This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A 717 gigapixel version of Rembrandt's "The Night Watch"
A few days ago the Rijksmuseum published their new 717 gigapixel digitalisation of The Night Watch, it's available here: [1]. The image is meant to be used for restoration purposes, but it is nevertheless captivating to explore every brush stroke and blemish. For comparison, the Wiki Commons version of the painting is "only" 2.8 gigapixels.
Robert Erdmann, the project's lead scientist, has published a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at the mind-boggling process required for such a capture, which has been built around a Hasselblad 100MP medium-format camera and a macro lens: [2]
I'm somewhat inclined to think that the newer one didn't document well. Not seeing any credit for Durova on the file itself, largely because it was poorly documented by her in the first place, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Our Rehman (Rehman Abubakr from Colombo, Sri Lanka) is a great Commoner and Wikipedian, and currently is in a critical economic situation, in addition to an already devastating human loss. You will rarely see Rehman on FPC, but he does lots of activity "in the background", and yes, he is a passionate and prolific wiki photographer too. The faster we help him, the sooner we can expect him to come back to his work on Commons and Wikipedia.
For execution? No, can't help there sadly. But designwise it should only be 1 very short form to fill on 1 page. Let some bot do the rest automagically. Unlike humans bots don't mind even if they have to fill in 100 forms. --Palosirkka (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Too sad...
Please, if you can, take a moment to support both Ukrainian and Russian editors. Reading these posts: [3] and [4], left me heartbroken. Hoping the WikiMedia community can be a place not broken up by irrational politicians. Best, --Cart(talk)13:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Once again, the definition of a set is being stretched and questioned. Perhaps if nominators are unsure, it would be polite to ask here, rather than begin a nomination and complicate things when folk call for it to be withdrawn after reviewers have already supported and spent time evaluating. It seems many reviewers are simply assuming the nominated set is valid.
What is fundamental about a set nomination is that it is not arbitrary. It should have some completeness about it. The purpose is not for when you took several photos of a subject and think they are all great.
Wrt "passage of time" the point is not to simply nominate DSC00012 and DSC00013 and DSC00014 on your memory card. The sunset and sunrise are obvious examples. It also isn't to be used as a poor-man's video: "Bird looking at food", "Bird reaching for food", "Bird pecking food". Those steps are just frames of a video that you didn't make.
Wrt "A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints" again we want some completeness about this. Simply zooming the lens or moving closer to the subject isn't enough.
Alternatives to nominating a set are individual nominations and including multiple variants in the one photo.
Examples that are not a set
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Western reef egrets. There are two official variants (dark grey and white). The middle grey is some sort of hybrid or whatever. A set without the white one is certainly not a set. Per the rules "A few breeds of cats" is not a set.
Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/São Julião Church, Setúbal. Nave and ceiling. There are lots of things one could photograph in a church or cathedral, and this choice is random. The rules say "Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ."
Perhaps we should clarify the rules with some more "these are not sets" examples. And perhaps add a comment that if your set nomination isn't obviously a clearly defined set, then ask here first? -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you're being a little ahistorical with the first female spacewalk one. 1984 is early enough that we wouldn't necessarily expect video in such a difficult-to-film-in place as space is. Let's not bind historical events up with easily-repeatable ones, and take them off the table. I'd also make an exception for reasonable parts of a whole. For example, Doré did about 70 illustrations to Dante's Inferno. That's too many to properly evaluate in one go, so if one was going to nominate it, I'd want it divided into smaller lots. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I more or less agree with your assessments. It can be a bit subjective, however, whether a sequence of photos showing an animal in motion constitutes a set. What would you say is the fundamental difference between Larus smithsonianus and Little egret fishing on one side, and the Eastern great egret in flight and Lion's mane jellyfish on the other? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden, what on earth are you talking about, 1984. The 1969 Apollo mission was broadcast LIVE on TV, featuring the crew in the module, and the famous landing. Anyway, the point is those shots of the "spacewalk" (which don't actually feature any spacewalk) are just random frames of astronauts partly in their suits. I think we have to clamp down on consecutive frames, such as of animals. We can all hold down the shutter and get snap snap snap showing the stages of a movement. Unless we've achieved some high-speed photography bullet-through-an-apple trick, it doesn't make for a compelling set. It just makes one appreciate the latest David Attenborough documentary, for what proper wildlife films look like.
I think some nominators see a set as a quick way to several FPs, and also see it as a solution to having to pick which frame is the best to nominate. Those are very much not reasons. Part of the reason for doing a set can be that the images are similar enough that if nominated separately then people might question the repetition. They have some "completeness" value together. But mainly I think the set should be for people going "wow" isn't it great we have a set of this, rather than "oh, I have to judge two pictures of the subject at the same time".
What do you think of the idea of requiring set nominators to ask first on this talk page, for a while. Or we come up with a list of "Obvious sets" which are permitted as nominations, and anything else needs to get approved first. There are only a handful of very common set types, and the rest are nearly always mistakes. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, I presumed it was the actual first female spacewalk in 1984, which a fairly routine thing on a Soyuz spacecraft where the main purpose was to test a welding tool. There's good reason to doubt video existing for that. The modern all-female one, while significant, is quite another thing, especially as the images in the set aren't even of the spacewalk. You can tell by the lack of helmets, which would make it a very short and - while you can survive briefly in vacuum - likely fatal spacewalk. The point I was making was kind of independent of that set being... pretty shit, though, and the fact it utterly failed (rule of 5th day failure, no supports except the nom) means the system worked as intended.
The point I wanted to make - even though I chose a terrible example - is that, for certain historic events, video might not exist. In this case, a set of multiple photographs might be reasonable, and we should write the rule to be inclusive of such historical events. For example, I believe at least a couple American Civil War battles have two or three extant photographs each from during the battle. That's a pretty reasonable set if you ask me. Basically, I don't object to your statement that a lot of these are terrible sets. I just think we need to be careful not to over-exclude. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I note, though, that neither the Spacewalk nor the Notebook actually passed. So, let's ask an important question: Are bad sets actually passing, or is the only real issue us failing to slap {{FPX}} on them fast enough? Also, your examples of bad sets date back to 2018. If it's a comprehensive list of bad set nominations for three or four years, and it only has 16 examples, I think this is kind of a non-issue because less than one bad FPC every two months is.... nothing compared to the non-set bad FPCs. Of course, if it isn't comprehensive, then that's not an argument. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
When we promote a set, each individual image becomes a FP and stands on its own. Our mechanisms for displaying sets after they're promoted are somewhere between clumsy and nonexistent, and in almost every instance moving forward, the individuals will be understood as individual FPs. At this point, I don't see any purpose to them other than to save time on mass nominations. We can fight over the philosophical idea of "set," or what our founders intended, or what a set should be or must be, but at the end of the day it's just a way to promote >1 FP at the same time. If the images wouldn't be promoted individually, we shouldn't be promoting them. I tend to think the best approach would be to require that they are related, but that's it, and then as a community to agree to apply the same strict standards to each image individually. Any set where individuals wouldn't pass on their own should fail, any set that places too much burden on reviewers should fail, and people should err on the side of opposing, knowing that each can be nominated separately afterwards. I just don't see a point in this issue coming up over and over again when the idea of the set doesn't mean anything once we're done voting. — Rhododendritestalk | 12:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
You are forgetting that there is a limit to 2 active nominations at one time. An invalid set nomination can be thought of as a way to bypass that limitation that other people adhere to. While the rules say all image in a set need to be FP quality, in practice reviewers allow a weaker entry if it is fairly good. An invalid set nomination often attracts support until someone goes "hold on a sec" and this is disruptive and waste everyone's time and lets to disputes. If we can avoid disputes that would be good. Yes there are some invalid sets that passed. I don't think a set nomination is just about saving time. For many of the bugs, we'd likely get someone going "the side view is better", for cathedrals, "the facing-east direction is superior" and for cityscapes, "the daytime view has more ev". If you simply want a way to nominate related images in one go, then to be fair we'd need to remove the 2 active nominations rule, and then we really would no longer get some nominators even bothering to assess their images, and we'd have folk going "OK, if I remove images 3, 6 and 8, do we have enough support for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9?" It would be a mess. I think Rhododendrites, you aren't considering the the consequences of just saying "You can nominate a bunch of related images together as a set". There really wouldn't be anything to stop people uploading all the photos they took, and relying on reviewers to weed out the duff ones. One approach, might be to limit set nominations solely to a handful of well defined examples. Anything else has to be nominated individually. That would stop arguments about whether something was a set or not, because it would simplify to the set not being a permitted type. -- Colin (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I know people would do that... at first. That's where Any set where individuals wouldn't pass on their own should fail, any set that places too much burden on reviewers should fail, and people should err on the side of opposing comes in. We can err on the side of opposing without trying to define what exactly is permitted as a set (which is always going to be contentious and overcomplicated to codify). I want to see fewer set nominations, not more, and would support just ditching them altogether if it weren't for things like this, but the only reason I'd want a set there is because it would take too long to nominate them separately. — Rhododendritestalk | 15:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that there is a benefit to completeness that is the justification of sets existing. Take tbe Hunting of the Snark set I talked about above. Is the map a valid FP in its own right? No. But it'd be madness to suggest we want an incomplete set of the illustrations. I think sets can excuse a lesser work if and only if the set is very well-defined, and reproduction quality is as high for the lower artisticness members of the set. That's kind of the entire justification for having sets. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we should simply abandon the idea that each component of a set is (or should be) a FP on its own. Just make featured sets a thing on its own with separate badges, templates, rules and maybe even a separate nomination page. Featured Image Sets don't need to be a set of featured images. They can easily be a featured set of images. Rather than "this image is a FP because is part of a featured set" we would simply state that "This image is part of a Featured Image Set". That would 1) open up more possibilities for the sets and 2) prevent FP from being de-valued through weaker images sneakily getting the FP badge through the FP-Sets backdoor. --El Grafo (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I started typing a response to Adam before reading El Grafo's comment above, hence why it's rather similar :) I get what you mean about the Snark set, but it just feels like a separate kind of evaluation from every single other FPC. Technically speaking, we don't distinguish between that map and any other FP. The map is still an FP on its own for all intents and purposes (well maybe not all intents, but therein lies in the problem). It is nice to find a high quality complete set, and there is value in that completeness, but that value just doesn't seem in line with the function of FPC. If it had any realistic hope of participation or technical implementation, I'd say we should have a new category of highlighted content for "collections" or something. Maybe that's what we should just use our dusty gallery namespace for, and start highlighting galleries that include complete high-quality sets. — Rhododendritestalk | 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, if we regarded sets as meaningless once the nomination is over, then I'd rather we just abandoned the set nomination rather than weaken it. I think Rhododendrites is being way too optimistic that it wouldn't be abused. Many of the above sets would pass if nominated individually, though one might need to explain why we have another picture of the bird flapping wings. Certainly the insects from side/above/etc could easily be separate nominations and the cathedral views could be separate. I'm not sure there would be enough interest for a specific concept of a "featured set" per El Grafo, and we probably don't need another standard-setting forum with its own variation on quality rules. Are there any sets for which set nominations are vital? If so, then I wonder if we should just say that only those kinds of sets may be nominated. -- Colin (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not getting too involved in this discussion, but may I just point out that there are alternative ways in which "all angles", "passage of time" or "different sorts" are presented in one FP. I am of course referring to all the lovely shell photos or this seed head tiptych or bonsai photo montage; a cow birth or kingfisher eating a fish or cute birds or slush depositing or water dripping or setting sun; flower posters or compillation of dusk photos or gasses or mustards. Also the montages: flying bug, solar eclips, jumping from a cliff or a rescue helicopter. In all of these cases, the authors recognized that showing the photos together would have such a greater value than seing them one by one, they compiled them and made one FPC nomination. Thus the photos "belonging together" are promoted to FP, but the individual photos (which are mostly also uploaded on Commons) are not FPs. They are simply presented on the FP's page in the "other versions" section, like here, here or here. Using this practice instead of sets would eliminate the difficulties of presenting the sets at POTY and would keep the images together for all time. There is also an art to creating and presenting a really good compilation/collage that can add another dimension/challenge to the whole. Two photos simply clipped together will not always make a good and harmonious combo, like the papaya. Seeing if the images look good together in a compilation, is like a quick, poor man's check, to see if it's a good "set". So, if you think the photos look good together, present them together as one FPC otherwise stick to simple nominations. --Cart(talk)17:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that'd work in all cases - a frankenstein of book illustrations or photos in nature seems hard to do well. But it is a good solution where possible. I'd also say that things that seem utterly natural stalking about, say, Hunting of the Snark illustrations from a historic publication would be nonsense applied to modern images without notability in their own right, or one that's assembled. For instance:
Should a lesser work (within reason) be included?
All the illustrations from the first edition of a classic book, scanned at the same resolution and prepared for consistency: Yes,
Photographs I assembled of every founder of an organization, etc? No, not unless there's additional reasons to consider them a set, like same photographer.
Modern photographs of a thing No, unless the objection is something like "The back of the statue is less interesting" in a series of carefully curated views of a statue from multiple angles.
All the photos from event X Maybe. Depends on redundancy and such.
Basically, I feel the images themselves should naturally be defined as a set. It should take minimal Wikipedian action (outside of the acts resulting in their creation and preparation, of course) to make them so, they should be prepared in a consistent way, and the set needs to be one worth having.
