view downsized images, and so come to expect pixel sharpness. -- Colin (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

FPC section should focus on compositions quality rather than the perfection of each pixels and I think that on FPC there is a competition to nominate the most gigantic and impossible to print picture. And we can see users buying falling on the comercial game called consumerism and censor camera mansturbation that kill the creative activity. Additionally we have a mediawiki that makes it difficult to see the photo in full size, and yes only a small people percentage can see the image description page thanks to the excellent decision of WMF to create the wall Media viewer. At this moment I am receiving much more feedback on flickr than on wikimedia commons to use my photos in educational books. --The Photographer 05:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, pixel peeping is getting irrational here, in spite of all the warnings not to do it. :( Yann (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it important we remember Commons is a media repository so the failings of our UI to display images well should not be used as a criticism of large images. We have zoom viewer but I agree it would be much better if the UI was improved. We do require a significant number of pixels for many publishing formats. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping for some figures. To be used in a 4K TV video, one of our 3:2 images needs to be 9.8MP. To fill a two-page spread in a glossy magazine like Vogue requires 16.7MP. In the future, an 8K video will require a still from an 39.3MP 3:2 format camera. My hope is that as the DPI of displays has finally doubled to 200DPI that we will start appreciating more that the tiniest sliver of purple on a high contrast edge, or the faint dots of noise in a sky become totally invisible when viewing reasonably, just as they would if printed. Whereas if your image lacks wow and strong composition, nobody will even give it a second glance. -- Colin (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:700 years Old Baltit Fort.jpg

Post copied/moved from User talk:W.carter:

"Hi, I reverted this nomination, as I expected it to be FPXed. I see no point in helping someone adding an incomplete nomination, just to be removed one day later. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)"

Hi Yann, the normal use for reverting an edit is when something is really wrong or in case of vandalism. Reverting a nom instead of FPX it would mean a change in policy and discussed by the community. In this case the nom was not incomplete, the user has created a nomination page, they simply made a fumble in placing the transclusion in the right place (the edit you reverted and I fixed). So the nom would have been open, just not visible on the FPC page, until the nine days were up and after that it would have popped up on Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review and questions would have been raised as to what had happened.

In any case, I think that every user has the right to at least make an FPC nomination if they want to. An FPX is also a kind of review, at least the user will know what happened and maybe think more carefully about their next nom. Simply reverting noms from FPC will only leave them confused as to what happened. An FPX can also be contested in some way, something you yourself did with this. It is harder to contest a revert. --Cart (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see my answer in your talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I can, I just don't see why this can't be discussed here. --Cart (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Galleries style

@Colin: I remember you complained about the style of some galleries, do you think this kind of thing is ok/better Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I think at the time the "packed-hover" wasn't working for me on the browser I was using. It showed the title over the image at all times, which was just too much. But nobody else saw that bug, and it seems to be working for me now. I prefer the packed style because the default thumb size and layout (which you link above) is too small and wastes too much space. The pictures need to be big for people to appreciate how good they are. -- Colin (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

+1 --Cart (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks you, I will edit the page. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI FPCBot

FYI, I've asked about FPCBot. Hopefully something can be done. --Cart (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas

See Commons talk:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas. Is this category deprecated since 2015? Ignoring the note, many FP-Panoramas have been added here in the last 3 years. --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

FPC criteria

We should not be judging single-shot photos against the same criteria as multiple-image compositions. I don't think the criteria are clear enough and voters will inevitiably prefer the impact of a stiched panorama or focus-stacked image. I propose that FPC nominations should have some sort of 'multiple shot' flag to allow both photographic skills and post-processing skills to be judged on appropriate criteria. Charles (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Could be a good idea, but I don't know if it will make any difference. Folks here tend to compare the two ways of making photos even when it is clearly stated in the file decription how the image is made. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• This seems to have arisen from this FP candidate where a focus stacked image here is compared against a standard short here (shot close-up at the FF equivalent of 75mm, f/7). There have also been a couple of focus-stacked insect photos.

I'm not sure separating technique or equipment is the key rather than the intended result. You can shoot a panorama of the river Thames with a wide-angle lens and some vertical cropping, or by stitching together any number of frames. The result at small size may well appear identical, with the difference in quality only apparent when zooming in. So I'm not sure why we'd not want to directly compare the two photos and consider the single shot one weaker (unless it had better light, etc). Similarly an HDR technique, if done well, can produce natural looking results that fix issues with blown highlights and crushed blacks, and should be compared against a basic shot that has these defects.

For focus stacking, I think it more important that we don't always consider that front-to-back sharpness is necessary/desirable, and that we don't get so wowed by technique that we forget the artistry and beauty of a photograph. Sometimes the stacking provides very impressive results, and it is a fun technique to try out (I've done a few). But it can create a rather artificial look, like something computer generated, with fewer depth clues for the eye. And it can produce rather extreme transitions to out-of-focus which can look strange. There's also the risk, with complex shapes, of weird artefacts where the stacking algorithm hasn't worked. Much like HDR has the risk of bad results if there is movement in the scene.

These techniques are just other tools in the box, like flash lighting, a polarising filter, or having a macro lens. Sometimes they enhance a photo a little, sometimes make a great photo possible that wouldn't otherwise, and sometimes they ruin things. I'd rather we differentiated between a specimen photo for Wikipedia and a more artistic photo and also less common photos like those showing animal behaviour. If someone manages to grab a great image of two animals fighting, we shouldn't demand the same resolution/sharpness/lighting that we might demand for the "boring" photo of the animal minding its own business and obediently staring at the camera. And if someone takes a portrait of a mushroom the woods, it will have a different character to if they setup a flash and tripod and aim to capture a specimen photo of just the mushroom. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is that nominations flag up the use of sophisticated digital manipulation tools, so that voters know what they are looking at. What about a requirement that a nomination says (in the Info space). Panorama made from 34 images or Photo-stacked from 10 images? Charles (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That's of course fine. I don't think anyone so far is holding photos of animal behavior to the same standards of sharpness as an FPC-nominated picture of a watch, though, and all these matters of technique are great for photographers to be aware of, but the viewing experience is most important in judging the result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ikan that the viewing experience is the most important. I understand the problem, and sometimes find my own landscapes not as detailed or not as sharp as others nominated here using stretching techniques. However I'm not in favor of setting special flags for each kind of photography. We present here any kind of images, sometimes paintings, portraits, animations, also professional pictures with important post-processing. The result is the result. We should judge the photo as it is, independently to the technique. If a photo succeeds because it's stretched or focus-stacked, then it's all good for the photographer. Means the technique led to a good result. Reviews from voters must be reliable. If a single shot works better because the bokeh is great, then well done, this choice of a low DoF was productive. It depends on each image. Also difficult to define the limit and say which small area was exceptionally pasted here from an extra image. Such flags would also encourage the users in hiding the reality. For example by stretching and then reducing the size to get more sharpness. If all the images were better focus-stacked (and I don't think so), then we should universally adopt the technique. But in reality, images depend mostly on non-technical aspects. More a situation, a lighting, some colors, a great action, etc, making the picture special. To finish, we have also to consider the fact that post-processing of composed images always require more work from the creator than single shots, and are more likely to fail for this reason of weaknesses visible in the technical part -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Ikan Kekek says that 'the viewing experience is most important in judging the result' but we must surely know if the result is computer-generated? Otherwise we could manipulate everything and it stops being a photo. No respected widlife photo competitions allow major manipulation without clear disclosure. The 'out-of-camera' images must be submitted. Major manipulation is seldom allowed. Now FPC is not a photo competition, but the FP guidelines clearly state that Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers and illustrators. That is not the same as highly skilled post-processing skills. As a matter of interest, wildlife photography competitions also forbid images of captive animals, so studio shots of captured bugs would be ineligible. I do believe Basile Morin's images are extremely valuable, but we need to set a level playing field otherwise expectations of naturally taken single-shot in-the-wild images may be penalized. Charles (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Templates

Charlesjsharp, voting at FPC will always be biased depending on our individual tastes. I don't think we need a flag or anything like that to distinguish altered photos from other. When looking at a photo for an FPC vote, we (hopefully) all open the file page and look at it, checking for categories, description and everything that goes with an FP. If correctly done the file page should also include one or some of the templates that should be put on altered or non-one-shot photos. We have:

• {{Retouched}} like on this animal file
• {{Focus stack}} as used in the description of this file
• {{Panorama}} as used for this file in combination with {{Retouched}}

This information should tell us what we need to know about the photo when judging it. I also think a lot of users forget or don't know about these templates. I think you would be better served by a kind of template which states that a file is a one-shot photo, adhering to international photography rules for non-manipulated photos. I have read similar comments by Granada regarding not altering sports photos. Maybe such a template could be worth considering? --Cart (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Fair enough Cart (talk). The requirement to use these templates should be added to FP guidelines. Who can do this? Unfortunately, the Focus Stack template doesn't work for me! 19:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Charlesjsharp, the template doesn't work how? Where were you trying to add it? Just point me in the right direction and I'll see if I can fix it and you can follow my lead on using it later. --Cart (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• The 'Retouched' was already in the FP guidelines, I have added the two other templates. Panorama and stacking were probably not as common when the guidelines were written. It is under 'Guidelines for nominators' and the text now says:

• "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.

• For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stack}} templates."

Now all we can hope for is that people read the guidelines and that they are updated in other languages, although I wouldn't bet on it. --Cart (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for doing this Cart. There is something wrong, as if I copy and paste Focus stacking. or {{Focus stack}} or {{Focus stack}} or {{Focus stack}} nothing happens. Copy and paste of {{Panorama}} works,

NOTE: This image is a panorama consisting of multiple frames that were merged or stitched in software. As a result, this image necessarily underwent some form of digital manipulation. These manipulations may include blending, blurring, cloning, and colour and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different from reality at the points where multiple images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions.

but the Template:Panorama page says nothing about stitched images. On the page Template:Focus stack, the template is shown as Focus stacking.. This doesn't display an easily-spotted box like the Panororama or Retouched templates so it's no use. Can you help more!? Charles (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm looking for this template for a long time. I does not nothing, but it simply translate the word. There is nothing like the panorama template. Same for HDR images or other techniques like median or average with two or more photographs. --XRay ^talk 09:01, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that the {{Focus stack}} template is not as good as the other two. In the form that now exists it is only meant to be used in the description text as a small template where you fill in how many photos are used and what software you used (you have to fill in the number + software or it will not display properly), like this for example when you take nine photos and merge them in Photoshop:

• {{Focus stack |1= 9|software= Photoshop}} → (transclusion) → Focus stacking of 9 pictures (using Photoshop).