Also, I'd add that sets need to be of a size they can be reviewed. If I do all 70-some illustrations by Doré to The Inferno, that's great, but expecting reviewers to look at them in one go is not. In such cases, find as convenient of a division as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
changing? To make slight improvements. One improvment I've not suggested here is whether to change the rule so that once a nom. reaches 15 support votes (and only one oppose) it is promoted. I had a couple of recent nominations where the same user was the only opposer (votes 18-1 and 16-1). Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I definitely don't like the 'instant decline at 5 negatives' idea sadly. I have had a couple of nominations that I think strongly deserved to pass but that got a lot of both support and oppose votes, often with a large number of people voting 'per above' without explaining their reasoning, which does frustrate me. this would be an example, I honestly love this photo but according to this rule it would have failed. I think this would disincentivise people making risky or out-of-the-ordinary nominations that are likely to divide opinion strongly.
I think if there is any rule change I would support, it might be a good idea to increase the bar for images to pass from 7 supports to 9. But I can see counter-arguments here too. Cmao20 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I usually withdraw my nominations when they have no chance of success. In this respect, I can only agree with such a regulation. --XRay💬15:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I can think of some nominations that got lots of votes (hence lots of interest) including many negative. For example this and its follow-up this both got over 27 votes. I don't think it would be useful to have such controversial nominations disappear by some automatic bot rule. I think mostly nominators are ok at spotting the failures and it is up to them if they withdraw or let it run its course. For example "Hair Like Mine" is a good example of Commons failing to recognise what makes a great picture on an educational website. I mean, "wow!" this picture has its own Wikipedia article (Hair Like Mine), and TIME magazine described it as "the most iconic" of all Souza's images of Obama. It was on display for three years in the White House (most images last a few weeks). Ending that nomination early would serve no purpose. And if anyone wants to try again after 5 years, perhaps it is worth another shot.
I also see no point in ending the nomination after 20 solid positive votes. This is uncommon but we should let the community express its enthusiasm. If anything, that serves as a reminder that "wow" is a requirement at FPC and we have plenty wow images here, so weak images are not worthy of support.
Wrt the threshold, I would support increasing the level from 7 to 9, say, as there are so many support-only reviewers that a popularity contest with a threshold of 7 isn't saying much. If an image really is great, it should have no problem. -- Colin (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Do you think declining a nomination of at least 5 votes and only contra votes (except nominator vote) after 5 days is a problem? --XRay💬16:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there are any oppose-only reviewers, but if there were, and they were reasonable, then I don't have a problem with that at all. There are enough supports to ensure a good photo is supported, the issue is when nobody opposes and a weak photo gets through. We've had examples, within the same genre, of outstandingly great photos and outstandingly bad photos, and the threshold could do with being higher.
XRay, I think that current practice, where a photo is totally unloved after 5 days, is reasonable. There's no controversy and no debate in such a nomination. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not opposed to your first proposal in principle, but I consider it unnecessary and redundant; it is rare for even the best photos to rack up 20 supports in significantly fewer than 5 days, which is the only case where it would make a difference. And I just don't agree with the substance of your second proposal; controversial, risky noms with lots of heated debate are a good thing. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
In response to the proposals to increase the threshold from 7 to 9, I maintain my belief from 2012 that net supports are the way to go. So I would rather go from "7 gross supports" to "7 net supports" than "9 gross supports". There is absolutely no reason why a 9/4 is more deserving of FP than an 8/0. "7 net supports" will make it so that weak noms that get 7/3 will no longer pass. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠23:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
1. I am not in favor of an instant decline after 5 immediate negative votes. Because each picture needs time for consideration. And there's a risk of lynching.
2. I am not against instant promotions after special ratios like 10/0 or 20/1 or 30/2 or 40/3, etc. But careful not to make the rules too complex to explain / understand.
Exemple this kind of thing: if a nomination have more then 20 votes at the end of time, and that one or two votes can change the result (one way or the other ), then the nomination stay open one additional week. Christian Ferrer(talk)20:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Compared to my Wiki regular fellows, I'm still rather new on FPC. Despite this, after reading the considerable discussion, I would like to state my opinion: I perceive the current set of regulations as okay and fair. Thus, I would like to endorse Ikan Kekek's comment. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
What's the point of all this? For speedy declines we already have the rule of the fifth day plus FPX for the extremely bad ones. If something's not bad enough to be FPX'ed, it should get its 5 days. What if the first 5 opposers just didn't "get it"? Conversely, where's the problem with a great picture staying around for 5 days before being promoted speedily? More time for everyone to appreciate a great image, more time for the less regular visitors to also have a look. Instant promotion only serves those who aim to maximize the amount of FP they can nominate. But FP is about the best of the best, so we should aim for better rather than more. In any case, the rules already are way too complicated, let's not make it worse for no good reason. --El Grafo (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Rather agreed. Half the point of this is to put an image out there to be used in articles on other Wikipedias than my own. If it's gone after a day, what's the point? Hell, Rule of the Fifth Day doesn't even, at least as the bot implements it, give the full five days; it triggers at the start of the fifth day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I’m late to the party, but since Charlesjsharp was so nice to invite me (thank you!), I want to say something too ;-). At first glance, I found the proposed changes very plausible. Now I finally found time to read through this whole discussion (it was very interesting and educational, thanks to all!) and have became cautious; you have pointed out many important things. The statement by El Grafo seems a good summary to me; simply put, IMHO it’s better to keep the current rules. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Scope of the change
I was curious how many nominations would actually be affected by these proposed changes, so I looked at the last 6-month archive (July-December 2021). There are two proposals about minimum votes for promotion: (a) increasing the minimum supports from 7 to 9, (b) promoting when there is a surplus of 7 votes, regardless of number of support/oppose.
There were 555 total promotions in this time period.
17 would not have been successful under either (a) or (b).
In either case, the change would not make a very large difference in the number of promotions. 4.9% of promotions from this period would've failed under (a) and 4% would fail under (b). Depending on your perspective, such a small difference is an argument to carry out a change or perhaps not to bother. Obviously we are not going to demote photos that have already been promoted, but it's worth considering what kinds of nominations wouldn't be successful. There are some nominations above that, yes, I'm surprised were promoted; in other cases, it's a subject that doesn't have the broad appeal that say, a bird photo or a castle has, but which are still worth promoting. I'm undecided, personally. — Rhododendritestalk | 02:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Small correction: The following would not have been successful under either set of rules:
A system based on net supports is not without precedent. Chinese Wikipedia requires 8 net supports over 14 days, with no ratio requirement. (Technically, a ratio of 50% is enforced by math, i.e. in the worst case you could have something like 1008 supports and 1000 opposes, but in practice the ratio tends to be much higher.) Though, I am not saying that the Chinese Wikipedia system in its entirety is a good one - 8 is simply too high a number to reach for most noms given the amount of activity on Chinese Wikipedia, regardless of whether you're measuring net or gross; I would have used 5 net supports instead. But regardless, it is a useful example of this system in practice, and we can tweak the numbers to suit our own needs, i.e. 7 net supports while maintaining the 2/3 ratio. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
To add: I guess I am just ideologically opposed to sharp boundaries that arise from well-meaning, simple-sounding policies but result in perverse outcomes. The welfare cliff is a good example of this. Consider a welfare policy where everyone making under $30k is entitled to $5k of food assistance a year. If you go from making $29,999 to $30,000, then instead of making a dollar extra, you actually lose $4,999, and your tax rate on that dollar is a whopping 500,000%. So a naive implementation of the simple idea that we should help out the poor without sending money to those who don't need it has resulted in people not willing to take jobs that pay between $30-35k. A gradual tapering of the welfare benefits (e.g. for every $3 you make we reduce your benefits by $1), while more complex to implement, provides a much more reasonable result. In our case, if you have a nomination that is sitting at 8/0, a "9 gross support" rule would make a single support vote count as much as 4 opposes (since adding 1 support and 4 opposes will change it from a fail to a pass). One the other hand, a cutoff based on net supports will never allow a single support vote to count more than a single oppose vote. Counting up the gross number of supports may sound simpler, but its behavior at the boundary is unintuitive and raising it from 7 to 9 will exacerbate the problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
KoH, you are thinking about this entirely wrongly, and there's a reason that a "surplus of X" is not used by any voting system in the real world (I care not what Chinese Wikipedia do): it doesn't scale. Your dissatisfaction with one vote "counting for more" than another is like thinking that in a "best of three" competition, the first game doesn't really count for much and the third game (if there is one) counts the most of all. What all voting systems are doing is sampling the population to determine the popularity for or against some choices. And with typically fewer than 20 votes, our sampling is always going to be crude.
The most important feature of a voting system is where to stick the threshold. Many systems use a simple majority. It can be useful if both options are equivalent in many ways, and making a decision is more important than which wins (Do we go on holiday to Cornwall or Wales this year?). It can cause problems if a momentous wrenching decision is made based on very slim majority (e.g. Scottish Independence and Brexit both had 50% threshold, though the latter referendum was supposedly "advisory", it got treated by the victors as though it had legal force). For that reason, many referendums require a super majority, such as a 2/3 majority as we have done. It signals that a strong majority of the population are in favour. For systems where only 50% is required, then the margin between vote counts on either side is always 1. Nobody ever says "you need 50% + 7 votes" for example.
For votes with a small number of participants, it is very standard to have a minimum number of voters (quorate). For example, the UK parliament of 650 MPs require 40 to turn up and vote. Our "minimum 7 support" is somewhat unusual, but brings us onto the third feature: popularity. There is a degree to which our system is little more than a popularity contest, because so many voters are "support only". It isn't like voters are choosing between picture A or picture B as we do with an election. Picture A and Picture B might both be promoted if there is enthusiasm for them both. For that reason, I think having some minimum on the enthusiasm supporting the image is reasonable.
At the end of the day, we can over-analyse the edge cases, particularly with the relatively small number of votes we get. It isn't really possible to look at past votes and say "this image would have failed". Passing the 7 solid support threshold influences whether it gets more votes. If the threshold were 9, then for some of those images an extra 2 voters would have chosen to cast their vote. As it was, they, like many others, decided "meh" and didn't bother to vote at all. There will always be a degree of randomness, and early oppose votes are much more influential than late ones.
If shifting the minimum from 7 to 9 only a small difference (though possibly still one making) then perhaps we should pick an even higher figure. I think the degree to which this is simply a popularity contest, and the high levels of participation for truly outstanding images, means we could easily set the threshold much higher. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly like a best of three competition, because there will only be at most one final game and that final game is guaranteed to be decisive. Here, the constraint is time, and theoretically an unlimited number of voters might show up last-minute. But as you've suggested in your later comments, the current tally does affect future votes, and I would rather voters feel like they are always making a small amount of progress towards their favored position as opposed to giving up because it is clearly lost. For example, with a threshold of 9 gross, if a candidate racks up 9 quick supports in the first few hours, opposers might choose to abstain because they feel that voting is just spitting in the wind. But with a threshold of 7 net, it is only 3 opposes away from failing, so opposers would be more willing to come out of the woodwork.
I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't scale". At a scale of 14+ (gross) supports, the 7-net requirement is simply subsumed by the 2/3 requirement. Below 14, 7 net takes precedence over 2/3. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠19:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
KoH, both I and Rhododendrites have interpreted your rule as replacing the 2/3 support requirement with a 7 net requirement. You weren't clear, and to be honest, nobody is interested in over complicating things just so a few edge cases might change. -- Colin (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
I really don't see the point of any of this. Most images pass or fail by the rule of fifth day; We have a good, working system where people are highly selective in nominations themselves, so yes, a lot of stuff passes, but that's fine. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Adam, based on the stats at User:Colin/FPC, only 25% of nominations speedy pass with 10 support. I didn't count speedy fail but I think those aren't common and we tend to get withdrawals or FPX. Only 5% get 20+ supports. Your personal success rate of 75% is excellent, but don't assume that is normal: the average success rate is only 48%. I think participation levels have increased over the years, and we could easily maintain a higher threshold than 7. -- Colin (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the opening question: I see no reason for any haste to support or decline. Maybe it's a good idea, if the own vote doesn't count while nominating an own work. --Milseburg (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Disallowing that could be a good change, since the self-support makes the effective vote ratio requirement lower for an image with fewer supports (e.g. 8/4 = 63.6% vs. 14/7 = 65.0% support not including self), which is not how things should work. One question, though, is whose vote to disallow. If we only disallow self-nom supports, then it unfairly penalizes those in comparison to nominations of others' work, where both the nominator and creator would be able to support. So I think we have two alternatives: 1) Disallow the nominator from voting. This is relatively clean, though may be not as intuitive as the next option. 2) Disallow the creator from voting. I think this is intuitively a good thing to do, but it's a little tricky to implement. "Creator" here probably should mean "the Wikimedia user who did the most work to contribute the image to Commons in its current form". So if it's a PD image downloaded from the Internet unmodified, it would be the uploader. If it's a PD image that has been digitally restored, it would be the restorer. If it's a photograph of nature, architecture, etc., it would be the photographer, even if others have edited it. Sometimes it may not be clear, so I think one of the users involved could just vote "abstain" and claim to be the designated creator, and everyone else will be allowed to vote as usual. But I think as a general rule it is only fair that exactly one person be disallowed to vote in each nom, no exceptions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠22:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Since we recently passed this as a Featured Picture, I feel I should link this here, especially as the FPC page is being linked as evidence it shouldn't be deleted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
See this or this nomination. Obviously doesn't have to be same shot, and I doubt it's really so important to question it. Regards --A.Savin23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Questionning it because our guidelines state: "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters".
Dear friends, I understand Basile’s objection very well; according to the quotation to the guidelines, it is absolutely correct. However, as the examples cited by A.Savin show, in practice the alternative is often used in a more relaxed way. IMHO this relaxed use actually makes sense. In cases where we have two clearly related photos (like two photos of the same object taken from different points of view, but with the same light etc.; or two photos from almost the same perspective, but with slightly different light), it is rather irksome to create a completely new nomination for the alternative photo; voters may be bored or even annoyed about a new nomination which shows (almost) the same. In such a situation the presentation of the second photo as an alternative in the same nomination is IMHO just more comfortable and practical both for the nominator and the voters. Therefore I would propose to extend the wording of the guidelines to allow the use of the alternative for such clearly related variants. No offence, just my two cents, --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I am perhaps regretting the suggestion I made here, which seems now to be cited as evidence that different photos of the same subject are perfectly acceptable alts. In the Diliff, the two photos are so similar you might at first glance think one was just the crop of the other. They are in fact taken at different heights, but are essentially the same scene and direction of view. With the universe nomination, both images derived from the same core artwork, just differed in their framing. I think that if you totally change your direction of view and angle of view, like Hemdat Israel Synagogue or German church then that's not at all what an alt is designed for (and far over stretching the official definition which requires the same source image).
Should we expand the definition to allow "related variants"? I'm reluctant, as I think that might encourage more cases where a nominator hasn't given enough thought to which of their images are "finest" and then just keep going "ok, how about this one" again and again. I recall even cases where someone added an alt as part of the nomination, which I don't think is fair. We have to remember that alts impose a greater burden on reviewers, who have to review your work twice. The original reviewers are not always recalled reliably. There can be a mess when both photos gain similar support. In the case of the Synagogue, I don't think the original candidate now stands a chance, so it would have been better to withdraw and nominate the other view separately. There's only really a benefit to using an alt in this case if the community really isn't sure which variant is best. I disagree with Aristeas that reviewers might be any more "bored or even annoyed" by a new nomination than they would by being asked to come back to the original and compare an alternative. The latter is more work, as one needs to consider which to prefer. I also disagree that creating a new nomination is "irksome". Click, click, copy, paste. The work of seconds. -- Colin (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed and committed statement, Colin! I think there can be different opinions about what is more work (a new nomination or an alternative) for the voters. Personally, when voting I find it much clearer if photos that are alternatives (i.e., only one of them can become a FP) are offered in one nomination instead of as separate nominations. I always compare related photos and this is much simpler when they are offered together; but maybe that’s just my personal idiosyncrasy ;–).
Your point of view has, of course, the great advantage that it avoids further stretching of the “alternative” idea. I readily admit that if we would allow (as I wrote) “two photos of the same object taken from different points of view, but with the same light etc.; or two photos from almost the same perspective, but with slightly different light” for an alternative, people may not be content with that, but stretch the alternative further and further. Therefore, I admit, it may be simpler and cleaner (even if sometimes a bit unpractical) to stay with the strict definition of the alternative.
But I would love to hear more voices; I would really like to know what other long-time FPC regulars think about the use of the alternative. What is clearer and more practical from your point of view? Would officially allowing the use of the alternative in cases like the Ottokirche or the Hemdat Israel Synagogue make voting more comfortable for you, or would you prefer to use separate nominations in such cases? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a quick reply to say I don't much like if the second nomination is made while the first is still running. That puts reviewers in some jeopardy that both might end up promoted. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
As I recall, the rules were tightened after laxer rules where similar and many alts were allowed, We ended up with noms like El Capitan climbers. That nom even made it hard to conclude which version actually got the most votes. --Cart(talk)12:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it really matters in case of my current nom (esp. since the 1st version is meanwhile unlikely to succeed), but do what you like, I'm tired of these discussions. Anyway I will not re-nominate the 2nd version, if it's not passed then it's not passed. Regards --A.Savin13:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I usually like clear rules, but I think we can deal with things like this pretty decently on a case-by-case basis. I would not object at all to a rule that except in the case of set or composite image nominations, the original nomination must be of a single image, with an alt OK to add only in response to reviews. On a practical basis, I think that if two images are likely to be considered too similar for both to pass, it's OK for an alt to deviate as much as these two images do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Rephrasing the rule?
Thanks everyone for the feedbacks. Rules are not there to be infringed, but they should be written in a satisfying manner to help ruling our practices.
Currently, the statement "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image" seems not accepted anymore, according to several current nominations. What about turning this line into "Alternatives are for minor changes, like different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters"? Less restrictive, in my opinion (more "minor changes" are possible) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Basile's alternative text is very clear. On the one hand "minor changes" is in conflict with what COM:OVERWRITE would consider a minor change. For example, if someone nominated a b&w version, or a colour version, some may object this isn't a minor change. The examples given don't expand the options, though I think that was your intention. While "too similar for both to pass" seems attractive, it still is open to interpretation, and any nominator keen to maximise gold stars will take the most open interpretation of that. I think ultimately there is no rush and anything that encourages nominators to be more careless about selecting the best image is a negative. If folk aren't sure, then ask a friend before making the nomination. I think the current rule is clear and the few exceptions that have been made so far were not vital. -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Propositions
Original text
Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters.
Modifications
Your proposition
Subjective remarks
1
No change but from now on, we strictly enforce the current rule.
Easy solution but probably too restrictive.
2
"[...] Alternatives are for minor changes, like different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters"
Basile, voting is not a method for finding consensus, only for confirming an already achieved one. At the moment, a few people have proposed ideas, and there is no apparent consensus. We should discuss more instead. Please can you close this for now. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment IMO different images can be considered as alternatives, as shown in the set nominated by A.Savin. But there is a need of some logical, i.e. they need to show the same subject, taken at the same time, by the same person, ect... In fact all images from the same "photo set" of one specific subject. And as the purpose is to find "the best" there is no issue for me. But for better visibility, as the alternatives somtimes arrive after the start of the nomination, maybe we should extend the voting period by as much, and with an obligation to ping everyone who has already voted. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment Thanks to everybody for your statements; now the discussion is getting broader, and IMHO this is necessary here. Regarding the propositions for a new wording of the rule, I have the feeling that it would be best to find something “in between” of the formulations made by Basile (“Alternatives are for minor changes, like different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters”) and by Ikan (“Alternatives are for different representations of the same motif, if requested by reviewers”). Both formulations are very good, but Basile’s wording seems a bit narrow to me and Ikan’s wording a bit broad; while Basile’s wording would exclude the set nominated by A.Savin, Ikan’s wording could be misunderstood to allow quite different photos – as Christian has put it, “there is a need of some logical” connection between the alternative photos, they must be rather similar. The difficulty is, of course, how to formulate this in a few words with sufficient clarity … --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
We could expand the present text to something like: "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, or an interchangeable image from the same photo session, if they are suggested by voters." Just my two cents. --Cart(talk)19:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with requiring that the alternative would be a photo taken in the same session, but "interchangeable" would exclude several alternatives that have been promoted lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
How about "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters."? -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I would support that phrasing, although what constitutes "closely related" will (and should) still be subject to debate after we adopt it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Great! Is there any other proposition? Are there objections to adopt the sentence "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters."? Aristeas, you suggested a formulation between two previous ones, what do you think? Christian Ferrer? -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this suggestion seems fine. IMHO it is a very good formulation between two previous ones. Thank you all very much! --Aristeas (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. So, let's wait a few more days, and if no opposition occurs, let's replace the current section by this new one:
Modified rule
Note: Do not add an 'Alternative' image when you create a nomination. Selecting the best image is part of the nomination process. Alternatives are for a different crop or post-processing of the original image, or a closely related image from the same photo session (limited to 1 per nomination), if they are suggested by voters.
Question: What about non-photographic things? If I restore a historic image up for nomination, or find a better copy of it elsewhere, may I suggest it as an alternative? The old wording had enough wiggle room to cover cases other than photographs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: the new wording offers more leeway than the old one. A different version of a historic picture is a "closely related image from the same photo session", isn't it? -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Seems really a particular case to me. Note that you can also withdraw to nominate the "better copy". 95% of the FP nominations are photographic medias, but let's say "different post-processing" will be accepted for posters too -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I can't help but think we could phrase it better, but maybe the problem is just trying to be specific. "Or similarly connected works" might do it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. "Similarly connected works" may be too broad, I think. Everybody will nominate the first connected work as soon as the oppose votes appear in the nomination, and then alternatives will be the new trend at FPC, with limited time to review for everyone.
Unless an other proposition is coined and accepted here by a majority, I propose to start with the modification above, and see what happens next. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't matter much. It's not like people memorise the exact wording and call people out, nor are alts that common for non-photographs to start with. If it makes sense and it's clear the rules aren't written with the case in mind, I doubt anyone's going to throw a fit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, coming across this image yesterday, I was wondering if similar pictures have been nominated before and if this would be acceptable for nomination. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks El Grafo, appreciate your comment. Though the technical quality might very well be the subject of remarks the combination of the uniform pattern blending in with the surroundings striked me. I'll give it a try, hoping to receive some input from the "photographers team". Lotje (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Only one person, that is Shajiarikkad is not known to me. I have no idia where does he come from in this nomination. All other supporters are active users in Commons. Some of them have voted my previous nominations too. Among those Sreejith K is one of the admins of Commons. Vijayanrajapuram is an another admin in ml.wiki and an active Commons user. Other persons like Karikkan, Vijayakumarblathur, Navaneethpp are also active Commons users. Moreover all these are eminant photographers. Indeed these are all belong to my home wikipedia community, that is ml.wiki. We have discussed how to make that image more beautiful a day before. And it was a very casual discussion that I used to do with my all nominations. Still there are many other users who put forward their opinion on this image and not supported this nomination. THIS IS THE FACT. --Shagil Kannur (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
If anyone wants...
In the excitement of getting a new laptop I'm afraid my productivity outstripped the nomination rate on here by a fair bit. If anyone cares to nominate these, feel free:
...And I did two more since this. Probably going to nominate those first, simply because I'm having to hold them back on en-wiki's FPC because nothing's reaching quorum this week there. It happens sometimes, but it's nice to be able to nominate the new stuff somewhere. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
FPCBot is currently not scheduled to run. I took the scheduled runs down in an effort to migrate as required and am encountering issues. Will update when sorted. -- KTC (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
And we are good to go (I hope). Shout as usual if you think it's not running when it should have done. -- KTC (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
More and more mediocre images pass the line – do we have to save the FP badge’s value?
Some years ago, the QI badge completely lost its value for me, when really bad images were promoted by friends of the nominator and discussions became useless. I get an impression that FP is heading the same way. Considering that a straightforward, uninspired image like Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Busha_cemetery_2021_G06.jpg is going to win the badge by 8 to 4 votings, I wonder what makes the supporters so enthusiastic about it. I think they have a quite different approach to FPC than I have built up through the years. As for me, I ask myself something like, "Is this an extraordinary, skilfully taken and processed image you could easily sell to a stock photo supplier?" Today’s voters, on the other hand, seem to place a "Support" whenever they "like" an image, turning FPC into a sort of Insta or Facebook, where it’s all about collecting "likes". In other words: Whenever I oppose a nomination, that does not mean I don’t "like" the picture. It just means I, while still liking it, don’t think it’s one of our very very best ones, the cream of the crop.
Do we have to do anything about this to keep the high value of the FP badge? We could establish rules like "only users who have nominated 3 successful FPs in the past are eligible to vote" to restrict voting to these users who have a distinct idea what FPC is about. Or does the community not see a problem here at all, and it’s only me? --Kreuzschnabel17:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
That photo is losing 8-5-1, so is this still a problem? But let's face it: images from Ukraine have probably received favoritism since the start of the latest phase of the Russian invasion; at least some people who voted for some of them stated that they did, though I don't know if they were being fully serious or not and I think most of the photos from Ukraine that have passed recently deserved the star and some nominees didn't pass. But while it's great to uphold standards, rules are not going to make people vote a different way. Look at the more serious problem at QIC, where people are voting against a photo based purely on finding it "disgusting" and opposing the practice shown in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I find it easy to know if my images would end up in stock photo libraries. They keep appearing in them. Must be nice to have there be doubts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
As someone relatively new to the process, I am aware that raising my voice here might impact my future and my current nominations. I still think speaking up is important. I am just above the threshhold of 3 successful nominations that Kreuzschnabel mentioned. And I don't think I would have gotten there, if I had not been allowed to take part in voting. Voting kept my interest in the process up and helped me learn and understand. Keeping newer people out will not help select an overall better sample of images, at least in my (of course biased) opinion. However making such statements and suggesting newer contributors just shower "likes" on not good images demotivates newer contributors, as it massively devalues their contributions.