Unfortunately, this template is used in the description of so many files, it is impossible to change it into a template that looks like the other two. Such a change would seriously disrupt the description on the files where it is used. The only option would be to create a new template that can be added and displayed like the other two. I don't know if this would be better or just confusing. With the explosion of easily available image software in just a couple of years, all these templates have fast become as outdated as much of the rest of the code on this site. Thoughts? --Cart (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can someone make a new focus-stacking template? Colin and XRay make some vaild points below, but we musn't assume that the results of extreme focus-stacking will be obvious to all voters. We cannot cover all situations (e.g. for uploads of someone else's edited images) but we should have a template and use judgment. The 'retouched image' template, for instance, is ambiguous. I for instance don't use it if I've removed a small branch or something. May be I should, but one could argue that 95%+ of FP images will be retouched in some way. 12:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Charles, since your signature is still displaying without your name, Colin and XRay probably never got your 'ping'. Could you for everyone's sake please, please, please see that you fix that bug when signing or use the button for signature and timestamp at the top of the editing window. --Cart (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Since the template for 'stacking' is so small and really not much help in describing your image more than plain words, I can only assume it was created so that you could find all photos using this template by clicking on the "What links here" on the Template:Focus stack page. --Cart (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Ok, at least it was possible to update the text in the 'Panorama' template and add 'stitched' to differentiate it from 'stacked'. The old just 'merged' was a bit fuzzy and probably written before it could also mean 'stacked'. You can see the result above. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this edit which seems to make the focus stack and panorama templates are requirement for FPC. Are we forgetting that many images at FP come from external sources, often lacking any EXIF information, and some even lacking good titles and descriptions? Commoners add what information we can, but there isn't any guaranteed way of detecting either of these techniques or of reverse-engineering a given JPG to discover how it was built. One rule for Commoners and another for external images is not fair?

The text says "For images made from more than one photo" but HDR images are also made from more than one photo, and may require some Photoshopping to resolve issues with ghosts or moving elements. All three of these techniques can be done by some models of DSLR cameras and even smartphones. While it is possible to do an extreme focus stack insect like we saw recently, which clearly looks computer generated, as the depth-of-focus transition is just wrong for a normal photograph, it is also possible to use the technique in a way that is hard to spot. I'm thinking of Cart's asparagus tips. I don't see why we are singling out these techniques, and not requiring that users document the details of any artificial lighting used, or lens filters applied. Both can radically affect the image and information on both could be useful/interesting.

What is this complaint of Charles trying to solve? Have there been any focus stacked beetles that aren't totally obviously stacked? Are we feeling that someone might have deceptively uploaded a stitched image that was claimed to be a single shot? I'd much rather that such information and templates was considered a courtesy and may be politely requested if people are interested and the nominator has not already supplied it. Even for images that are created by Commoners, there may be reasons why the specifics of a stitched image, e.g., how many frames, or the HDR exposures used, are now lost. -- Colin (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two other methods with more than one photograph. I'm using average to reduce noise and median to remove disturbing moving objects (like cars or people). --XRay ^talk 11:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are right, I was following the rather "pointing-with-the-whole-hand" language of the guidelines. Now tweaked. I think having links to templates in some form serves a purpose since the guidelines should also be informative. Thanks for the input. Of course we are not required to have these templates on a photo, but I think we can try to be as informative as we can about photos we upload here. It is always nice to read about how a photo was made when we try to get better at photography. --Cart (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read Charles last comment. Yes, we should create templates for Focus stacking and HDRI (or similar) and one common like composed by several images (with a parameter for the method). What do you think? --XRay ^talk 12:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

XRay, I've started a new discussion about this (see at the bottom of this page) since this one is becomming too jumbled. Could you please leave your proposal there? Thanks! :) --Cart (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Notes on a photo

Since there is often some confusion about how to make notes on FPCs (I'm looking at you Charles among others) let's take it in plain speak:

• If you make a note starting on the file page, it will show up on every page in every Wikipedia the photo is displayed on (galleries excluded).
• If you make a note starting on the FPC nomination page, it will only show up on the nomination.

So, it's fine to point out the gender of lizards on the file's page, that is of interest to anyone looking at the photo. However, folks reading an article about some bug on a Wikipedia have no interest at all reading about what areas are unsharp or not. Please remember this when you make notes!!! You don't want to spread our FPC squabbles all over the planet. To paraphrase a saying: "What happens in FPC, stays at FPC." (or it should) --Cart (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't know that. Charles (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's easy to overlook. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There are small errors where the notes in the nomination are not enough to indicate them because size reasons. Please, the note can be removed when the nomination is finished, however, during the process it is important to keep it for improve the review procedure, btw, we have been doing something similar in QIC --The Photographer 23:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Understandable, but such notes must be removed before photos are put in articles or it will look strange since the text "This file has annotations. Move the mouse pointer over the image to see them." will appear under the photo on the page of the article. The reader will not understand what the annotation means. --Cart (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

IMHO not sence to show any note in a thumb image on Wikipedia, it look like a bug that should be fixed on phabricator to disable anotations on small thumbs images. At the moment, unfortunately there is no other way to indicate a small error in the image. The software mediawiki has certain limitations and evidently mediaviewer is one of them. I will continue adding annotations as I have done for years, this problem is an opportunity to improve the annotations and not to limit us --The Photographer 00:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support the official guidelines and strong oppose that the Photographer continues to pollute our original files with undesirable annotations visible everywhere. This gives a bad example to all the other users, and leads to revenge votes of this kind : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Melolonthinae_on_a_banana_leaf.jpg. Anyone can open the image at full size to inspect the small details. And if there's not enough space on the thumbnails of each nomination page to point out a local problem, it perhaps means that the trouble is just invisible and must be forgotten (or forgiven). But because The Photographer writes "I will continue adding annotations as I have done for years" and cynically invites me to report the problem to the admins, maybe should we seriously take this sad opportunity as a fertile solution for all of us -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have been at FPC 8 years and was unaware until recently that FP notes should not be left on the file page or that they appeared on Wikipedia. I agree with The Photographer that Commons file page notes appearing on Wikipedia is a bug, and a bad one at that. If there is a bug raised on this, I'll add my support. However, in the mean time we must live with it and use the FP notes. Basile, two users above were unaware of the wrong place to leave notes, as was I until recently, and The Photographer only left one note compared to many by Charles. Why are you calling your reviewers vandals and polluters? Do you really think that's acceptable, when all they have done is put notes in the wrong place. I suggest that The Photographer's original support vote was done with the understanding that the flaws being pointed out would be fixed. Since you appear to have refused to make the fixes requested, it is reasonable for a reviewer to reconsider their support. I'm not saying I agree or disagree the flaw is enough to justify an oppose, but that a change of mind is reasonable, and not necessarily a "revenge vote". I think, Basile, if you had transferred the notes to the FPC page, you'd not have pissed-off two of your reviewers, who freely gave their time and expertise to make constructive suggestions about how the image could be improved, suggestions that you have quite literally chucked in the bin. -- Colin (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Not chucked in the bin -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Info The Photographer, Colin, Basile Morin and others: The system with annotations on an image was originally designed only for making some kind of encyclopedic notes and links on a photo without scribbling on the photo itself, that is why the notes show up on all Wikipedias. It is not a bug. Like in this photo where buildings are described. It was only later (after seeing the local notation system at FPC) that people started to use the annotations to point out problems with files. Like with so many other user interface gadgets, people saw an opportunity to use it in ways it wasn't meant for in the first place. That is why we now have a problem with it. How do we solve this? --Cart (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And all the notes are in English, so not very useful on Arabic or Chinese Wikipedias? And not every image on Wikipedia would want annotating. I find it particularly disruptive when it appears in illustrated lists (e.g. of tall buildings). The content of the Wiki page should be up to, and controlled by, the publishers, who are Wikipedia editors, not by Commoners. We're an image repository, not an encyclopaedia. So the fact that these appear on Wikipedia and cannot AFAIK be disabled, is a bug. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, the thing with the language is a bother. It was meant to be a helpful gadget, but has turned out differently. AFAIK you can flick it on or off on WP by checking the box on: Wikipedia Preferences → Browsing → " □ ImageAnnotator: view image notes and comments on file description pages". This may also be of interest. --Cart (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Cart I'm confused now. I'm pretty sure I've seen disruptive annotations on Wikipedia but I can't find an example now. I looked at my en:wp preferences and saw that Gadgets/Image Annotator was unticked. So I ticked it but still don't see any. Have you got an en:wp page that shows this, and do logged-out users see it? -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Colin: Hmmm, something has definitely happened, and recently. I removed some annotations from some of my own photos not long ago since they were a nuisance, and put the info in the text instead. As you say, right now, no annotations are working on en-WP, toggle on or off. There may have been a system upgrade or something. This is more than I know. --Cart (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

New Focus stack template?