I also want to note, that many images pass the mark easily, that I find have no WOW at all, or otherwise are not one of "our very very best ones". And I see many other pictures that I think belong in this category, that do not get promoted ... or even nominated. Each of us has different opinions about what makes a picture one of our best ones. And that is why yes, the idea of "what a FP is about" will change with new people coming to the process. Just as it changes with time anyways (many early FPs lose the badge, because of that). But it is also the idea of crowdsourcing in general. We all hold a different facets of knowledge, have different experiences and skills. By bringing those to all onwiki processes, we have made the projects an amazing success.
If you really care about improving the quality of the process for selcting FPs, please do not talk about who should or should not be allowed to contribute. Let's instead talk about what acutally makes it "extaordinary", how do you recognize if it was taken and processed "skillfully"? Leaving this judgement to others (stock photo suppliers) will not really help us here, in our own sphere. Let's be bold and have our own criteria for what we consider excellent, outstanding and truly OUR very, very best --Kritzolina (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
There are some images that get promoted that I don't understand. Sometimes I think that's because I just don't understand; other times, I wonder if there are other factors. Most likely isn't "friends vote for each other" but "people with similar tastes are more likely to vote for each other's images because they have similar tastes, not for reasons unrelated to the images". Even if we're cynical about it, I don't see any good way to stop this from happening. As for stopping newbies from !voting, that doesn't seem like the right direction. In the FPC example above, only one of the participants would not pass a three-nomination criterion, for example. A lot of new contributors go through a phase of lots of supports or lots of opposes that are outside the norm. Eventually it works out and they get a better feel for the standards, though. We seem, at any given point in time, to have one (or two at most) new contributors who do this. So I more or less agree with Ikan/Kritzolina about the "what to do about this" part. If it's a real problem (and I'm not saying it is), a more fair approach may be to revisit [yet again] raising the vote threshold instead of excluding anyone. — Rhododendritestalk | 12:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Today’s voters, on the other hand, seem to place a "Support" whenever they "like" an image, turning FPC into a sort of Insta or Facebook, where it’s all about collecting "likes". Dear Kreuzschnabel, there is no need to insult us. (Comparing us to the “like” crowd on Facebook is indeed a heavy insult. Many ‘users’ there are not people but just bots. Do you want to insinuate that we are bots?) I have made an argument for the photo you refer to. We have regulars which are excellent in making contra arguments; I try to compensate for this a little bit by making (most times) pro arguments. IMHO a photo has deserved a fair discussion; for this we need good pro and contra arguments (and not people who kill nominations prematurely by arrogant statements). And, to keep this short, when I compare the FPs promoted in the last 2 years with earlier FPs, I get an impression totally different from your one. There are always some exceptions, but in generally today’s FPs are not worse but better than the FPs promoted some years ago. --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
In no way it has been my intention to insult anyone (however, you’re free to take it like that) – and I think I have tried to make myself clear (though, not being a native English speaker, I might miss the best tone of course and beg your pardon for that). I was talking about my impression of FPC discussions nowadays, and what else impression should I get when supporting votes are accompanied by remarks like "it’s nice" oder "I like it"? In almost all promotions here, no one would ever doubt that the image in question is nice, nor that anyone tends to like it. That’s just not the point here, and I still think the FP badge will lose its value entirely as soon as it’s adorning any picture that seven users did "like". In my opinion, the FP badge should only be given to images that seven users (at least, and I have no problem if the threshold is raised to 12 or even 20) found to be absolutely extraordinary and excellently done. Remember it’s the highest honors a picture on Commons can get at all, so it should be granted to the best of the best exclusively. --Kreuzschnabel11:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a problem is that, generally speaking, most votes don't say anything in the first place. If there isn't a culture of justifying your decision, we can't be that upset that what does get said with the votes is fairly trivial.
On the main subject: my impression from the past is that raising the number of votes doesn't do much to weed out bad photos - we have plenty of voters - it more tends to affect the more unusual or rare images. Stuff like blueprints or diagrams - anything that rarely shows up at FPC at the time, so a lot of people opt out of voting on it. I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
ACK. I tend to write way too much on most of my votes, especially on the ones where I disagree with the majority of previous voters. I don't do that so much to convince people, but more to encourage everyone to be a bit more conscious about their own thoughts before they vote. And maybe more importantly in practice: to give those who don't dare to disagree on their own something to agree with.
But back to topic. I've said it when we moved animations over to Featured Media and I'll happily repeat it: I think we should turn Featured Pictures into Featured Photographs, or at least move all kinds of computer graphics elsewhere. They are made by different people for a different audience, need different criteria, and never will get proper recognition here. That would allow raising the threshold for photographs, although I'm not convinced that would change much in the end.
Anyway, I don't think any further minimum requirements for voters would help much either. It might even trigger a new kind of unwanted behavior when today's voters-who-like-everything turn to nominating sub par images in order to move up into the ranks of recognized FP-reviewers. Great breeding grounds for more toxic behavior and elitist gate keeping, if you ask me. El Grafo (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that when I look at photos that passed a few years ago, we have higher standards today, in general. The technical quality tends to be higher, and in addition, because of the photos that have been featured for the last x-number of years, we have developed a reserve of high-quality FPs in certain categories, such that it takes more to impress us now in photos of motifs such as landscape panoramas, church ceilings, art reproductions and wildlife pictures. It also helps that we weed out some of the worst legacy FPs from days when standards were lower. Kreuz, if you'd like to up standards, one of the things you could do is nominate more really obviously substandard legacy FPs for destarring. I also still don't think changing the number of votes required for a feature is necessary or necessarily helpful. As Adam Cuerden says, such increased minimum votes for passage would be likely to leave a lot of restored historical pictures (for example) in the dust, not because they're not deserving but just because some people aren't impelled to vote on them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The other advantage of delisting old substandard FPs, of course, is that it provides an example of an image, with an explanation of why it's bad, which, of course, is educational to the voters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Statistically, it is true that the ratio of promoted / failed FPCs has changed between the last 2 years, compared to the 2 years before. I also share this impression that poor nominations sometimes get unwarrant supports, but a rigorous study made on a long period of time (15 years for example) will be necessary to conclude if this drop of value is more an anecdotal wave, or more a rising problem.
QI label is granted with extremely low requirements, making the process quite uninteresting for many photographers, however we have to keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons has no restriction at all concerning the minimum acceptable quality of the hosted medias here, in general. Thus a so-called "Quality Image" sometimes represent a first selection among a bunch of much more terrible pictures.
I'm not an expert on modern photos - hence why I tend to focus on historic ones - but I can kind of see the appeal of the one you give as an example. If you don't have that kind of old building - and most of America is quite new when it comes to architecture - it's an attractive building, and the icon on the front of it is unusual. I think it's fairly typical of Balkan architecture, but it has nice composition, and if you haven't seen a thousand pictures of typical Balkan architecture. Throw in an aesthetic fence, and there you are.
...I don't think it's that people are biased towards religion, I think it's that churches tend to be quite, quite old buildings, and they often fall into that sweet spot of being different without being so different that people find them hard to judge.
Frankly, this is one of those cases where Commons vs. English Wikipedia featured pictures might be worth considering: English Wikipedia featured pictures require encyclopedic value. This means that the merit of the image is considered both by quality and by how useful of an image it is. Consider File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg, 2013's Picture of the Year. It's a very striking image, and Commons, clearly, loves it, and there's good reason to. But it's also a deeply misleading image: The effect shown happens when the bulb cracks while electricity is going through it, but the lamp fitting was intentionally photoshopped out. As such, the image is basically unusable to demonstrate the effect: It misleadingly implies that the cracking of the lightbulb will make the filiment burn up when it's not plugged in, which is completely wrong.
Basically, Commons FPC is set up specifically to prioritise "striking" images, regardless of whether they're ever going to be seen again after being voted on (and possibly run on POTD, but given you have to set up POTD yourself... Consideration of image uses is explicitly not a criterion. And that's... arguably fine. But to then turn around and complain that people are voting based on whether they like the image or not.... kind of ignores that, as long as the image is above a certain minimum standard, that's Commons FPC doing exactly what it set out to do.
If you want to exclude a symbolically resonant photo of a gravestone, frankly, you shouldn't be looking to up number of votes needed, or percentage of votes, or anything like that. You need to add something to the featured picture criteria that calls for the image to have a clear usage case on some Wikimedia project. I don't think it'd necessarily need to be used on them, but your complaints seem to boil down to that some FPs aren't useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
At FPC, "Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons", and the first criteria mentioned in the selection process is "Project scope" ("Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose").
Statistics are an interesting thing - did you also look at the ratio of images uploaded to the project and the images that get promoted to FP? Perhaps nominators have just become better in nominating those images that can make the mark- --Kritzolina (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Probably the number of images uploaded to the project increases by the time, but paradoxically the number of FP nominations has slightly decreased between 2020 en 2022 (856 candidatures on 5 months in 2020, compared to 715 candidatures in 2022 at the same period) . Better nominators? But better equipment too. Hard to analyse the reasons of a drop of value concerning the FP label. I just hope people will keep the courage to oppose, or to cast a subjective comment, to maintain the process as enriching as possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I have to admit, I am a bit confused. If we have more pictures uploaded and less pictures nominated (even though this drop might not be statistically significant) - we are probably promoting a smaller percentage of images over all to FP status. What does the ratio of images getting promoted of those nominated have to do with the value of the badge (it is not really an award, I think)? --Kritzolina (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Like Facebook, if there are only "likes", hearts and smileys, what is the problem? More promoted works = more people happy 😄💖👍 </joking>
In an exam, if you give the diploma to 70% of the students, do you think the level of the graduated people will be the same as before when only 50% of them were rewarded? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Like Aristeas, I think the comparison to Facebook is neither appropriate nor respectful towards voters. But that is not the point.
I am still confused, why do you think there is a direct connection between the value of images/people and the ratio of rejections? The value in my eyes has nothing to do with how other images or people do - the value either IS there (it is an excellent image/it is a person that will be able to perform well in the field they graduated in) or not (they fail). I could start nominating really bad images and encourage others to do the same. Would this really raise the value of the images others nominated in the normal process? --Kritzolina (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
A joke is a joke. FPC is not Facebook or Instagram, but a metaphor is like comparing Wikimedia Commons to Flickr or 500px: nothing wrong in an open discussion.
Concerning the value of the FP reward, it depends on the process. If every participant feel that 90% success is the norm, then the green button may become almost automatically activated. And the dissident reviewers, feeling their oppositions are unsatisfied here, will simply leave the project -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Counterpoint: If you arbitrarily set the number of people who can pass to 50%, did all of the half that failed deserve to fail? Which of the images from the months you mention shouldn't have passed, in your opinion? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Um, Basile, I don't want this to come off as snarky, but you literally only opposed one of the images that didn't pass in all of April 2022. (this one, for the record), which kind of makes it seem like we're just getting a better set of featured picture candidates. For comparison, in April 2020, you opposed five of the ones that passed. (12345 (and possibly one more, as I thought I had counted six when I was going through it)). Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe because the candidatures tend to become less and less interesting? More diversity = more controversy. Less originality = less opposition -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but it does kind of show the problem with using passing ratio as a proxy for whether everything deserved to pass: You apparently thought far more shouldn't have passed that did when the ratio was 49%, and agreed with almost everything in the 72%.
I'm not saying that FPC is perfect, but if we want to improve things, we need to actually find examples of the problem to discuss. We're getting a lot of weak arguments: ratios of success to fail (which really depends on the quality of the submissions as much as the quality of voting), this FPC which you thought shouldn't pass... and didn't, and so on. Focus on examples of things that passed and shouldn't have, and/or ones that didn't pass and should have, and we might be able to move forwards.
Again, I hope I'm not being rude, I'm not digging into your arguments because I disrespect them, I'm looking at them intensely to try and learn what I can from them. And I think the general idea that featured pictures is a little samey, a little dominated by the same few people nowadays is true. But we need to look at examples of the process going wrong, and be open to the idea that we're just a bit more jaded after being here so many years. It might well be that the high success rate in recent months might be down to, frankly, people remembering that really good content creators like Ivar Leidus and JJ Harrison and so on had pictures that weren't nominated yet, and nominating them. I know people have been helping me nominate a load of images beyond the two at a time, which - and I hope this isn't too arrogant - is going to push things up a bit given I have a pretty high success rate overall.
But it does feel FPC is less diverse. It's rare we see a restoration not by me at the moment. Animal pictures do predominate. I haven't seen a successful Wikipedian-made illustration or any diagram pass in some time. Hell, even the Cenotaph design, which is a historic illustration diagram and I'd have thought would do well, is kind of languishing at best.
Some of this might just be down to losing contributors who were uniquely skilled. Some of this might be biases in FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, I think it's somewhat interesting looking at past COM:POTY entries (Are we running the one for 2021, d'ye think? Or are we just dropping that as a COVID thing and choosing extra winners next year?)
I think it's interesting how much NASA dominated the early years of the competition. When did we last do much with NASA images? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Hmmmmmm, I don't think that opposing images, especially with unfriendly and disparaging comments, does a lot to encourage diversity ... but that might just be my personal bias as a relative newcomer and a woman ... --Kritzolina (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Just for the hell of it, I'll mention that I'm among other things a professor, and I always thought that grading on a curve, such that C is the average grade, no matter what, is nasty and grossly unfair. I grade based on criteria and standards, and when I was teaching music courses, most of my students got final grades in the B-A range, not because of any grade inflation, but because they enjoyed the courses and did good work (and of course there was some self-selection of people who liked music). Those who goofed off and did the minimum got grades of C+ and lower; those who didn't satisfactorily complete the work and had no excuse failed. And when some appealed their grades, they never won, because the syllabus specified the required scope of work and my comments always explained their paper grades. So how is any of that relevant? Imagine if we insisted that 50% of all nominees failed. What possible benefit could there be from such a nasty policy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Diversity in the votes encourages diversity in the nominations, because the photographers / nominators usually understand, and are grateful towards all kind of feedbacks, negative ones included. And reciprocally, diversity in the nominations encourages diversity in the votes, since everyone judge the image subjectively. All the votes should be politely written. An opposition is not rude in itself, although it can be felt as such.
A diploma given to 70% or 95% of the students in medicine will lead to the graduation of completely incompetent doctors. But that's assuming that the level of the candidatures is unchanged. Many other aspects of the evolution of FPC could be studied, like for example the complexity of the discussions, the diversity of the voters / opponents and the engagement rate for each, the heterogeneity of the specific fields involved in the nominations, etc. Best regards, -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree that more opposes will encourage more diversity. I do think we go too easy on some subjects, but it's so subjective I don't think there's much to do about it. What would encourage diversity is to opposite of more opposes -- seeing actual results. An indication that people are willing to promote (not decline) more images of unusual subjects which have various technical shortcomings, may just result in more of those nominations. My guess (but I don't have data to back this up) that the most likely explanation for an increase in support % over a given period is that it's a period when long-timers are more active and fewer new people join. The long-timers, for the most part, learn what passes and what the FPC crowd doesn't like. I'm reluctant to nominate e.g. pictures of social movements, even though it's one of my favorite subjects, not because my feelings will be hurt, but because I think it'll be a waste of time -- that FPC just isn't the right venue. Every once in a while I'll do it, but it almost feels like a "protest vote," so to speak. I've toyed with tossing this one in, for example, but I already know what people will say: bad background, harsh light. And I wouldn't even disagree! I'd just disagree that it's disqualifying. Everyone wants diversity until it comes down to "well, yes, but I want diverse photos that meet my own standards", which is fine, except the sum total of those standards excludes a lot of "diversity". As it happens, my personal interests have shifted to include a lot more birding and bird photography over the past few years, and feedback here and at QIC has helped me to improve those. As such, my promotion % has significantly increased, but that's also in part because I don't bother with [most of] the stuff that I think should be promoted but isn't (at one point I started tossing things I like but have no chance at FPC, along with things that have some special significance, into a category, but I typically just skip that now). I've just come to accept that FPC is not the right venue for some things. And that's fine, but hearing claims that we'd support diversity if only more people opposed just got my attention as a strange claim. — Rhododendritestalk | 00:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
We need diversity in all votes, which means diversity in opposes as diversity in supports too. If each voter gives a reason, as recommended in our guidelines "Explain your reasoning", then all the nominations will gain in value. Concise comments welcome of course. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
What about diversity in nominated images? And if we talk about comments - concise ist one thing and I agree that "not up to the mark of the other images we already have" ist not what we are aiming for, but can I please raise the hand again for helpful and friendly? --Kritzolina (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
FP has its faults, but it does work. As someone pointed out a few months ago, there are voters who seem to support but seldom oppose, but that is their choice. A voter who only ever opposes my FP noms, but never supports them is annoying, but it's not against the rules. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I fully agree with Charles here. (There are also voters who seem to oppose often but seldom support, of course. So in the end these different attitudes balance each other ;–). At the same time I also want to raise, like Kritzolina, “the hand again for helpful and friendly”. (Constructive) criticism and friendliness, lively discussions and helpful attitude do not need to exclude each other, they can go hand in hand, although this is admittedly not always easy. --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
A support makes you look friendlier than an oppose though, so my guess is that people are more reluctant to go with them. Even I sometimes see a picture I'd oppose on a first glance, and then think twice because I've opposed the author already. Or pictures that don't even trigger reaction so I don't even bother reviewing them (which is worse than an oppose in a sens). So not so sure about the balance thing. But I agree that the FP gallery is generally filled with good pictures and that the process is not that bad. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I f we want more diversity, nonsense comments and opposes should stop. It would also improve the unpleasant atmosphere on FPC. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Who wouldn't agree to that? We've lost so many great contributors that got burned on their first try or eventually gave up after prolonged hostility - just because they dared to try something fresh. Posting an unspecific rant here won't actually change much, though. People voting with rude comments don't know their posts are being received as such (e.g., I hope my lengthy comments don't come off as condescending smart-assery, but I don't know) and/or keep doing it because they get away with it. So what to do? We could bring out the torches and pitchforks and start a witch hunt, but that tends to end in a lose-lose situation. Calling them out on their nonsense right where it happens would probably be the best way to counter that. Calmly, politely, respectfully, and repeatedly by different people. Of course, not everyone is comfortable doing that, and that's OK. But maybe consider to occasionally give a simple "+1" to those who do. --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, even though I am still a newbie compared to our hardworking regulars, I would like to make my views known here. I have always chosen a support or opposing vote very carefully. The last oppose I submitted in September of last year. My votes were and are always image-related, never user-related. I generally had the subliminal impression that an opposing vote would be taken personally and, at worst, end in subtle, indirect revenge votes. Since then, I leave opposing votes to other users, and choose at most a comment to point out flaws. I agree with previous commenters that as a newbie on FPC, you can have a hard time. It's frustrating, intimidating, and in my humble opinion not at all in keeping with the collaborative Wiki spirit. FPC is there for all photo enthusiasts, whether beginners, advanced, or regulars. Therefore, we should be grateful for every newbie, because only in diversity lies the strength of a valuable FP media library. We should welcome them respectfully and always assume good intentions. In personal communications with some FPC users in the past, I have suggested that some sort of supervisor should keep an eye on the rules of civility and politeness. However, because we are all here voluntarily, this is unrealistic. Perhaps users with admin rights should pay more attention to avoid subtle antagonism. We should at least try to work together in a tolerant way, so that we don't lose focus on the main target, which is to build up a valuable FP library. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure whether this "unpleasant atmosphere" statement refers to me in person, having started this discussion. Surely no one would say anything against being as friendly as possible to each other, and neither would I. While I certainly place more "o" than "s" here, I do so because IHMO only the very very best images should get a feature, and in case of opposing, I mostly try to put my criticism constructively, and to explain my reasons to oppose as precisely as possible in order to offer the submitter a starting point for further work. As a matter of fact, I have opposed images taken by myself that got nominated by someone else because I didn’t think they were up to FP standards. You see, FPC simply is not a feel-good club for Commons photographers – this is the place where the very best images in this entire database are elected, the highest of decorations an image can get here at all. Our bar should be set accordingly high. This is not the welcome area, this is the assessment center. So, just being "good" or "flawless" or "likeable" or even "moving" should not be enough to get a support here (that’s QI’s and/or VI’s work), the images featured here should be outstanding, exceptional, singular work on a high photographic level. That’s all I’m asking for. It might be a silly comparison (and I am not referring to a particular nomination) – when submitting a student's homework for the Nobel Prize, I’d have to put up with being rejected, and maybe even being rejected rudely :) --Kreuzschnabel09:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Being critical and/or opposing often is not what this is about - that has nothing to do with being polite or friendly. One is about assessing the image, the other one is about how you package your judgement for the author/nominator. AFAICT, you're doing fine there: you tend to explain your thoughts, and if there's something you like about an image, you will mention that even if you end up opposing. It's constructive criticism 101: instead of just saying "X is bad", say "I like Y, but I think X would be better if you'd try Z". And WRT Nobel Prize: It is absolutely possible to FPX a terrible image without the nominator feeling like they (or you) are an idiot - it just takes a bit more effort ;-) El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is not about you. There are people, while being technically competent in some areas, either express their criticism in a harsh way, accusing the nominator of various defects, or who find nonsense pretexts or completely unrelated issues to the proposed picture. It would be much better to just say "I don't like it" or to abstain altogether. Yann (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Can’t resist to meddle, in support of Kreuz's concerns. The French use to say "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", that is, this issue of the proper placement of the FP bar is being discussed for years! Please allow me to cite what I have written a long time ago, here, about the need to justify the support votes: “Quality has improved dramatically and we are now faced with the problem of rejecting excellent pictures just because they are only excellent, not exceptional or ... magic ... or inspiring. Three years ago I considered very important to explain why I opposed a nomination; now I consider more important to justify why I'm supporting it. Three years ago I considered inappropriate to justify an oppose vote with "no wow" or "don't like" it; now I found it the least of evils. As I said elsewhere, the default state in FPC is "not promoted". It is the ultimate goal of the forum to identify the nominations whose original state should be changed to "promoted", based on good and consensual reasons; it is not the ultimate goal of the forum to justify why all the others are not worth the star. Of course, pictures can be quickly rejected because of technical shortcomings. But those are just the easy cases... Just my two cents. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
And that brings me back to one of my original points - how do we deal with the fact that "wow" or "exceptional" are extremely subjective categories. As they should be. But if you truly want diversity, you will always find people who feel something you do not find hits that mark, brings that extra added value. Currently there is a strong gender bias in this group for example. I am sure at least some of you have read up on the problem of "the male gaze". We also have a strong bias towards Western European tastes, especially German ones (yes, this includes me). There are a few more things we could analyze, but I think you all are aware that we as a group do not represent the world as it is. And we should never consider our personal, individual tastes (which are shaped by our culture and privileges) as binding for everyone. I see some people start their rational for opposing with "in my eyes" or "to me" - in my opinion this is a really good practice that should become standard.
We also should consider that while some of us prefer to hear a clear rejection to no comments at all, there might be others who prefer the opposite. There are a lot of cultures where any kind of critisism is seen as deeply embarassing. And from a psychological viewpoint, a photographer whose image fails with one or two positive comments might learn more and be more encouraged to submit better suited images than one whose image fails with only negative ones. That is one reason why I give mostly positive comments for example. Where I would leave a negative comment, usually two or three others already opposed. Sometimes I also do not leave an oppose where I see there is a clear majority for an image - but this discussion is encouraging me to do so anyways, if I feel what others see as a "Wow" is just a bad imitation of better work, following skewed aesthetical standards or the image is in some other way not worthy of being promoted.
What might be really ineresting for us as a group, would be to go over the already featured images one day - and ask everyone to pick their favorite and their least favorite image(s) in each gallery. And find out where people agree and where there are huge differences. Perhaps we can do something like that at a Wikimania or some other event one day and learn more about what constitues this "exceptional" on commons. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This is nothing personal about you, Ikan, for I do appreciate you as a valuable contributor here, but your comment on this edit illustrates exactly what I’m talking about. (Really no hard feelings about making me the only stinker so far, I can live with that.) Of course the smile of the child (I’m seeing a girl, but nevermind) is great. Nobody having a heart will ever doubt that. Still, on FP we are not judging the smile but the image of it. We are judging skilled photographic work. I tried hard not to be too rude in my verdict on this nomination but, to be honest, IMHO the smile is the only adorable issue about the entire pic, literally anything else having gone wrong here (WB off to magenta, focus off, poor crop). We could switch the projects caption to "Featured Smiles" of course, but as long as it’s about pictures, I want pictures to be featured and not smiles ;-) --Kreuzschnabel09:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I accept the criticism, which is fair, but note that I haven't determined not to vote; I just didn't feel ready to vote, on reflection, and sometimes, I just don't vote. You're right, though, of course, that the photo is not just the smile, but one of the things that can be crucial in judging a work of art is how it affects you, and the smile certainly has an affect. Also, some problems with the photo that you cite weren't things that were bothering me. I was bothered by the lack of more focus on the face and distracting background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Dear nominators, please check your FPs after promotion
I have already posted this some time ago, but please allow me to repeat this as a gentle reminder ;–). This is especially important for nominators who regularly nominate pictures on some Wikipedias, e.g. Adam Cuerden, IamMM, UnpetitproleX, Yann and others. No offence! I just want to help.
If you nominate here on Commons a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, and the picture is successfully promoted to FP status, our FPCBot does not change the image description page of your picture as appropriate. It seems that when the image description page already contains the {{Assessments}} template (because the picture is a FP on some Wikipedia), the bot does not add the necessary featured=1 parameter to the template.
Why is this important? Only with that parameter your FP will actually “look” and “work” like a valid FP on Commons – the description page will show the “This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons …” message and the image is sorted into the appropriate category, and then another bot will flag the picture in the structured data as FP which is necessary for the search function to recognize the image as FP.
Therefore, if you nominate here a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, please go after the promotion to the image description page, search in the Wikicode for the {{Assessments}} template and add the missing parameter. E.g., when the template reads like this: {{Assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}, please add the parameter featured=1, so that the template now reads: {{Assessments|featured=1|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}. Thank you!
Probably there is a bug in the bot and that bug should be fixed, but until that please take care for your FPs – they are great and worth that additional effort ;–). Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
No problem at all, Adam! I did not want to criticize anybody. I just wanted to remind us about this little problem … ;–). Best regards and thank you for your wonderful restaurations and other contributions, --Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
In an effort to simplify things, I've tried closing Shirley Graham du Bois semi-manually, since the en-wiki one closes later today. Fingers crossed I did it right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: Thank you very much – both are perfect now! (And sorry for the delay – I should have answered earlier to you, but somehow I missed the ping.) --18:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I don’t think so; IMHO this was just a coincidence. I think the bot has the usual problems with both images of the set (i.e. that the bot forgets to add the “featured=1” parameter to the already present {{Assessemts}} template), but the major problems of the bot (see the other thread) very probably have a completely different reason. Sorry for the late answer! --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Why do users give edit thanks in nominations for a positive vote and not for a negative one?