We have a request from Charles about making a new {{Focus stack}} template, one that looks like a box (similar to {{Panorama}}) and not just a sentence. Since it is a bit of a bother to make a template with all the right coding, languages and all, it would be good to first know if there is a consensus about this from the community. Do we need a new template for Focus stacking and if so what should be it's designation/name to distinguish it from the old one? Input would be welcome --Cart (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Can we not over-write the old one? It's useless. Charles (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• No. As I tried to explain above, it is used on about 4000 files and simply over-writing it would mean the new big box template would pop up directly in the middle of all those descriptions. Not a popular decision, I think. Anything you do to a template will instantly be done on every page it is used on, past present and future. If you don't get what I mean, try adding {{Panorama}} in between two sentences in one of your file descriptions. Not a pretty sight. I very much like XRay's idea about a new multi-purpose template. That would save us a lot of trouble. It could be adjusted to whatever digital tricks were done with the "two or more photos". --Cart (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The old usage of the template can be updated be a bot. Hopefully we'll get help. And as addition my proposal: We should create templates for Focus stacking and HDRI (or similar) like Tone-mapped HDR image and one common like composed by several images (with a parameter for the method) like Image compositum. What do you think? --XRay ^talk 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Well if you are confident we can get help with a Bot and everything, then an update of the 'Focus stack' template would be very nice. Personally, I wouldn't count on it, that's why I wrote 'No'. (Remember that elaborate plan for QIs that never got anywhere since we didn't get help and no one seemed interested.) Not sure we need all those separate templates when we can create one that covers all multi image things just by adding the right parameter. --Cart (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• How can we alert the FP community to this debate? Charles (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is the most watched talk page for matters regarding FPs and the best way to get the info to people, I'm sure they see it. Maybe they just don't find this as important or interesting as you do. It is also the beginning of the holiday season and much of Europe (where many of our photographers live) also have other things to think about right now. [5] [6] It's no coincidence we have lightning noms at FPC right now. Look at the photo date. --Cart (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• IMO it's not relevant for FPC. It's more for all users. But IMO it's not a problem to create the template without a big discussion. --XRay ^talk 04:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'd rather a new template was created. A bot or semi-automated editing could insert it when the old one was used and then the old one considered for retiral. You can't really replace the old one without consulting with those who created and used it. Also I agree that this is really nothing to do with FP so a conversation should be started on the village pump, which might bring in some knowledgeable input. I wonder if we should develop something similar to {{Photo Information}} but for {{Image Processing}} which includes number of frames, exposure brackets used, methods applied (stacking, HDR, stitching, etc), software used, etc. There may also then be a way to add the appropriate categories for these to the file. If formatted like the other template, it would be a nicer presentation than a stand-alone custom box. And a formal way of collecting this info, would fit better with the move to a more wiki data model where we recorded searchable data rather than random text. Several techniques may appear in the same photo, so I'd rather not see several dissimilar info boxes. -- Colin (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I was thinking in the same direction as well: why not simply merge them all into one template and then gradually phase out the old ones? The old template for focus stacks produces only text, so it would probably be safe to have a bot subst: it everywhere (and then delete it). --El Grafo (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Colin's suggestion sounds to me like the most sensible here so far. Charles, it looks like you should take this to the Village pump instead. --Cart (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I have done - see Commons Village Pump. Charles (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• It sounds like a plan. It's like my proposed "image compositum" and the most flexible way for other methods of merging too. --XRay ^talk 13:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• As there has been no response at all at The Village Pump, I have created a new template. I would welcome any suggestions as to how it could be improved. It is modelled on the Template:Panorama Charles (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: This image is a focus stacked image consisting of multiple images that were merged using software. As a result, this image underwent digital manipulation which may have included blending, blurring, cloning, and colour and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different than reality at the points where the images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions.

• Should the words "or stitched" be in this template? Is it common to stitch focus stacked images? You seem very eager to get this template, I don't recall you doing that much focus stacking so what's the hurry. There is a pre-summer lull everywhere on Commons right now. Wouldn't it be better to wait a bit and get this done properly as suggested? --Cart (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• You're right; probably not stitched. I am likely to be doing focus-stacking in the future, so want to set out the ground rules, but it is Basile's nominations that have prompted me to act. As far as I can see, the template has been done properly as it's a straight copy of Panorama. Charles (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, as a single-purpose template there is nothing wrong with it, I was referring to the multi-purpose that was discussed before. Of course, you can do as you please. --Cart (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• This was complicated enough. An all-embracing template would be quite beyond me. Charles (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Revenge votes and untrustable supports & opposes

These kind of capricious votes / unreal supports & opposes 1, 2, 3, maybe 4 should imperatively stop in FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrt the last link, Peulle FPX'd a perfectly decent photo. Benh disagreed with that and the only way to contest an FPX is to support. An FPX shuts down discussion on an image, prevents opportunities to fix or improve it. It should only be done if there is no hope whatsoever, and the image is so bad that it has no realistic chance of support. It says to the nominator that you've made a mistake. I don't think any of that applied to that photo, and it should have been given a fair chance. It seems to me, Basile, you are over concerned with following rules and wikilawyering. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• People will sway and change their votes all the time, it's part of FPC whether we like it or not. You can't expect folks to be totally logical robots. As for FPX, it is perfectly fine to contest it if you want to 'support' it. If you just want to reopen it, you can ask the user who did the FPX, just like Yann did here. --Cart (talk) 09:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That will work for a user who is as active as you. But there is a risk that the response might not come in time to prevent the nomination being removed, or the reviewer refuses, and in the mean time it puts off any further voting. I think there should be an option for someone (other than the nominator) to contest an FPX but not actually support. Either because they think the image is worthy of discussion or perhaps can be fixed (both linked candidates had alternative versions produced to try to fix issues). But that's a discussion perhaps for another day. The relevant thing wrt Basile's post is that Benh was acting in good faith and by contesting the FPX some useful discussion and an alternative arose, so really, what exactly was the problem? -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, that discussion could be done another day. ;) I was only saying that it is sometimes possible to talk with the FPX-er ("can" not "must"). --Cart (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Concerning this edit, it's strange to read "Support : I wouldn't really support...". The FPX works like this because humans programmed the robot to act like this. If we need a support to contest a FPX, that's probably because people thought it was a good idea. Maybe should we rather say that a neutral vote is enough to interrupt the procedure -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

May I suggest that ref 2 Basile Morin should have imperatively apologised for his inaccurate accusations before posting this diatribe. Charles (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, because I am not the author of that edit -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Basile Morin for such illumination and clarification and I suppose that Charles was also dazzled too. Great!!, the only thing you missed was asking @Colin: to apologize. For the moment I will stop intervening in your nominations to avoid making vandalism --The Photographer 17:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

POTY started

Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2017 has started. There is already a query at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2017/Help about one missing image that was manually promoted. I wonder if there are any more? Cart, do you know what went wrong with that image? -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Colin, the Bot was unable to process this correctly since it was nominated as a set, but dllu erroneously closed the nomination with a template designed for one image with an "Alt=" parameter. Because of that the name of the closing (the name of a single file) didn't correspond with the name of the nomination (what the set was called) and the bot could not match them. The number of photos in a set has nothing to do with this. If you close a set nom as a set, the Bot will take care of all the files and place them correctly in the right categories. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting Period ends

I came across this Featured Pictures after I saw Picture of Year competition. I want to nominate a picture of mine and it shows voting period ends. Can someone help me.—IM3847 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not really sure what you mean, but you can read about how you make a nomination in the page COM:FPC. When you create a nomination page, it will have a line at the top as to when the voting period for that particular nomination ends. It is perfectly normal, no need to worry. You have to make the nomination yourself so that it will get your signature and time stamp, but I can keep an eye on what you are doing and step in and correct things if necessary. --Cart (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've nominated a couple of images for FI and one for QI, was that the correct way?--IM3847 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything is correctly done and in working order. You are allowed to support your own nominations at FPC if you whish. Good luck! --Cart (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a historical reason that a nomination is not automatically taken to be support? Does anybody nominate a photo for FP that they don't want to succeed? Storkk (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

To your last question yes, alternative requested versions that the author doesn't care much about. Alternatively an author may simply not vote for (some of) their own work because they think it's not on the same level as their favorite pictures. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In the second case, why would the author nominate it? Storkk (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Make the QI process a prerequisite?

I think it may be beneficial to make the QI promotion a prerequisite when it's applicable (ie the work of a commoner), probably until a threshold is met (eg 5 quality images or 1 featured one).

I feel that a lot of Wikimedians come to FPC after seeing it in various places and don't even know that we have a QI process in place and the technical requirements that come with it.

The standards and requirements are not the same between Commons:Image_guidelines and what the average photographer has in mind. We recently witnessed this when Shizhao nominated 5 photo challenge winners which I believe were all declined ( [7] ), and we currently have three pictures up for nomination by Patriccck and NMaia which are unanimously opposed.

FPs typically have at least the same requirements as QIs, the result is a lot of negative reviews which discourages the photographer who shows off something beautiful they are proud of that doesn't meet our -often just software- requirements, it misdirected reviewers' effort who would have come here to express strong feelings about something they found amazing, and the average quality of FPC is brought down.

I think it would make sense to apply this requirement to voting also for the same reasons.

This has been discussed previously on Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_14#Make_QI_a_requirement?_Where_is_the_wow? and the idea seemed to have support but it didn't go anywhere.

--Trougnouf (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, though keeping in mind that on relatively rare occasions, a photo may fail at QIC and pass at FPC because the photo has so much wow, even though it's technically not fantastic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You have to bear in mind that nobody reads instructions. We're probably getting more newbie nominations here than normal because of POTY running. I have a problem recommending anyone new to go via QI as that's just a guarantee your photo will be pixel peeped rather than judged as an image. The two panning photos (File:What a flight !.jpg and File:Southern ground hornbill 2015 11 26 8461b.jpg) are pretty good and certainly usable in small size. And the File:HeuhütteZillertal.jpg photo is a great composition/scene let down by the compact-camera when examined closely, but also would be usable for small size. What would be very discouraging is for a photographer to see dull dull dull photos being promoted at QI because they have no obvious technical flaws, yet interesting, exciting, vivid, eye catching photos like these being declined because they aren't perfect at 100%. I really wish QI was "good enough quality to be useful" rather than FP without any wow. And since the feedback at QI is terse and usually one person, it isn't a good learning ground IMO, unless you are the sort of person who can handle such. Better perhaps, for a nominator to examine the existing FP categories for their image, and honestly judge if it is at a similar standard. So I think we'll always just have to handle such nominations, and I'd rather not put arbitrary hurdles in peoples way. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The relatively rare occasion when a photo may fail at QIC and pass at FPC is why I thought it would be more appropriate to use a low barrier of entry threshold (s.a. 5 QI) then remove the restriction altogether, to get the photographer used to what we expect without making it much of a burden. I do think that the QI process / feedbacks are excellent for learning, getting such feedback and having to figure out what's wrong with other people's photo on there has greatly improved my technical skills and I'm always recommending it to photographers looking to improve their skills (and a solution to a lack of reviewers on there isn't to move the submissions on here). The sample size for that is just me though. And indeed this whole proposal doesn't help much if nominators don't read the rules / guidelines / look at the associated category in the first place. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FP is the only part of Commons that is "advertised" outside the site and as POTD on the main page, that's why the newbies come here. And like Colin said, people don't read the instructions. Most newbies (hopefully, if the voters are kind that day) learn about QIC when their FPC nom gets turned down. As has been brought up in discussions at QIC, we first need to make people more aware that QI exists. Both as a stepping stone towards FP and as a good source for article photos. Even users from different Wikipedias don't know about it since there is no equivalent to QI on WP, only FP. --Cart (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have several FPs that I'm quite sure of they would fail at QIC. At QIC it should be forbidden to pixel-peep into images more than 6MP. And I already said once a few months ago: judging a QI for technical perfectness only could be done by a bot. But to keep real people watching over the images I am pro Colin's proposal. --Granada (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree that images should be reviewed at a set resolution (I use 200% of monitor which comes out to 6.9 MP after the Firefox real-estate) so as to not disadvantage higher MP cameras and encourage photographers to downsample, I don't know if this is mentioned anywhere (though Commons:Image guidelines does say (boldly) that images should not be downsampled). As far as a bot I would be all over it if a bot could recognize quality on natural images (to train a model on how to improve pictures) --Trougnouf (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Enwiki's Featured Pictures process

Enwiki's FPC process is pretty inactive. For anyone interested in it, I've opened a thread on VPI there to talk about what to do with it: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Enwiki's Featured Pictures process. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FPC etiquette regarding overwiting

How are things usually done at FPC regarding a non-author editing the file under consideration? If I am able to ameliorate the CA for a file under consideration at FPC, and there is little prospect of the uploader fixing it themselves before the nomination runs out (they seem to have appeared, uploaded and nommed the file, and disappeared), is overwriting the file a done thing? Does this change if the CA was the stated reason that I declined to support, and can I then immediately support? Does the answer change if I know of no way to fix the CA on a JPG without slightly degrading the edge colors (I'm using 4 separate filters to try to do this in the least worst way possible, but still)? FWIW I would have no problem with COM:OVERWRITE in this case, my question is only regarding FPC etiquette itself. Storkk (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does vary a bit. You want to avoid upsetting the author/nominator and also disrupting the nom if there are already votes or some reviewers might not think your fix helped. Most times a suggestion is made and we expect the author to fix it (and this depends on knowing a bit about the abilities of the author). You are right that just uploading over the top of someone's nominated image is considered rude. Sometimes people here will post a link to a dropbox version with the changes they think help, and perhaps notes about what they did. In the nomination for File:Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets - Duxford Air Festival 2018 - 2.jpg, The Photographer thought it was a bit noisy in the sky and uploaded a fix and then immediately self-reverted himself. I decided his fix was better than I could do myself so reverted it back. Sometimes people will upload a fix but leave a comment that the nominator is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. You could do any of these and ask fellow reviewers/nominator to judge if it is better. Have you tried leaving the nominator a message on their talk, or emailing them?

Another option is to consider whether the issue you found is really worth fixing. Are you referring to File:Stercoraire iceland.jpg? That's a 43MP image and if you are examining it on a 100dpi monitor then it is 2 metres wide and 1.3 metres tall. So I hope you stand back a bit before judging if you still see the CA. One technique some try is to look at a downsized version such as 6 MP (which is good enough to print A4 high quality) and see if it is still a problem. I'm a bit confused that that image is 43MP when the camera is only 24MP and there's no evidence it was stitched. Downsized to 24MP it looks a whole lot better, so perhaps that's the size it should be.

If an image requires a fair bit of rework, then sometimes it is re-nominated after the fix. If the nomination has been around a week then uploading a fixed version might not attract enough attention (even if you ping existing reviewers). And if there are other problems with the image, then your fix may not be enough to make people reconsider.

What software are you using to fix the image? You want to be careful to preserve the EXIF and embedded colour profile, and some software and some settings will lose that. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Colin. I think I'll take the safest route and upload it either as a separate file if the nomination succeeds, or overwrite if it fails. While the question was of course motivated by a specific example, my question was about the procedures here, not that example specifically. I'll abstain on File:Stercoraire iceland.jpg where I see CA especially on the grasses on the right of the eggs, even at 1,280 × 853 pixels, though perhaps that's just because I know it's there. It's quite strong in the 6MP version you linked... I understand that different voters will have different requirements for supporting, and can certainly understand those who don't find that amount of CA disturbing (or indeed <1° camera tilts, or small stitching errors, slight jpeg artifacts...), even if I don't agree with them. Storkk (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I usually just overwrite an image if I see that it is jpeg straight out of camera with clear flaws (eg File:Stranded mules during the Uttarakhand Floods of 2013 as encountered by People for Animals during a rescue operation.jpg which I noticed on QIC), or link to an alternate (such as File:Trougnouf's sandbox.jpg) that the author is free to use otherwise. If the author seems skilled enough to do it themselves but long inactive or if the change is rather subjective I'll overwrite and add a comment along the lines of feel free to revert. That's not a guideline but I don't believe I've upset anyone thus far. Most of the time this doesn't apply on QIC/FPC as it's best to teach people the ways. --Trougnouf (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI crowdfunding notice

I've started a theard regarding a new possible Crowdfunding Campaign for a new computer for User:Jkadavoor. Input and comments are welcome. --Cart (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I´ll be happy to contribute, just let me know …. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Files disrupting the FPC voting system

It can be fun to add small images, smileys and even sound files to the discussions in the voting process, but please keep in mind that these files can disrupt the whole thing. Most of us know by now that only the usual voting symbols from the ({{support}} {{oppose}} {{neutral}} templates will be counted by the FPCBot. Other templates like {{strong oppose}} {{weak support}} {{abstain}} {{overexposed}} etc. will just be ignored and we use the piping system instead. Example: {{s|strong support}}. It is the same with all smileys that are made through templates like {{smiley|;)}} for and urls for sound files and other links. They are also ignored by the Bot.

If a file is mentioned in the discussion, it should be written with the ":" in front so that just the name is shown. ANY file that is displayed in full, other that the nomination, will be read as an "Alt" by the Bot. They should be commented out or the ":" placed in front of the file name before the bot comes to close it. We recently had the Bot refusing to close a nomination on the fifth day because a music file was added in a vote. It read it as an "Alt" and wanted it to go the whole nine days even though there were no 'opposes' and it had more than ten votes. Now I see that thumbs up and down (like [[File:Dobar.svg|20px]]) plus non-template smileys have begun to appear. This is fine as long as there is an 'oppose' and the nomination will run the full nine days, otherwise it will stall the closing. It may however result in the Bot demanding to know which file to promote,even if there is only one file actually nominated.

Please bear all this in mind when you play around with additions in the voting process. It may be fun, but the system is unfortunately not designed for these little gadgets. --Cart (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Cart, for this reminder, as I was not aware of that. I keep this in mind for the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I've just replaced 3 of these small images with templates to help the task of the bot -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I would also suggest adding the {{support}} etc only at the beginning of a line. Some people like to use it as part of a sentence, burying it in the middle of a long paragraph. That makes it hard and error-prone to manually count votes. If all the votes are nicely lined up on the left edge of the screen, it would be much easier to verify. dllu (t,c) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• @W.carter: I noticed that you put {{support}} on an indented line. Is that OK for the bot? Thank you --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Wolfgang Moroder: Yes. The Bot can read a vote anywhere in a sentence unless it is striked like this:  Support. It is just more convenient to have the vote at the beginning of the post when we, for some reason, count the votes manually. An indent doesn't hinder the process either. It is the arbitrary placing of votes inside a comment  like this, that can make it hard to find in the manual process but the Bot will always find it. The post above by dllu, is just a good recommendation. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

QICbot is dead?

I guess that is not working. --Laitche (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, but here it's more FPC :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

New contributors' votes

A low quality image was recently nominated by a new contributor who had only 3 edits and 0 days. This user failed in the processus of creation of the page, so I had to fix a few problems in the code before tagging it {{FPX}}. Not only the quality was far insufficient, but COM:FP says "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.". Now I'd like to know if there are exceptions to this rule. If the quality is good for example, can new contributors with less than 10 days and 50 edits support their own nominations ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, It is quite obvious from the wording you cite, and it is like this since this rule exists. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely not obvious. What is obvious on the contrary is that editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote and editors whose accounts have less than 10 days or less than 50 edits cannot vote. Your interpretation is certainly wrong. And if I'm asking someone else, that's because you've suggested to ask someone else. So don't be surprised and don't answer once again with the same statement than the one you can't prove. I believe you made a mistake removing this template and you're also wrong to pretend new contributors can vote. At least that's not in the text, and that's not in the archives neither until now. I wouldn't see the use of writing official guidelines in order to act differently -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC) errors from my side amended -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess he meant the sentence "Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations", which is certainly thought as an exception out of the "10 days / 50edits" rule. --A.Savin 06:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

So create a fake account, nominate your work, support it as nominator, then you get one extra support ? After that, just disappear. Nonsense. If that rule exists, that's certainly to avoid cheating IMO. And to avoid technical errors. I've just fixed the name of the author / uploader which was also wrong -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's similar like in case of cross-wiki meatpuppetry -- it's easy to mobilize seven supporters with more than 10d/50e each, but in practice experienced editors who are active at FPC take much more critical look at such nominations. We had cases of meatpuppetry here, but all that noms failed in the end, as far as I can remeber --A.Savin 07:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I remember Pumpkinsky/Halfgig spoiled many nominations by voting twice. So this rule is one more security. That's safer for the FP section to respect its guideline. I'm not in favor of saying something and doing something else, all the more so when we've been here for a long time. The rules are here and should be respected, or changed accordingly to the consensus. I think this is how Wikimedia works. And there's still freedom for the regular users. If the rules must be special for the new contributors AND nominators, then the guidelines may be explicitly amended, but only after concertation / discussion, and personally I would find absurd to change this part. For now, there's no exception stated, so no is just no -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The text does not say "editors whose accounts have less than 10 days or less than 50 edits cannot vote". If it did, it would have to explicitly say that nominator-votes is an exception. Instead it mentions two groups (which may often overlap) who can vote and mentions one group that can never vote. It has worked without confusion for years. All systems are open to some abuse. We want to encourage new nominators (especially new photographer nominators at this time of WLM). Although Pumpkinsky/Halfgig managed to add a single extra vote to some of their nominations, it had a pretty marginal effect on the total that succeeded, making one wonder why go to all that bother to get a gold star. These rules were also copied over to Photo Challenge, where users with few contributions but who entered a challenge with photos are allowed to vote. And since Photo Challenge is meant to be even more "newbie friendly", we often are relaxed about editors with just less than 50 or who were active on another wiki project already. -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

1) "You can smoke outside" doesn't mean you can smoke outside for sure, and inside maybe too. No, it just means you can't smoke inside. No ambiguity 2) The system has certainly been confusing for years, since only last month a similar invalid vote was struck out by me. Now we just have to agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Basile, could you just please accept you misunderstood. What you are claiming, about smoking rules, just isn't correct in English unless said in rebuke to someone caught smoking inside. The simplest logical understanding is to take both statements at face value, rather than try to guess some implication of the opposite. That nobody spotted your error last time, just reflects an assumption of good faith and competence. I wouldn't read into it that anyone agreed your were right last time. -- Colin (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Last time, I was right. Because last time, the IP 176.32.16.176 supported a nomination that they could NOT support. They could not support because the guidelines say "Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed". So what happened last time : the invalid vote was reported unsigned and simply struck out like that as it was right to proceed.