I still can't understand the mechanics of FPC, why a well-crafted comment where the user took his time to evaluate the image, but with a negative vote he is never grateful? On the other hand, a positive vote without anything written is Thanked? Wilfredor (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
In a discussion with @Yann: about a candidacy that is in progress, some questions arose. I have seen with concern how a large number of images are smoothed with noise reduction filters until any texture disappears and others to which a sharpening filter is applied. These things destroy the images since noise is information just as by making a false sharpness we are creating artifacts that end up damaging the image.
I don't know if we have gotten used to it but I wonder if we should rethink the use of noise reduction. I think that in FPC there should be no place to use tools like Topaz Gigapixel, Topaz Denoise, Topaz Sharpening and similar tools present in Photoshop because we are simply destroying the photos. I wonder if we should accept noise the way we accept grain present in photos taken with film. Wilfredor (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think "natural" (i.e. returning to how photography used to be 30 years ago regardless of the merits) should be the ideal we strive towards, but rather "faithful to reality". So film grain, digital noise, lens aberrations, etc. are all distortions of reality that, although unintentional, negatively impact the accuracy of the photo just like intentional manipulation in Photoshop. In general, we favor correction of elements that distort "long-term encyclopedic reality", which includes everything above but also removal of distracting elements that one could reasonably expect to not see if one moved an inch to the side or waited a few more seconds. As an exception, perspective correction is one area where in most cases we allow, and even expect, the photographer to manipulate reality to present an idealized version of a building, though it could be argued that we are just trying to simulate what the eyes are seeing as a 3D video as opposed to a 2D static image (i.e. the illusion that the lines are parallel even if the eyes do not actually capture them that way). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Lens corrections, chromatic aberrations and these things that are automatically done by algorithms by RAW developers software are very well applied standard procedures, removal of dust or distracting elements is not problematic either. Yes, I agree with you, I am talking specifically about the noise reduction and sharpening filters that are applied throughout large areas of the image (or even the entire image in general) that end up destroying the pixels. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think AI tools are not all the same. Topaz Gigapixel is trying to invent details that look real even though they don't actually exist, so it should not be used. Topaz Denoise may end up doing a little bit of that incidentally (since neural networks cannot be easily controlled), but what it mostly does is identify areas that are OK to blur (e.g. sky, water) and areas that should not be blurred (e.g. details on an animal), and I think that's fine. It is certainly a powerful tool for sure, so I generally set the strength to only about 1/100, never exceeding 10/100. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
As always: It depends. Excessive use of any processing tool is, of course, by definition excessive and should be opposed in a FP nom. But if you want to conserve every bit of information the camera gathered, you cannot touch the RAW file at all. It's about finding the right balance. A certain amount of sharpening is pretty much always necessary when de-bayering a RAW. Too much de-noising on a sandstone wall will eat up all the fine detail, but the same amount of de-noising may look grainy on the flat blue sky right next to it. The kind (unsharp masking? high-pass filter?) and amount of sharpening you apply depends on what you are sharpening (straight edges? fine details? ...?). In old-school processing, it is editor's task to apply those corrections carefully, and where needed locally. AI tools like Topaz try to help you with that, and as long as they are being supervised properly, I don't see any problem with that in principle (Topaz Gigapixel seems to be an entirely different beast, though).
But that brings me to another point that we maybe should think about: Many phone cameras make heavy use of AI to make up for the limitations of the tiny sensors and optimize the output for viewing on small screens. When viewed on a proper screen, they often look overly de-noised and over-sharpened at the same time, but they may look better on a phone screen than a "properly" edited DSLR shot. Given that most people primarily surf on their phones today, maybe we should open up to the idea that the "right" kind of processing may differ for different people and devices ... --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe? Or maybe we just shouldn't judge a picture from a smartphone by what a FF sensor could have achieved. To some degree, we already do that with drone shots - possibly because we're not yet "spoiled" by a daily influx of professional grade aerial images taken from helicopters and light aircraft. Of course, one can always ask whether a phone cam was an appropriate choice for the given situation or whether the photographer made good choices when using it ... --El Grafo (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it really depends - a phone shot of a castle that could be taken with a better camera easily vs. a phone shot of an event are different things Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Please also consider that there are people out there who do NOT have the choice to use expensive equipment. Their best choice might be a good phone camera. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Exactly (both, Adam & Kritzolina). Fixed rules pro or against a certain type of processing tool or camera won't help us. Relax. Use your best judgement, taking the circumstances into account. If in doubt: discuss. El Grafo (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm shooting sports in dark gyms and at night which leads to ISO values of 5000 or even higher. My old D850 has a lot of quite small pixels and short exposure times triple the amount of visible noise and even leads to reduced details. To me it seems to be impossible to get rid of the noise in Lightroom without sacrificing the rest of the details, so I usually leave the noise. Websites using my images don't care about the noise, it's not visible at the lower resolutions they publish. I've tried Topaz Denoise, it does a reasonable job, but overall the images do look unnatural to me (and it's very very slow on my old Laptop). There's a slight chance of producing better denoised images when shooting RAW, but I cannot handle 50MB files when it's necessary to sort them out and process them fast. --Granada (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Iifar: That might be my fault - that set nom. I'd close it manually, but I worry that that'll make actually fixing the bot harder. I did manually template all the finished noms above it, although I'm sure there's a bunch of rule-of-the-fifth-day I missed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Michael Gäbler, who was formerly active on Commons and known for many FP's and QI's, sadly has passed away on 6 Sep at the age of 82. Anyone who wishes to condole, can do it there. Regards --A.Savin12:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to see this. The English Wikipedia community newspaper, the Signpost, may run something about Michael. Perhaps someone who knew him better than I did (we didn't overlap much, though I'm familiar with some of his photos) can help? There is a discussion in the Signpost newsroom (or feel free to reach out to me directly). — Rhododendritestalk | 20:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I closed this manually since the en-wiki FPC is meant to close in 12 hours and I wanted to make sure it closed first. Did I miss anything? I left it up in the hopes that the really annoying log parts would hopefully sort themselves out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Good photography as having "no educational value"
Hi, everyone. I think some of you would be interested in the discussions I and others have been having with User:Mztourist in threads on deletion requests (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Couple of the year! (14681707340).jpg is one example, but there are others). There are still Commoners who think portraits of non-famous people by non-famous photographers are of no educational value and should be deleted, even when I point out that the first such photo that was featured was uploaded in 2003 and promoted in 2005. I warn you, though: spending time on deletion request threads can be a terrible time-suck and is unlikely to ultimately give you a strong sense of satisfaction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
ResponseCommons:Project scope states that content "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." A portrait of a notable person or by a notable photographer is obviously educational. However a portrait of a non-notable person or by a notable photographer is obviously not educational, otherwise we could all take photos of people and use some spurious minor detail or category to justify why such a photo is educational. User:Ikan Kekek takes this even further by saying that the fact that a photo is well composed is in and of itself educational, even if the subject of the photo is mundane or non-notable. This project is not a "good photography" or how to be a better portrait photographer page, just because a photo may be "good", "high quality" or aesthetically pleasing to some Users doesn't make a photo educational, that depends entirely on the subject rather than its composition. Ikan Kekek is referring above to File:Sabaa Nissan Militiaman.jpg, which is objectively a very nice/high quality photo, but is it educational? What "knowledge; instructional or informative" does it give us? I believe almost none: the categories are very general and the photo tells us nothing other than this is what one older man in Iraq looked like, on that basis we could all take photos of elderly people anywhere and provided the image quality is high enough, they would be retained. Is that really in line with the project scope? This project recognises high quality photos which is great, but the photo subject must itself be educational, before any assessment of photo quality is relevant. Mztourist (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. A portrait of a notable person or by a notable photographer is obviously educational - the, um, author field is wikilinked...
a portrait of a non-notable person or by a notable photographer is obviously not educational - Presuming the latter is "non-notable photographer". This is a wild overgeneralization. I'm not much of a portrait photographer, and certainly not a notable photographer, but even I have many photos of non-notable people in use on various Wikipedias. Clearly they have some use.
This project is not a "good photography" or how to be a better portrait photographer page - If we're talking about "educational use", there are an awful lot of university departments which focus entirely on "good photography" and "how to be a better portrait photographer". Why is that educational use not a valid educational use?
The line is indeed very hard to draw. In this case, we're talking about a photo that I'd argue to keep based just on the fact that it was taken by a notable photographer. If the resolution were a little higher, I'd say it should be kept regardless as a good example of [wedding/couples] photography (because photography education is certainly education). As it is, I'd be on the fence, but the notable photographer pushes me over to keep (I'll keep my opinion on this page for the time being, though). — Rhododendritestalk | 12:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The Commons:Project scope is educational, that means the image subject, not the image techniques must be instructional or informative. If the project scope was intended to teach photography techniques, I'd expect that to be stated somewhere as policy. There is absolutely nothing to learn from the Couple of the year! image (or any other image) because, as with any photo, everything largely depends on the available light and how the photographer manipulates it. Adding some generic categories like 1 man with 1 woman (which already have thousands of photos) as you have done doesn't make the subject notable. Mztourist (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a bizarre line of argumentation. Images should be educational, but not educational about photography? The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". The subject doesn't have to be notable. There is no distinction between images that are educational because they show something educational vs. something that is educational in the way it depicts something. If it's educational according to its broad meaning, it's educational. If you want to improve the categories, go for it. — Rhododendritestalk | 14:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
And I find your line of argument bizarre. If this project was about how to take better photos, I'm sure that would be in policy, but obviously its not. In order to justify your position you have to contort into this position that the "way" something is depicted is somehow educational. So using your logic, I could take millions of photos of random people worldwide and provided that the photos are high quality and somehow depict them in a certain "way" then that is educational and so they're valid images in line with Commons:Project scope? I know you're trying to win this argument, but surely you don't believe that. I also repeat my earlier comment, just seeing an image (even with all the technical detail) is not educational, because learning about photography requires knowing the physical factors under which the photo was taken, principally the light. Mztourist (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
If you take high-quality photos that provide educational value (about photography or any other subject), then they are in scope, yes. Sometimes an educational image requires context. Having an image available for a photography instructor to say "this is a good example of X photography because of these factors..." is providing a good educational resource. — Rhododendritestalk | 16:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Then using your logic we should keep all low quality images also, so that your theoretical photography instructor can say "this is a bad example of X photography because of these factors..." As I said before, this is not a "good photography" project and there is nothing in policy that says it is. It is perfectly possible to have high quality images of subjects that are educational and that is what we should all be striving for here. Mztourist (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost any subject can be educational, in the opinion of most of us at FPC, I daresay. I would further say that most of us would consider the idea that this is not the case to show a lack of imagination. For example, the fact that most people ignore grates when they pass them on the street means rather that a great picture focusing on one is educational than that it's not educational. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
No, Mztourist, Commons is not primarily a "good photography project". Commons rakes in any kind of content as long as it is 1) freely licensed and 2) somehow potentially useful in an educational environment. That "somehow" is defined by COM:SCOPE as very broad and inclusive, and it is commonly interpreted even broader. There is a line to be drawn somewhere, but it is a fuzzy one. If in doubt, we tend to assume something has some kind of potential for being useful in some kind of educational environment. That includes things that are far outside Wikipedia's scope - we have a whole bunch of images like File:Attaching the bracket.JPG that are almost completely pointless elsewhere, but we consider them educationally useful because they are being used in a project on Wikiversity. We have imported several million geo-referenced images from the Geograph projects, many of which look like this. Will anybody ever use this one? Doubtful. But can we be certain? No. So we keep it. This is very important for understanding Commons and, by extension, Commons FP. We don't have en:Wikipedia:Notability, let alone de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien. Not even wikidata:Wikidata:Notability comes close. When people at the sister projects get upset because of "deletionist Commons admins" that is almost exclusively due to copyright issues, and virtually never because we think their uploads are not useful. You may not like it, but that's how it is, and it's not going to change.
FPC at Commons is also not primarily a "good photography project". But it is not an "educationally useful images" project either. We already have COM:VI and FP at Wikipedia for that. FPC at Commons requires a minimum amount of usefulness - the same amount that is sufficient for not deleting a file. What makes a Commons FP then? It needs to be awesome in one way or another. It needs to impress in one way or another. We call that "wow-effect". Extraordinary usefulness can be a reason for a file to be considered FP, but there are many more. A picture that is very strong in one regard can be a bit weak in other ways. A once-in-a-lifetime action shot can get away with being a bit blurry. A technically excellent, well lit, focus stacked studio shot can get away with a mundane subject we already have hundreds of other shots of. And a beautifully composed scene at dusk can sometimes get away with not being all that useful. Because FP at Commons is an awesome images project, and we try not to discriminate against different kinds of awesomeness.