Now, misunderstanding something, or something misleading ? "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." So if you have 3 edits for example, you just cannot vote. Same if you have 1 day or 2 days you cannot vote. Simple, obvious, explicit. "Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations." It means you can support the image you propose to others for reviews. Nobody is forced. You can abstain if you wish, or oppose if you're stupid, but supporting is allowed in any case. Particular rule, different from the photo challenge. So what about those new contributors with less than 10 days or less than 50 edits, can they vote for their own nominations too ? Is there an exception specified somewhere in the text ? No. Does their profiles match with the first requisite ? No. "You can smoke outside the kitchen. Everybody can eat" doesn't mean you can eat and smoke inside because everybody can eat, no. Sure it's written nowhere that we can't smoke inside, but it's obviously implied. At the condition you respect the first requisite, you can eat like everybody. Smoking outside or not smoking at all, we just don't like the smoke / Support your own nomination after 10 days and 50 edits or support any nomination, we just prefer regular accounts. The other interpretation is very intricate IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Although the person shouldn't have voted last time, you weren't entirely right because the reason you gave was not "Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed". You seem determined to read the positive statement "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." as an absolute inverse negative. When women got the vote, nobody said "Oh, now that 'women can vote' I guess that means men can't". This is a silly argument and I'm done. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed." comes from Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Voting in the instructional section. If you have a look at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#General rules in the Featured picture candidate policy section things get crystal clear: Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits. It's been like that since 2011. --El Grafo (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

OK Thanks, El Grafo -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Extra images disrupting the FPC closing process

Another reminder that you should please not display extra images in FPC nominations unless they are Alternatives. The Bot will read them as Alts as soon as they are not written like this: [[:File:Nice photo.jpg]]. This time it was Ralf Roletschek who has added a small eye to his signature. This will be read as an Alt every time he votes at FPC, so please Ralf remove it from your signature. This is how the Bot closing looked: [8]. We have had this trouble before, and the only way is to close the nom as if it had an Alt: [9]. For everyone's sake, no extra images. In addition to the reason above, images in signatures are not allowed per the official Commons policy. --Cart (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Livioandronico2013 aka Σπάρτακος aka Architas cheating at FPC

Here we go again... Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013. --Cart (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thankfully this was discovered before the Architas account had done that many votes at FPC. Only two closed nominations had double votes: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amrumer Windmühle (2018).jpg by Frank Schulenburg and Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Stuart House horoscope room 2018-08-25.jpg by Colin. These made FP anyway. Some active nominations have also been corrected. I haven't been able to check all the Σπάρτακος/Livioandronico2013 interactions yet, that may take some time. --Cart (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Very sad. One thing, however, I find strange: the account "Σπάρτακος" was registered 21 May 2013, which is even earlier than Livioandronico (August 2013). They also uploaded some self-made pictures at the same time Livioandronico was active (long before the known problems with him). This is rather untypical for an egocentric person like Livioandronico. I guess, either the sockpuppetry was planned long-time in advance (for whatever reason), or the account "Σπάρτακος" originally belonged to a different person (possibly his wife/grandmother/whoever) and then, after indefblocking of the main account, the other one was taken over and real sockpuppetry had begun. Whatever may apply -- I hope that his indef block is now truly infinite. Thanks to Cart for fixing the noms. --A.Savin 18:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC) P.S. With the other sock (Architas), all is quite clear -- registered in 2018, uploaded some Italy photos similar to Livio's, with removed EXIF data. --A.Savin 18:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• You should try harder to hide the fact that your simply Livio's meatpuppet -- Colin // You mean Livio Andronico 2013 suspect. Sure why not! If you believe this, do the checks you prefer. Where is the problem? -- Σπάρτακος. I guess I suspected some off-wiki collusion years ago but forgot all about it till Elcobbola's block. -- Colin (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment There was really an attempt to game the system, so I would agree about "forfeiting" nominations where cheating took place. I should say that the success rate is very low. But I wonder what would happen to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:NSG Rotwildpark Stuttgart 2014 14 Bärenschlössle.jpg without the oppose votes. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume that the high rate of double voting, even when it made no difference, was just a way to hide what was going on. An awful lot of work to go to just to get some extra gold stars or extra revenge opposes. Wrt that image, see my comment below about nominators should feel free to renominate if they think the vote was harmed. -- Colin (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Fixing the damage

I'm slowly looking through contributions for Σπάρτακος on FPC to find nominations where both Livioandronico2013 and Σπάρτακος voted. So far I have only done from Feb to May 2015 and have uncovered many double votes. I'm listing them below. They will all need correcting and there will be some casualties. Clearly the second vote should be removed to correct the score. What do people think about Livioandronico2013's own nominations where he cheated with the Σπάρτακος account? I inclined to think those should be disqualified regardless of the voting outcome. -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Tempting as it may seem with all the mess we now have to sort out, I think such disqualifications would set a bad precedent for future cases. It may be hard to know where to draw the line for such actions. --Cart (talk) 11:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Previously our approach was just to remove the sock votes and recount. Perhaps being blocked is bad enough consequence. I don't think we should let "slippery slope" worry us about drawing the line at a certain point if the community agrees. It seems a reasonable position to take that if you cheat in your nomination then it is forfeit. It would be a good disincentive for future cases. This case is far worse than the previous one, with nearly all of Σπάρτακος's contributions at FPC being subsequent duplicate votes of Livioandronico2013 and a large number concerning their own nominations. -- Colin (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if I guess correctly that Σπάρτακος had belonged to an other person before Livioandronico's indefblock, there's formally nothing wrong with their votes at that period of time (ethically, meatpuppetry and friendly votes are still dubious, but that's not relevant here). --A.Savin 13:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Although the CU tool obviously cannot see the person behind an account, and thus often cannot distinguish between meat- and sockpuppetry, behavioural evidence here strongly suggests Livioandronico2013 and Σπάρτακος are indeed one person rather than two people editing in coordination. For example: note the distinctive "+image" edit summary (Livioandronico2013: [10][11][12]; Σπάρτακος: [13][14][15]) I reference this "tell" openly because it is a practice they have discontinued; there are, of course, many others. Эlcobbola _talk 15:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

We sould disqualify at least when the double votes changed the result. Not sure about the others. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've finished comparing their FPC voting and uncovered 336 nominations where Livioandronico2013 socked to get double the votes. Naturally, quite a lot of them are Livioandronico2013's own photos and/or nominations. I haven't amended any nominations yet. Hopefully some more people will voice their opinions on what we should do with them. There's a strange gap in the contributions from Σπάρτακος between 26 February 2016 and 28 January 2018. Livioandronico2013 got indef blocked in November 2017. The Architas account started on 29 April 2018. This leaves me suspicious there may be another sock account used while Σπάρτακος was dormant. -- Colin (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thinking about it, Σπάρτακος stopped editing shortly after I accused him of meatpuppetry with Livioandronico2013. So I guess he got scared he'd be discovered. Still, there remains the possibility that there are other accounts he used instead. Σπάρτακος only returned when the Livioandronico2013 was blocked indef. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Colin for all your hard work in tracking down all of these double votes. I think we could at least start with fixing the double votes on the third party nominations while waiting for a decision about how to treat all Livioandronico2013/Σπάρτακος nominations. After they are done they could be marked as fixed in the list. I have done so on the second list. Please revert if you don't agree with this way of marking them. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• That's one approach. Alternatively we could just wait for some more comments. It is quite a big list, so I wouldn't want to have to go through it twice. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, let's wait a bit longer before we start the real cleanup work. Of course I'll help with this. --Cart (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I removed some votes where the nominations were not closed yet. --Yann (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• On previous cases we have only removed the excess vote(s), per the "one vote per user" rule. With your edits both votes are now removed and you have explained this with "banned user". Is this really correctly done? Should we remove votes because a user is banned too, or is this just in this special case where this is one more sock? Otherwise it would give us a lot of work cleaning up all old votes from banned users. Let's not go wild on this. --Cart (talk) 08:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, technically neither account is "banned", just indef blocked. I think Yann is removing votes made by the sock while block-evading, rather than retrospectively removing all votes made by the sock. I think that is a reasonable position to take. Part of the reason Livio was blocked was revenge-voting and so permitting him to vote with a block-evading-sock would be wrong, even if that was the only vote made on a nomination by this person. So I would be in favour of removing all votes made by the two sock accounts during the periods where Livio was blocked (the current period and the previous term that was ended by INC against community consensus). Livio was not permitted to edit here during that time, so I think we should not permit votes during that time that were made by block-evading socks. If we allowed them, then we are in effect making the block worthless. Does Yann think we should remove the votes for completed nominations as well as the current ones? -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. If we accept votes from indetected socks, that will encourage him (and other LTAs) to sock again.
• We should also removed votes in closed nominations if they changed the result. In these cases, I would renominate the files for a cleaning process.
• For other cases, I am quite neutral. I am not against removing them, but I won't push for doing that either. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Ok, so if I'm reading this right, all votes by Architas's should be removed as well as Σπάρτακος's votes during the time the Architas account was active. In the case of Livioandronico2013/Σπάρτακος double votes, should we remove both votes too or just one of them? --Cart (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I think, regardless of what we decide to do about votes, if a nomination would therefore succeed then it should be automatically promoted without fuss. If it would therefore fail then we should list it here and ping the nominator/creator to see if they want to nominate again, except of course for cases where Livio's nominations fail. I think it reasonable to examine the votes made by Livo while blocked and using a sock account. I can provide a list. It would include all of Architas votes but only some of Σπάρτακος's. We can decide if we want to remove them. I'm not keen to remove all of Σπάρτακος's votes solely because they are a sock, because many were made while Livio was not blocked and he was then entitled to one vote. Even if removing votes doesn't change the outcome to a nomination, if a nominator/creator feels their nomination was damaged by Livio's voting, then I'd be happy to consider that a valid reason to renominate. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• I am making a list of FPs where the result was changed by double voting. There are also nominations with one vote support, and one oppose: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Prowincja Ararat, Widok na Wielki Ararat i klasztor Chor Wirap (04).jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling.jpg, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Kettbach -- 2015 -- 8499-503.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Simplest method would be to strike the second vote, which ever one that is. I think Livio mostly voted first then Σπάρτακος, but occasionally Σπάρτακος was early, or was even the nominator. -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• We all talk about this as Livio's account and socks, but technically the Σπάρτακος account was created first (2013-05-21) and the sock Livioandronico2013 came later (2013-08-23). Whatever. --Cart (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to get really technical, Livioandronico2013 was c. 284 – c. 205 BC and Σπάρτακος was c. 111–71 BC. :-) -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• --Cart (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment I reviewed all nominations. There are 26 of them were the double votes changed the result. So these FP status should be removed. I am going to renominate some of them. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Yann, great job! Just saw Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Maria in Campitelli (Rome) - Dome.jpg in the Livio/featured list. Is it in the right list (1 support & 1 abstain)? Also pinging Colin. --Cart (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Double Voting Lists

Comments on lists

• I have started to fix the affected noms and inform the nominators. The fixed noms are marked in the "Where extra vote changed the result"-list. This will take some time though. --Cart (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed All the files where the vote was changed due to an extra vote have now been fixed and nominators notified. Well, I didn't see the need to notify Livio about his two noms. I think it would only be a waste of time to go through all the other nominations just to strike one vote when nothing will be changed. We can use that time and energy for something better. I would like to thank Colin who made the original lists and Yann who put together the list that made it easier for me to fix this. I think it's good to wait a few days and see what the consensus will be regarding the perhaps-to-be-promoted images. I'll take care of those later. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What to do about the images that could be promoted after losing one vote

•  Comment I suggest that FPC that were affected by the votes, up or down, be changed automatically without having to renominate. If a photo was promoted because of double vote, unpromote, if photo was not promoted because of double vote, promote. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree to Tomascastelazo - would be fair to handle both cases in the same way --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I think it is better to renominate these images. Some may pass, and some may not pass, but then we will have a clean vote. That's what usually happens in real life elections (well how it should happen IMHO). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Cart, Yann, I agree with above. Nominations that just failed because of the extra oppose should be promoted without doubt. For example Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Regent Street 01.jpg by User:Benh. However, I'm not sure the best way to handle POTY considerations, because Benh's photo deserves a place. If you think it is tidiest to run a renom, can we make it clear that the image did deserve to be promoted earlier, but wasn't due to cheating. I also think that if anyone's nom remains a close-fail after removing a sock oppose, then I'd be happy to see a renomination. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Colin: I have no problem with promoting the photos if that is the consensus of the community. POTY and all of that is no problem. They can be inserted in this month's chronological and run in this year's voting. Last year we had several FPs that didn't appear in the system due to fumbles in closing the noms by PumpkinSky, and I fixed that then. I can get the photos in the right places in the system to make it all work.

I think an elegant solution to this would be to promote the photos automatically UNLESS the nominator want to re-nominate the photo now and get a clean voting session. The photos in question are:

• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Engin Umut Akkaya - In the Lab.JPG by Kruusamägi
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Megabalanus coccopoma.jpg by Ggia
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caupolicana electa, f, ga, baker, side 2015-01-08-09.24.44 ZS PMax (16394012107).jpg by Natuur12
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carnitas in Mexico.jpg by Tomascastelazo
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocodylus acutus camouflage.jpg by Tomascastelazo
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Regent Street 01.jpg by Benh
• Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg by Yann - Already renominated

--Cart (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

+1 -- KTC (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I would agree. Not that I want my photo promoted (I have now left), but clearly Livio disrupted the process in those cases. - Benh (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am quite uneasy with promoting these images without a new vote. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yann: If the consensus is to promote these images instead of a new vote, you can nominate them for deletion later if you don't think they are up to standard. There are always options. --Cart (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• The photos failed at that specific moment and would have otherwise been promoted if it weren´t for the cheating, and reflected at that time the general preferences of the community. If they are renominated now that may not pass because the make up of the community has changed. It is not that I want my images to be FP, but rather I think it is important to allow the will of the majority at that time. I would not renominate anyway. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Info It's been one week since the last post in this discussion, so I'll get on with fixing the promotions for these nominations. Except for File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg that has already been re-nominated. --Cart (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
•  More info The files have now been fixed, pics inserted in galleries, users notified and photos added to chronological so they can be part of this year's POTY instead of the one they missed. I have added them to the last completed month, September, so as not to disturb the Bot counter for the current month. We don't need any more trouble right now. ('Ping' KTC to let them know what's going on since they have done the rest of the editing on that page.) --Cart (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Action to be taken

On it

• Ok, I'll get on with fixing these as I did with the rest. I'll mark in the list as they get done. --Cart (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• All fixed. Hopefully it will be a long time before we have to go through someting like this again. --Cart (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks very much Cart. Agree, two sock cheats this year is two sock cheats too many. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:FPD

{{FPD}} says, that "only two active nominations per user are allowed". Why, for example Cart (and I think a lot of more users), nominated more pictures. I think I unstand something wrong. Please correct this. Habitator terrae 🌍 12:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Right now, I don't see more than 2 active nominations for anyone. The important point is that only active nominations are counted. Withdrawn or closed nominations are not. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The text in the template isn't really clear about this, because it doesn't define, what active means. I think it should be replaced with open, because I first thing active means, that the person must active nominate, not only upload, the picture. Habitator terrae 🌍 13:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "the person must active nominate, not only upload, the picture". Uploading (and creating) an image is quite irrelevant to the "two" count. The rules state "Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed". It is clearly talking about the user making nominations, not about who the photographer or uploader was. I don't think "open" is any clearer than "active": both are rather terse language. More explicitly, the nomination is being "actively considered" or the nomination is "open for voting", but I don't see much need to change the text if it isn't causing widespread confusion. -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm for open for voting, because not all person could speak english like a mother tongue; Not all, I think, will know, what active means here. (Yes I know my english is very bad) Habitator terrae 🌍 14:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Habitator terrae if English isn't your 1st language, then the rules and template should be translated into the language you use. I don't know how to ensure such pages get translated, and don't speak any other languages, but I'm sure someone else here can do it if that is the problem. Commons is multilingual. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Habitator terrae, Colin: Even though Commons is multilingual, very little of the text in it is translated into other languages. Most of the minor templates are not translated. This is mostly because the code system for translations is so complicated and hard to use. I'm a translator on en-wiki and a code hacker here on COM, still I haven't been able to make sense of the translating system here. Looking at some examples, I see that the German version of Commons is uncommonly well translated, while the Swedish is a mix of sections in Swedish and English. The translated sections are often abbreviated and either missing info or have outdated info. I had to update the faulty Swedish version of the FPC rules since the translation was done in 2009 when you only needed 5 'support' votes to get a 'feature'. The French FPC page is a bit better than the Swedish, at least it is updated, and the Spanish is very brief and sketchy on the rules.

So if you really want to know what's going on, I suggest you use the English version and Google translate. Sadly. Plus ask other users for help about what different things mean. With such inadequate info for non-English-speaking users, it's no wonder we get some rather poor nominations here from time to time. If they don't see any rules on the page in their own language, how can they know... --Cart (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and made {{FPD}} multilingual (and made a quick translation to French). Feel free to add additional translations. Since this is using the Translate extension, it will keep in sync with the English source. I’m happy to spend time marking pages for translation and/or upgrading legacy translations to use the Translate extension, if you point me to the pages that need updates :) Hope that helps, Jean-Fred (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Jean-Fred. However, when I went ahead to translate the link to Swedish, I noticed that the link in the English original was to the wrong page. (!) This is probably because it hasn't been updated while new pages and things were added on the site. I know there are lots of these small old/outdated things that haven't been fixed. I corrected it in the original and I hope it will filter out to the translated pages. Could you just check it for me and see if it's ok? --Cart (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Good catch Cart  :) I re-marked the page for translation and the change was propagated to all translations. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Also did {{FPX}} and Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've translated {{FPD}} and {{FPX}} to German. As for Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines, maybe we should remove some ballast first. A lot of this is probably better explained at Commons:Photography terms and Commons:Image guidelines… --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Procedural question about contesting FPX

Quick procedural question: I recently contested an FPX. Now the FPXer Peulle had made an oppose vote before adding the {{FPX}}, leading to an unintended double vote after I replaced it with {{FPXcontested}}. Would this confuse the bot? Recently we also had a discussion somewhere about how early votes can influence later voters, so, should I have struck one of the votes? --El Grafo (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bot only counts voting templates, it doesn't care who made the vote. The FPX template is supposed to be the same (as far as the Bot is concerned) as an 'Oppose', but we all know that the Bot has failed in this respect in recent years, so this will have to be double checked manually when the nom is closed. This technical error occurred because Peulle went about this in an unusual way. Normally the whole reason for FPX should go inside the template and not as a separate vote. I have striked the first of the votes, as you suggested, since it is the only way to fix this because you can't strike the 'contested' template. We know that no harm was intended here, just glitches in the system, so we'll keep an eye on it. --Cart (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Scientific images

Hi, if anyone is more into the selection process, please take a look at Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2017/Winners. there are many good pictures that were uploaded by newbies and were not suggested yet for any recognition here. It took a lot of effort and volunteers' time to gather these images, some of them are "special" for their unique technical content. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Thanks for posting here. I've gone through and nominated a few of them over the past months (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), but I agree there are several others that are potentially good candidates here. Are the winners finalized now? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes User:Rhododendrites. However, I think Ivo want to make it official on Nov, the 1st and is currently contacting the winner or the national chapter involved. The final ranking was summarized seven days ago, I sent a mail to all the jurors last Sunday and nobody opposed, so it is confirmed. Today I have inserted the last motivation.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Minimum time before a renomination

As far as I know there is no minimum time between the closure of a nomination and the renomination of the same image, but a few people have suggested that there should be. I propose this idea for consideration:

"An image which has been considered at FPC and not passed may be renominated under the following conditions:

• if the image has been edited or a new version has been created to address issues that were raised during the previous nomination then the new edited image or version version may be nominated immediately after the closure or withdrawal of the previous nomination;
• if the image has not been edited and a new version has not been created to address issues that were raised during the previous nomination then 60 days must elapse between the closure or withdrawal of the previous nomination and the new nomination."