I realize though, that that is not quite clear from how the FP instructions are written. But they are old - maybe it's time to adjust them according to reality. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
That's exactly what I wrote, though. They need to be in scope somehow. They do not need to be exceptionally educational. El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we're sometimes a little too restrictive. For example, there's probably a lot of use for a number of nude pictures, with different poses, and many different body shapes, since that would help teaching art. A virtual live model, as it were. Obviously, not so much need for sexualised ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Mztourist, please accept that your opinion about something is not the only valid opinion. Many people disagree with your points of view on the project scope and the necessity to delete uncategorized images. We undestand that you see things your way, but this is a collaborative project. Please respect other people's opinions. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Kritzolina I am responding respectfully to those who disagree with me, the same cannot be said of several other Users who have insulted me and my opinions. Are you going to provide a suitable commentary to them also? Mztourist (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
We seem to have different understandings of what is and what isn't respectful. Your behavior of insisting on your opinion as the only valid one is not what I consider respectful. Collaboration also means to listen, not only to talk. --Kritzolina (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
And I don't see you taking any issue with Users who have thrown personal insults at me and so I'm not inclined to respect your comments. Mztourist (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm approaching 600 on en-Wiki (595 so far, with three in voting, though I suspect at least one's going to fail to reach quorum as a ridiculous number of FPCs are at the moment) - probably substantially more than that if you don't use my restrictive counting-by-list-and-excluding-a-lot-of-them method. I don't suppose there's any easy way to tell how many I have on here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
You can try a search with search arguments like insource:/User:Adam Cuerden/ incategory:"Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons". --XRay💬05:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
All user categories are creator categories. You've set the user categories manualy. And you have an account here at Wikimedia Commons, not only at Wikipedia. ;-) It's all very confusing. --XRay💬20:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but say I never had an account here. Would the category be hidden then? No. This isn't an "images uploaded" category, it's an "images created by" one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes it would. I can't find a Wikipedia article about you, so I see no reason to feature you separately as a photographer, let alone as a picture restorer. Stepro (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I have a Wikidata item. And we do it for all sorts of photographers without a Wikipedia page. Having a Wikipedia page was never an issue, or we'd have to delete almost all our categories for old photography firms. I'm kind of impressed that "You have 350 featured pictures" and "You aren't important, and how dare you want recognition" are in the same thread. But then, there's reasons I take long wikibreaks. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Can you please stay factual? Thank you. I have to say quite honestly that I didn't understand this argumentation with Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons and user category and yet not user category. I also don't see that a distinction is made here at Commons between an account at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Where should this rule come from? BTW: Searching for "Adam Cuerden" in Wikidata has no results. --XRay💬15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Adam I mean, surely you can understand that when there's a shared norm of "[files] by [user]" being hidden categories, insisting that your files be the exception and interpreting "could you maybe do it like the rest of us" as a slap in the face is going to lead to a little bit of resentment (as when it's come up in the past). That said, I think your underlying point (as I interpret it) is reasonable, and easy to frame this as something that looks less like an exception and more like an invitation: that creators on Commons just shouldn't have their category hidden. Maybe it makes more sense to, say, limit each file to having one unhidden user authorship category? No need to base it on rules for creator tags or Wikidata items, etc., because the lines are too hard to draw. If you take photos, make illustrations, restore images, etc., you can have a "by [user]" category that's unhidden (and however many other hidden user categories). Seems pretty reasonable to me. What's the downside? (this is asking anyone) — Rhododendritestalk | 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with "Files uploaded by" being hidden, if that's all you're doing. But Photographs, restorations, anything where the person is making the content? It's ridiculous to hide them. I agree this should apply to everyone (I honestly just presumed people were anti-restoration, because hiding Wikipedian photographers is that dumb. So, if someone likes an image, and wants to see what else the creator did, we should make it as hard as possible to find them? And, as a fairly random example that may not be fair, why should Category:Photographs_by_Olof_Sundström be unhidden, but not the category for a Wikipedian? There isn't a Wikipedia page for him on any Wikipedia, after all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll try to summarize it from my point of view. Maybe it will help before the discussion gets out of hand.
There are different views regarding the respect of the works that are made available here at Wikimedia Commons (Adam called it Wikipedia). There are quite a few photographers and other media producers who want to be sufficiently acknowledged as a small token of appreciation for their volunteer work. Adam wants those with his own category, which should not be hidden. The structure of this category seems unconventional, as it is also classified by category as a user category. Regardless of Adam's ideas, I also see it as important and necessary that photographers are sufficiently appreciated.
On top of that, there are always differing views of the people who are primarily on Wikipedia and those who are primarily active on Wikimedia Commons. And there is one more thing: Especially in terms of categories, Wikimedia Commons is rather sensitive. Galleries and user pages etc. are usually no problem, but categories - with the exception of those explicitly marked as user category (and thus hidden).
To name a few examples from the environment of disrespect (I call it that way) of the authors or their rights, I would like to mention the crop tool and its application, which is used to display derivative works as works of the author (without naming the editor of the derivative work), although he may not even support this and is not responsible for it. Another example is the misinterpretation of licenses, where images are edited and uploaded again under the same name - with the reference that the original image is still in the version history. From (my) author's point of view, such things are very annoying.
Let me note one more thing, even if the discussion goes back to my comment: Unfortunately, the discussion does not fit in this place.
I'll be honest, XRay, I always presumed that the attempts to hide my category stemmed solely from not appreciating restorationists, because the idea that, if a photographer is a Wikimedian, they don't get categories to link their works together, and every other photographer that exists can have open categorisation, is such madness that it's hard to see why anyone put up for it for a moment. All that does is punish the people who actually care to work with us, while elevating those who don't. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Less results while searching with "Adam Cuerden" instead of Adam Cuerden. Searching with my proposed search arguments above: 222 results. --XRay💬15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Checking the 354 results, I think the number is 351, presuming it doesn't stop showing them after a certain number of hitting "Show more". That's the ones shown, less anything I didn't recognise as my work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Changing FP Gallery after nomination
I nominated an image specifying a particular FP gallery. During the review process, I've found a more suitable FP gallery. How do I go about changing the gallery? The image is very likely to be featured as it has many support votes so far. Tagooty (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your question, Tagooty, which I came across by coincidence. As far as I know, it's easy by changing the link to the right of *Gallery: that is assigned at the beginning of the nomination process on the page. For example, from the existing link Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Boats to the different Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work. In the edit summary I would then note Gallery link refined. Hope that I could help you further. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The motivation for this was the realisation that I had also nominated them on en-wiki, and those were likely to close before the Commons ones, and, well, that bug wherein images don't close correctly if they're featured elsewhere already kind of stresses me out a bit.
Don't get me wrong: These are, unless I'm completely misreading the rules, perfectly valid promotions. But I prefer to invite review because, well, if I messed up, but did everything in my power to announce what I did, that's surely better than messing up and it looking like I was trying to hide something. Hopefully, I didn't actually mess up at all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I always wait for the bot. Who knows what other actions he will take. And in my experience, a review often comes just before the bot. --XRay💬16:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, the criteria do say:
“
Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
I was just going to say - if the bot allows votes to slip in between the end of the official period and its closure, those should be removed later by somone evaluating the vote. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wondered if the bot is not working properly, since there are now nominations at the bottom of the page that should have been closed three days ago. Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Follow-up to my own comment: Seems this did the trick – shortly after the manual removal of the set nomination the bot has processes quite some older nominations. OK, so we know what to look out for … @MZaplotnik Thank you very much for your hint! --Aristeas (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! So it seems that we have to look out for set nominations and alternative sections and need to process them (after closing) manually in order to get the bot do its other duties. Hem, seems the bot is getting old … --Aristeas (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The organizers and others seem to want to keep this secret [36]. It is not mentioned on the home page and I put a reminder on the FPC page but someone removed it. Crazy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Also this year there were many beautiful pictures to see at the FPC. There have been special lighting moods or technical excellence. Basically, it's always the same images that are very appealing and have that intangible wow factor. But photography is more than that. I like to encourage people to try other genres or techniques. Perhaps I would like to quote Randy Capa once: If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough. We also have exciting categories like abstract photography or minimalist photography. Pictures from such categories are worth to become candidates at FP. Leaving familiar paths is often helpful to improve your photographic skills. Give it a try! (And let me add experiential values: Don't let disrespectful comments stop you. Nobody is omniscient and should allow himself to judge in such a way about the pictures and skills of others). --XRay💬11:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for encouraging all of us to try more diverse approaches for Featured Pictures. May I add my own, well not resolution, but wish for 2023 - I would really love to see more portraits of women featured, especially portraits of women that are not traditionally sexy, sweet, or exotic. And perhaps also not Angela Merkel. I would also wish all of you decided to vote on the Photography, not on the woman, when judging these images. --Kritzolina (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
;-) I agree especially with I would also wish all of you decided to vote on the Photography, not on the <any motif> [replaced], when judging these images. That's important for a lot of candidates. --XRay💬12:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Would you agree that some motifs are more obviously appealing than others, and that, therefore, a photo of an otherwise uninteresting motif has to be that much better? (But on the other hand, a great motif that has been photographed by everybody has to be really outstanding to impress.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's always a combination of 3 factors: 1) image quality/resolution; 2) artistic merit; and 3) relative value of subject. 1 is simple: the more sharp pixels (aka true resolution), the better (unless there is intentional bokeh). 2 is closely tied to "wow" factor and encompasses composition, lighting, color, mood, contrast, perspective, etc. For 3, I think the best way to think about it is to ask ourselves the question: "How underrated (underrepresented at FPC or difficult to photograph) is the subject relative to its merits?" For example, a nondescript piece of scenery would score low since it doesn't have much photographic merit, as would the Golden Gate Bridge since it is easily photographed (as far as a mere documentary photo is concerned) and we already have many great photos of it. But a beautiful mountain range from Kyrgyzstan would score highly on this scale.
I don't see it as that simple. For example, there are photos of paintings that receive the FP award. However, I see the actual representational achievement and thus the motif with the painter. The photographic achievement consists of a clean image. A simple Motif seems "so incidentally made" probably rather boring, it goes already a little more to it. There are, for example, special lighting situations, a suitable crop and a suitable angle. There are motifs that appeal positively to many (night shots, detail shots from nature), with others the discourse is greater. Who feels very connected to Wikipedia (here it is worthwhile to have a look at the excellent pictures of the respective Wikipedias), will certainly be able to take very good pictures, which however do not represent photo art. If I look (a little bit) self-critically at the picture of the "66" from Seattle presented here, I see an interesting play of colors between the blue sky and the red number. It is a color contrast. (Strictly speaking, the contrasting color to red is green and to blue is orange.) The "66" is in the center of the golden spiral and thus has an appealing position. The tower with the number and the sky are the main elements, it is a minimalist image. These are all points that do not necessarily appear or attract attention in a - without wanting to seem disrespectful - normal picture. And they are not seen that way by everyone either. In addition, art and therefore also photographic art do not necessarily please everyone. So it is not only the photographic challenge to present a photo and a simple motif well, but also the individual, personal view of the reviewers. --XRay💬07:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think another way to express some of your points is that judgment is inevitably based to a large degree on personal taste. But part of the larger point, really, and one which you've made in your own way is that a photo that is very skilled does not necessarily wow everyone. And the suggestion that FPs should be judged based on wow expressly recognizes a subjective reaction as a substantial part of judgments on whether to support, oppose or decline to vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. But photographic interest should or could certainly lead to just give it a try. And factual criticism, which I find in reviews, are always helpful. The (very) few rather disrespectful ones you just have to ignore. --XRay💬09:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I endorse If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough. I try to get close. But closeness to rare subjects (in my case animals) is seldom recognized at FP. We have too many close 'studio' shots (flora and fauna). As for experimentation; XRay, keep nominating, you have some great ideas (like the floating pawn image) but you must expect rejection more often than support! Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Accepted. I always try to encourage experimentation. Sometimes just discussing an image is enough to get things moving. This is definitely an experience from the photography courses I give. --XRay💬13:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Do we (should we) require EXIF data?
We often vote, e.g. in this nomination, against a photo because the EXIF data are missing or very incomplete. I totally understand this, as I am very interested in the EXIF data, XMP data etc. myself. But is there actually a rule requiring all (new) FPs to include EXIF data? I can’t find that rule, and therefore I don’t want to reject a candidate just because of the absense of EXIF data. Therefore I would propose that we should add an explicit rule for all (new) FP candidates that every photo should contain EXIF data, at least the most basic ones (date, time, camera model, ISO speed, shutter speed, exposure time ...), with the sole exception that in photos showing identifiable people or photos taken under dangerous circumstances, e.g. in a war or in countries with repressive governments, the (exact) date and time can be omitted; then an approximative date (the year) should be given on the description page. What do you think? Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC) – PS: Maybe there is already such a rule and I have just missed it; then we can close this discussion ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment If there isn't such a rule, yes, we should require one of normal nominations. I have been spending a lot of time at COM:DR, and so many files are deleted for lack of EXIF, especially when they are small. We need to enforce best practices when we are featuring pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think EXIF is, similar as geocode, very welcome but not mandatory for an FP. Lack of EXIF is not necessarily suspicious, because for example not everyone here knows how to crop pictures without having the EXIF lost from the output file. But yes if a certain user uploads all their photos either with broken EXIF or w/o EXIF at all, this is often strange at least. As for Byrdyak, however, I don't think we should suspect him to be hiding EXIF on purpose or even in bad faith. Regards --A.Savin18:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think focal length focal length full frame equivalent, ISO, shutter and exposure time should be required. Everything else especially location, all datetimes, serial number, camera model, lens type, original resolution and software used can be removed if required for security or privacy reasons. The criteria for featured pictures are so strict that we definitely can require selective EXIF removal. GPSLeo (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
OK since I'm here: requiring EXIF without a proper way to ensure they are meaningful won't work in my opinion. It won't solve any problem (and will add one). Most of my EXIF for instance are not meaningful because I shoot with a bunch of manual lenses, and don't bother updating the focal manually. Or I stitch photo and again the focal is non relevant. Or I forgot to change the timezone when I travel and the time is non relevant. I could go on.