This policy would not be retroactive. --Pine^✉ 20:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Support

Neutral

• I think that an image which received only support votes but did not pass with the minimum seven support votes in a nomination would be okay to renominate immediately after the closure of the previous nomination, but this view is not shared by others. --Pine^✉ 20:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose per comment below.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Peulle and Charles. Too many variables. --Cart (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I agree with Charles's proposal below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many strict rules. Let's keep FPC as simple as possible. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment I would support the first point. Given that an image has been "significantly reworked" (meaning not just a few simple edits), it should be allowed to be renominated. I do not agree with the second point and I feel that a 60 day grace period is too short, given that there is no other qualifier to address the issue of how the previous nomination went. While it may be reasonable to accept a renomination for an image that lacked a single support vote and had no opposes, it might not be reasonable in other cases, such as there being a single oppose that blocked it from passing, or there being a narrow result barely barely preventing it. With this suggestion, such narrow results are not kept separate from nominations that failed abysmally with lots of opposes and no support. I suggest adding such a qualifier, for instance that "in order to be renominated within 60 days, the previous nomination can have received no opposes". Alternatively, I would suggest the period should be 365 days. Thus, as the suggestion stands currently, I must oppose.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment There are too many options in the proposal to give a simple support or oppose. From my perspective:

1. Any image which receives a positive balance of support, but fails to reach the required majority may be renominated (by any user) after 12 months.
2. An image which receives an equal number of negative and positive votes or more negative votes should not be renominated.
I can't think of any exceptions. If an image has been "very significantly reworked" then it will be a new image and able to be nominated on its own merits. Nominators should perform most reworking during the nomination period. 'No opposes' or a 'single oppose vote' are not valid criteria. My last FP had 19 positive votes and one oppose by Peulle. The oppose vote was not changed even though the faults had been corrected and that's just how it goes sometimes. There will often be one voter who has a different view (and it's often me!). Charles (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

One year is much too long whatever are the criteria. Two months may be OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't want to encourage people to nominate something every 2 months. But to a large degree, this stuff is really self-policing. If we don't want something renominated, we can oppose it for that reason, as we just did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think that, where we can, these sort of etiquette conditions should not require documenting or strict defined boundaries. Most people seem to play nicely and here most people seem to have agreement with the principle behind the proposal. So, as Ikan says, we can always make our feelings known with a vote. -- Colin (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Finally fixing the deprecated FP category "Panoramas"

Many of us have at one time or another heard that we should not use the "Panorama" category when nominating FPC, but it is still there among the FP categories and the page is still up, so a bit confusing. As a result of a small discussion on my talk page, I finally found the old discussion about this from over three years ago. It seems that the FPC Bot was not communicating correctly with the page making it just a very long list of photos in no order. At that time it was difficult to add panoramas to the normal categories, but that is no longer a problem thanks to the new gallery format. A vote was held and people started to copy/move files from "Panoramas" to other FP categories, but things sort of ebbed out and the work wasn't finished.

So now we are thinking of finishing that work by removing the link to Panoramas from Template:Commons FP galleries and Commons:Featured pictures page(s). After that, a text can be put on top of the Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas page saying that "This category is no longer active, please choose another category, for example: /Places, /Cityscapes, ..." As soon as those steps are done, we can copy/move all the files that are still not processed on the "Panoramas" page, to the other categories. The old page will still be around with its very, very long list of panorama files, resting in peace.

It has been a while since the old discussion, so it is only prudent to post a notice here before work starts in case anyone has something to add to this. We will hold off for a couple of weeks. --Cart (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think, if we're going to remove it from the list of FP pages, we need to clear it out completely. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep. That's why I've batted my eyelashes at Christian Ferrer to help me with this, since he knows a lots about the íns and outs of the FP galleries and categories. Anyway, the notice have been sitting here for a couple of weeks now, so we might get going with this any day now. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, ok I added a sentence at this template, and removed "panoramas from the FP list as well as from the template FP galleries. Let me know if I have to do something else. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks you so much Christian Ferrer, I think you got them all. I've reinstated the template at the top of Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas. So the next step would be to perhaps create a Panorama sub-category on Category:Featured pictures instead. I'll start a fresh discussion about that below, so that people can say what they think. --Cart (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Strange assessments

While cleaning up some FP categories, I came across File:Boats, pier and bicycle CNV00007.jpg. It looks like the author, Olivercastaño aka Oliver Castaño Mallorca aka Skapheandros, have given himself a little pat on the back by adding FP, VI and QI assesments to the photo. There are no links to any nomination pages that I can find, but before I remove the assessment template, I just wanted to check with the rest of the users here if anyone knows anything about this or can give another explanation for it. --Cart (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

He added the templates himself (this year), no bot has added one of the templates. IMO the assessment templates should be removed. --XRay ^talk 11:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And he had done the same for File:Stair car park.jpg, File:Luminaria.tif, File:Entelechy in lathhouse (inner acuatic landscape).tif and File:Death blue spirit (Ghost).jpg. --XRay ^talk 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite a busy little fellow. Agree that self-added tags like this should be removed. Just wanted to make sure in case I had missed something. He also has three accounts. --Cart (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Skapheandros, Olivercastaño, and Oliver Castaño Mallorca: Please could explain this situation, thanks / Por favor, podrias explicar esta situacion, gracias --Photographer 12:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

(XRay, you have to sign the post during the same edit as the 'ping' otherwise the 'ping' will not work. So here once more @Skapheandros, Olivercastaño, and Oliver Castaño Mallorca: just to make sure it works. A mention works the same way as a ping so The Photographer did it right the first time. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC))

All images fixed. The first one was already fixed. --XRay ^talk 11:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Another user has reported him to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Oliver Castaño Mallorca. Apparently the Skapheandros account was blocked in 2012, so he just created another account and carried on, on his old user page. --Cart (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Panorama FP gallery page now closed - Should we create a category for such pictures instead?

The old not-working FP gallery/category is now closed and should not be used anymore. However, it would be nice to have these images gathered in some place. Christian Ferrer suggested that we could "...create a kind of category Category:Featured pictures of panoramas instead of this gallery." as a sub category to . What does the rest of the community think? Should we do this? Should we name it "Featured pictures of panoramas" to be in line with the names of the other categories on that page or would another name be more correct/appropriate?. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

 Oppose creating this category. The criterion is not quite clear. Is a panorama any image that was stitched from two or more images? In the former FP gallery, there were only photos with a very wide aspect ratio of, say, 3:1 and more. But such photos are neither necessarily stitched nor always depicting a "panorama" in the meaning of "wide view", "landscape" etc. (see en:Panoramic painting). So, actually, whether it's panorama or not is in the end a subjective impression of the viewer. I'm not seeing any added value of this category for now --A.Savin 15:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Having gone though almost all of the photos in the old gallery, I saw that the concept of panorama had a very wide meaning. This was acceptable during all the time the gallery was active, I can't really see what has changed now. Some examples from it:

  File:Nunâ island Upernavik district 2007-08-09 3.jpg, File:Dent de Vaulion - 360 degree panorama.jpg, File:Empire State Building pano.jpg, File:Petronas Panorama II.jpg, File:Pantheon wider centered.jpg, File:El Palau de les Arts Reina Sofía, Valencia - Jan 2007.jpg, File:2013-02-05 13-54-49-fort-roppe.jpg, File:Paris, Notre Dame -- 2014 -- 1458-65.jpg, File:San Carlos Sonora landscape.jpg, File:Foro Romano visto dal Vittoriano Roma.jpg.

  Judging which FP category a photo should belong to isn't always that easy with other subjects either. Yet we somehow manage to put FPs in the most appropriate categories without any specific rules, since a lot of FPs can go into two or even three categories. Like File:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg which is in 'FPs from NASA', 'FPs of Cetacea' and 'FPs of Florida'. --Cart (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

What makes an FP?

Interesting article today on FStoppers: How Specializing Shows That Other Photographers' Critiques Can Be Wrong. The author argues that many of the styles/rules of photography that his fellow photographers thought were desirable, were not in fact wanted by his travel photography clients. They, for example, wanted daytime photos of buildings only open during the day, so forget blue-hour. Things we think are cool, like blurred water or Golden Hour tones, can look just wrong to someone expecting "normal" or what our eyes see.

Since Commons is an educational image repository, perhaps we also need to recalibrate and not just praise the stormy clouds, over-processed, dramatic photo, but appreciate excellence in documenting how it is. Also, like the article says, some projects like WikiVoyage would probably prefer midday sun than a thunder cloud. Thoughts? -- Colin (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• The first rule is that there are no rules. It always depends... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• The opinion may be often right. For the first steps critiques of other photographers will help a lot. But for further steps with more creativity the critiques are only sometimes helpfull. Another point are better technique and pixel peeping. If you look only at pixel level for sharpness and not for the message (hopefully the right word) of a picture it's not suitable as critique. --XRay ^talk 06:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks for the hint, Colin. Most remarkable quote in my eyes: Of course, image quality is important, but it should always be secondary to the message. This is something that is often lost in critique sessions.. --Code (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd add in something from historical photos: Beware of popular trends in art meant to be timeless. Some of them are going to look really dated in a few years. You can often tell photography within a decade just based on some of the weird conventions of each period. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• +1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• A picture may be a work of art, but many pictures that someone pays for are also tools for a particular purpose. That doesn't mean making pictures for art shows is a bad thing; it's merely a tool for that purpose and may succeed. However, a picture that well serves in art shows may fail to serve a different purpose. FP is pretty much an art show; it is only somewhat relevant to another purpose of Commons pictures, which is illustrating articles. Indeed I think illustration is the main purpose for Commons, though others disagree. So, the art show merrily continues among people who care about that purpose. No problem as long as we don't mistakenly assume relevance to other purposes than showing and studying splendid works of art. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• I think it's more particularly VIs that are for illustration. FPs are for all-round excellence and my impression is that QIs are mostly for technical competence. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Counting delisting votes: rules unclear?

This delisting vote ended in 6:0 votes for delisting, but was closed as kept, which I found a bit strange. I looked at the rules again:

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

1. Appropriate license (of course)
2. At least seven  Support votes at the end of nine days
3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured […]

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. […]

As far as I understood the rules, it should have been delisted, as 1) there was a clear larger then 2/1 majority in favour of delisting and 2) there is no minimum of 7  Delist votes mentioned anywhere. After thinking about that for a while, that may not be how the rules were intended to be interpreted. The part The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs is what is confusing me: how is that to be understood in terms of rule #2? Should we take that as

• "if the candidate does not reach at least 7  Support votes again, it will be delisted" or
• "if the candidate does not reach at least 7  Delist votes, it will not be delisted"?

Could we please clear this up? Pinging XRay who closed the vote. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, looking at some past delist votes, it seems that my initial assumption that there is no minimum amount of  Delist votes required seems to be correct:

• 6:0 → delist
• 6:0 → delist
• 5:1 → delist
• 5:1 → delist

… unless the rules have changed since then? --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I'd choosen "kept" because there was no result (6 votes, not enough votes for a decision, so no delisting). It was one of my first closing procedures and I was very unclear what to do. --XRay ^talk 09:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with XRay on this. I read the rules as there must be 7 votes pro or con and the 2/1 majority for a decision to be made, otherwise the nom is inconclusive and the file is kept. Not voting is often also a way of making a statement, "same as for FPs". But per El Grafo, the rules could be written in a clearer way. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, it doesn't seem logical to have a different standard for delisting than for listing, unless it's made very clear, with a reason given. So therefore, my assumption is that a lack of total clarity is just an oversight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Info I think I may have an answer to old delisting noms (from 2009) mentioned by El Grafo. A while ago, I happened to take a look at the Swedish translation of the FPC page info. I found that it hadn't been updated for ages! It stated that only 5 votes were necessary for an FP (of course I changed that), so it looked like in the past there might have been a 5-vote-rule for FPs. And yes looking at the page history for FPC, in 2009 only 5 votes were required. So it was "same as for FPs" back then too. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  5 votes to 7 votes happened on 1 July 2010 per this discussion. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Example of 6 delist, 1 keep that was not delisted. I agree with the reading that 7 delist minimum and 2/1. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

clearing up the rules for delisting

@XRay, W.carter, Ikan Kekek, and KTC: Thanks to all of you, it's now clear that I initially misunderstood the the rules. I'd like to propose a simple change in the wording to make the minimum of 7  Delist more clear:

2. At least seven  Support votes (or 7  Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days

Any objections? --El Grafo (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Looks ok to me. A simple solution. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• no problemo -- KTC (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, exactly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed --Cart (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Before we get too into this, SHOULD it be easier to delist than to list? I'm inclined to say yes... Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And I think it should be just as easy but no easier. Otherwise, I could imagine a situation in which a file is listed 7-3 and delisted 6-2. No good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the minimum of seven is a statement the validity of the vote in terms of participation, and the 2/3 majority is how we've decided where to draw the line. I am of the opinion we should raise the seven vote minimum (for both activities), as participation on the forum is high and good images easily get 10 votes quickly. But I'd like to suggest that another day. I don't see why the participation levels should be different for delist. The reasons for delist are not just a re-run of the original vote. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But it's not like we'd say 6 keeps, two delists are closed as delist, so comparing it to the original vote isn't quite right. It's not a rerun of the original vote: It's asking if we should strip its status. Six delist four keep says a lot more negative about an image than seven promote three oppose. We certainly wouldn't promote an image on six opposes four supports. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly the reason for my initial confusion: how can something that gets 6 negative votes and not a single positive one retain its FP status? --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

El Grafo, it retains it on the grounds that not enough people offered their opinion on its status. A 100% negative voting could be 1 negative and 0 support, so where do we draw the line in terms of participation? Perhaps delists are underparticipated and should have a lower threshold for participation. If lots of people looked at the delist and thought "meh" then perhaps it isn't the end of the world if it is retained. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

You could also interpret it as none of the people looking at it liked it well enough to defend it against the delisting that would have happened with just one more negative vote. I have not had a look at the numbers, but my very subjective impression is that over the past couple of years participation in delisting votes has indeed been much lower than in votings for regular nominations. I might be wrong, but I'd bet a crate of fine Franconian Lager (unfiltered, ungespundet, amber-colored, delivery not included ) that the majority of failed delist attempts did fail because of not reaching the 7 votes threshold rather than not making the 2:1 majority. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I think there are probably two reasons for people not to participate in delisting noms: (1) Some people post only supporting votes. That's unfortunate but clearly true. (2) Just not being able to decide or not caring. I know that oftentimes, when I don't vote on a nomination, it's either because I can't decide or because I have a different view than an overwhelming consensus and don't feel like sticking my neck out to no important purpose. Just because I feel "meh" about something everyone loves isn't necessarily a reason to say anything (though I often enough ask what people are loving so much about a photo that's not striking me much, hoping to learn something). A similar dynamic is at play on delisting votes. If I can't decide or don't really care one way or the other, I may not vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

+1 about your point #2. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Defamation from Photographer

Photographer has accused me of threatening the life of an endangered animal. This is a serious allegation. He has not withdrawn his libellous accusation. I seek guidance as to what sanctions can be imposed for this defamation. Wikipedia states that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." and "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." So the libel should be removed immediately, but by who? Charles (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a complaint for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a thought. I also found an e-mail address on w:Libel. Charles 11:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Although his claim is certainly nonsense, I wouldn't call it libel. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Defamation from Photographer Suggest further discussion goes there. And Charles, 2019 New Years Resolution: please learn how to sign your posts. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

More subcategories under "Sports"?

How about dividing the two categories of individual sports and team sports into more detailed categories like "soccer", "winter sports", "track and field", "cycling" and so forth, but keeping the existing ones? That would make it a bit more straight forward to sort new FPs into an appropriate category. I could just do it - but would that be appropriate? --Granada (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that change is needed. Here are my suggestions which you can cherry-pick.

You’ve got a bit of work ahead of you.

I would ping all users who’ve had a sports image promoted in the last couple of years and also say the top ten active successful FPC people.

I would scrap team and individual. It’s a silly split. Usain Bolt competed alone and in a team, so do sailors, golfers etc. etc.

I would have Winter Sports and Summer Sports as the first split, using the Olympic Games as a guide.

Within summer sports, it looks like the next split is water sports and land sports.

After that as a general principle I would split out an individual sport when it has 5+FPs, so football/soccer; athletics/track & field, cycling when it has 5 etc.

Good luck --Charles (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Granada, it is fully appropriate, and a very good idea, to create new sub-sections when there is a lot of images. Sometimes it is even necessary. Do not hesitate to modify this page, you are welcome. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Charles, wouldn't you agree that some sports aren't strictly winter or summer sports? Baseball has a long season from spring to fall in the U.S. and Canada. Basketball is mainly an indoor sport, so it can be played in almost any weather. American football can be played even in driving snow and rain. And there are quite a few other examples. So I guess those sports should be primary subcategories under "Sports". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes sure, take out Winter sports and you're left with 'other'. But remember the Olympics 'Summer' games are the time of year they happen and basketball is part of the summer Olympics. Charles (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• In the U.S., the National Basketball Association is huge and Olympic basketball is not that important. Though I guess on a worldwide basis... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I agree, but I think winter sports would still be a good top-level section for lumping together everything that requires ice or snow (with appropriate sub-sections). Similar for motor sports, water sports, air sports and equestrian sports. Other sections could be ball games, combat sport, athletics, gymnastics&acrobatics (I'd lump those last two together). Together that should provide useful categories for almost all our current sports FP (with the option of creating sub-sections for individual sports like football). Outliers like climbing, sandboarding and bullfighting could go into a "miscellaneous" section until further diversification is needed. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Motor sports is a clear category. I thought about ball games, but water-polo and snooker made me think again. Is bull-fighting a sport? I hope not. Charles (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sure it is, as is prizefighting. You and I don't have to like or approve of it for it to be a sport. Hell, American football is barbaric and results in brain injuries to large numbers of people - but it's still a sport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I've done some counting and while counting I've tried to put every image I found in FP:Sports into a category. This shall not be mistaken as a proposal, but just my counting:

Category	count
Motorsport	18
Track & Field	11
Surfing	12
Sailing and other water sports	9
Nordic skiing	6
Alpine skiing, snowboarding and related	7
Show jumping, horse racing and related	8
Tennis & table tennis	7
Fencing	4
Cycling	7
Soccer, Football	12
American Football, Rugby	13
Handball	7
Basketball	2
Ice hockey	1
Swimming, water polo & related	3
Paragliding	2
Mountain- and free climbing	2
Golf	1
Baseball	1
Bullfight	2
Wrestling	1
Gymnastics	2

There are quite a lot of categories with five or more photos, but also many with just a single photo of their kind. Taking five as a minimum this would create 12 categories, but leaves the rest to be categorized in a way I have no idea for. Also I am no expert in telling rugby from American football, so these images went into a common category --Granada (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

There's also Canadian football, which is different from American football but I think it's similar enough to share a category, and there's also Australian rules football, which merits its own subcategory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Five seems to be sensible as a hurdle for a separate section. We can easily separate rugby and other oval-balled sports. Just leave the rest for now. Charles (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)