Comment I think you folks who consider it wrong or pointless to require EXIF information really should make an argument at Commons talk:Deletion requests, explaining why we should not consider a lack of EXIF any kind of sign of copyright violation ever, because if Commons adopted a new policy ignoring the lack of EXIF, loads more photos would be kept. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
---- ExifTool ----
ExifTool Version Number : 12.14
---- System ----
File Name : Олень з кленовим листком.jpg
Directory : .
File Size : 11 MiB
File Modification Date/Time : 2023:01:04 10:25:13+00:00
File Access Date/Time : 2023:01:04 10:27:41+00:00
File Creation Date/Time : 2023:01:04 10:25:00+00:00
File Permissions : rw-rw-rw-
---- File ----
File Type : JPEG
File Type Extension : jpg
MIME Type : image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Image Width : 3000
Image Height : 4500
Encoding Process : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample : 8
Color Components : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
---- JFIF ----
JFIF Version : 1.02
Resolution Unit : inches
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
---- IFD0 ----
Orientation : Horizontal (normal)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Software : ViewNX-i 1.4 M
Modify Date : 2021:06:30 12:18:20
Y Cb Cr Positioning : Centered
---- ExifIFD ----
Exif Version : 0231
Components Configuration : Y, Cb, Cr, -
Flashpix Version : 0100
Color Space : Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width : 3000
Exif Image Height : 4500
---- Nikon ----
Maker Note Version : 2.11
Nikon Capture Version : ViewNX-i 1.4 M
IFD0 Offset : 494
Preview IFD Offset : 394
Nikon 0x0e19 : 256 100
---- PreviewIFD ----
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Preview Image Start : 5414
Preview Image Length : 45607
Preview Image : (Binary data 45607 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- IFD1 ----
Compression : JPEG (old-style)
X Resolution : 72
Y Resolution : 72
Resolution Unit : inches
Thumbnail Offset : 618
Thumbnail Length : 4796
Thumbnail Image : (Binary data 4796 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- ICC-header ----
Profile CMM Type : Linotronic
Profile Version : 2.1.0
Profile Class : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data : RGB
Profile Connection Space : XYZ
Profile Date Time : 1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature : acsp
Primary Platform : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer : Hewlett-Packard
Device Model : sRGB
Device Attributes : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent : Perceptual
Connection Space Illuminant : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator : Hewlett-Packard
Profile ID : 0
---- ICC_Profile ----
Profile Copyright : Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point : 0 0 0
Red Matrix Column : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc : IEC http://www.iec.ch
Device Model Desc : IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc : Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Luminance : 76.03647 80 87.12462
Technology : Cathode Ray Tube Display
Red Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
---- ICC-view ----
Viewing Cond Illuminant : 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround : 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type : D50
---- ICC-meas ----
Measurement Observer : CIE 1931
Measurement Backing : 0 0 0
Measurement Geometry : Unknown
Measurement Flare : 0.999%
Measurement Illuminant : D65
---- Composite ----
Image Size : 3000x4500
Megapixels : 13.5
Are there particular EXIF tags you want, like camera, focal length, aperture and shutter? These aren't always preserved by image editing software?
I don't think we can make EXIF data a requirement for FP. It used to be that colourspace tags and a colour profile were essential to get images displayed accurately on all screens. Modern browsers on PC/Apple/Android/etc assume sRGB and that's likely a safe default. If an image was actually using a wider colourspace then EXIF would be required for it to display correctly. Other than that, EXIF is not necessary for our viewers. We do find it educational if we can spot why an image failed in some way due to exposure settings or overprocessing if that information is available. But the fact is that outside of our little club, people don't care about EXIF data and some basic image editing software doesn't embed it. And some online platforms strip it off. I think making this a requirement would just limit Commons FP to user-generated photographs, which as the topic below demonstrates, would rob FP of the images with the most wow, and make the whole thing about as pointless for end-users as QI. It would also encourage nominators to insert possibly entirely fake EXIF before nominating.
We already set different standards, informally, for images from FPC regulars vs those from competitions or scraped off the web. I think it is reasonable to ask our own folk to supply basic EXIF and to fix minor faults. We know we just can't do that for someone who isn't here. It might seem that is unfair to demand more but on the other hand regulars here get an easy ride when it comes to nominating boring stuff.
I am interested in Ikan Kekek and Frank Schulenburg's comments about the deletion process. While lack of EXIF and small image size can raise suspicions about copyright, I don't think anyone should make EXIF a Commons requirement. For a start, there may be reasons the image doesn't even have copyright. Think of many of Adam's old photos and artworks. If a museum donated some excellent such images, lacking or with minimal EXIF, who cares? Also images from US government, military and NASA are copyright-free. Are we going to insist someone adds EXIF to a scan of an image taken by a Hasselblad on the moon? And we still permit illustrations at Commons FP, which don't have an exposure or camera. Does an SVG have EXIF at all? -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI, this years POTY File:Holy SURP Hovhannes Church.jpg has only minimal user-added EXIF about author/copyright/etc, all of which as Benh says, can easily be added. There no "date, time, camera model, ISO speed, shutter speed, exposure time ..." as Aristeas proposes. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, and I definitely take your points - of course EXIF cannot be required for certain types of photos. But I think it's problematic if a photo being relatively small with no EXIF is a common and successful deletion reason but we're fine featuring photos that should have EXIF data but don't. I'd like more consistency than that. If a policy change were made that allowed more usable photos to be kept, I'd be happy with that, but that would require a discussion at Commons talk:Deletion requests. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I just saw your question about why Charles says there's no EXIF. My answer to that would be that the kind of information that's in that EXIF does not really show that the uploader took the photo, right (ignoring the point that's been made about how easy it is to provide a fake EXIF or one from the photographer when you upload their photo)? It's not considered valid EXIF information in deletion request threads, from what I've seen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you and every one else too! I don't follow the deletion process. Would it help to link to some examples? I can quite see that an image uploaded by a newbie that was 200x300 and lacking EXIF would be considered something highly likely to have been lifted off a website without permission. But surely those are only deleted if they lack a source field with URL that links to an image with good provenance? A newbie claiming "own work" can be found out even when they do supply EXIF data, because sometimes it suggests they have used a high end Canon one day and a novice Nikon another and their images come from all sorts of locations and dates. Whereas at FPC, we only look at the one image. Consider instead if we have a small no-EXIF image with a link to a museum catalogue of an out-of-copyright artwork .. nobody surely insists it must have an EXIF at deletion?
Maybe we should get round to upping the minimum resolution requirements as it is still a good guard against images that aren't really free. -- Colin (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Just as a quick comment in between: Thank you very much for this lively and extensive discussion! When I started this discussion, my goal was not to force the requirement of EXIF data for every FP candidate; I just wanted to point out that in FC discussions we often mention missing EXIF data as contra argument, just as if there was an explicit rule requiring EXIF data, but that there is no such rule. This is a contradiction, and we should either add such a rule or stop to demand EXIF data from FP candidates. – From the present state of the discussion I would (personally) conclude that the arguments against the requirement for EXIF data are the better ones, especially because EXIF data can be manipulated and faked so easily. We can encourage photographers to preserve valid EXIF data, of course, but we should not require that. But that is just my personal interim balance, please continue with the discussion as necessary. Thank you again, --Aristeas (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been so active here for a while. I don't recall EXIF being an oppose rational when I was. So it must be the last year or so. I do recall being frustrated with some regulars who exported ProPhotoRGB images or didn't include colourspace information at a time it was useful, but I dont't think anyone opposed external photos for that reason. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is a relatively new trend, probably influenced by the discussion in deletion requests (see Ikan’s comments above). Right now we have this nomination where three oppose votes refer explicitly to the lack of comprehensive EXIF data, and I remember some similar cases in the last year or so. --Aristeas (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I had a look with TinEye for that Image. It finds it at several stock photo websites and all with the same author as the Byrdyak username here. They've been contributing their images at WLE for three years running. Their contributions Category:Photographs by Volodymyr Burdiak has 10 featured pictures and 27 QI already So I ask, Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek and SHB2000 what your oppose is for? If you doubt the Byrdyak is the same one at those stock photo sites, you could nominate them all for deletion and require the photographer to jump through the hoops of identifying themselves to Commons admins. Or you could message them on Facebook or Instagram, etc and ask if they are the same guy on Commons. I would have thought that someone offering their pictures on several stock photo websites would be pretty sharp about complaining on Commons if someone was pretending to be him and stealing his pics. Someone who somehow has access to the 12MP versions rather than the watermarked thumbs on the stock photo sites. It all seems rather unlikely. -- Colin (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll be happy to cross out my vote on these bases, but would you all also participate in a thread on the DR talk page? I'll start one later and link it here. Thanks very much for this discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I opposed on technical quality: "Great composition but soft and noisy." NO EXIF was a comment as we cannot judge why the image technical quality is so poor. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, if you actually did mean that, then you should say that (i.e. go to the nomination page right now and replace that last bit with "BTW, the lack of EXIF means I can't tell why it is soft and noisy"). Because right now your vote gives that as a reason for your oppose and it looks like two subsequent reviewers agreed that was a reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI, the text has been there a year and from the looks of the talk page discussion, seems very likely to stay. -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A lot has been said and a lot of good things - I want to add two more things. Erasing EXIF data is a habit of some people who are vulnerable to harassment or worse on the internet. I feel queasy about possibly encouraging vulnerable contributors to break that habit. And - even not-tampered with EXIF data migh be wrong or at least misleading when it comes to date and time, especially time. With an earlier camera of mine the date and time had to be reset every time you took out the battery. I usually did not bother, so the date and time were always off. Modern cameras don't require this kind of ongoing resets, but some people still might have their camera to a wrong date and time. But even if they set it correctly - when they are travelling in another timezone you never know if the camera was set to the local time or their home-time (well, sometimes it is obvious from the lighting conditions, but not always). --Kritzolina (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I take your points. Really, my problem was that I've seen so many "small, no EXIF, likely copyvio" deletion requests that I was under a(n) (mis)impression that without EXIF, a photo could be subject to deletion. It looks like a lot of unwarranted assumptions of bad faith and copyright violation have been made at DR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Commons photographers' results in Picture of the Year competition
Since this year's Picture of the Year contest ended, I've been wondering about the reasons for the fact that our own photographers (i.e. the regulars here on this page) didn't make it into the Top 10. I guess it's not our excellent capabilities of achieving a large depth-of-field with the increasingly popular focus stacking technique. It also doesn't look like we're not good at taking images of the interiors of religious buildings. And we're world champions at finding dust spots and chromatic aberrations. So, what else could it be? I'm seriously curious to hear from people (a) why we're all not getting our photos into the Top 10, and (b) what we should do in order to change that fact (if anything). Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. And just to be clear: I find my own photos boring and would not vote for them in POTY either.
My finalist 2021, but no picture from my personal top 12It is sometimes the charm of the special motives. The technical quality or the special technique alone is not enough. The suitable situation, the suitable motive and something like a temporal taste come to it. The advent of aerial photography by drones or 360° photos also had their special appeal in the beginning. In a situation with numerous crises and wars, these also have sometimes considerable influence. This year's photo, however, also has this only conditionally. It is simply a great composition, which is also appealing. By the way, I also see it in my own photographic development. Photos that I find really good even after months or years are not particularly abundant. Today, I also value artistic aspects, even if I sometimes earn rather cheeky and disrespectful comments like "terrible image" or "But the image here looks, like from child, who received his first camera and learns, how to operate with it." Such things are frustrating at first, even if they are declared as personal opinion. But opinions are different. (Fortunately, here at Wikimedia Commons, most have polite dealings).--XRay💬08:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
For me, there is an extreme imbalance in the topics in this competition. We have four categories for animals, a whopping nine categories for architecture, even bodies of water have their own category. But there is only one single category for people. So it's not surprising that once again not a single sports photo made it into the second round.
And when I look at the nominations at FP, I sometimes have the impression that there are only landscapes, insects and church ceilings. Stepro (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed this trend as well. There is a very active group among biologists and there are many categories accordingly. You can see that in many places. Architecture is also quite well represented. I find paintings quite often as FPC. When it comes to other topics, it pretty much dies down: bodies of water, photo art, people and much more. People are always such a special thing, since personal rights are taken into account here. A look at Featured pictures by subject and POTY 2021/Gallery and Commons FP galleries is quite revealing. --XRay💬11:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I do think it is weird that nearly all the photographs in the world are of people, except at Commons FP. Of course there are good reasons why. It isn't a social media site for personal social photos; our photographers don't have access to political or sports events to anything like the same degree as the press photographers are; many images of people are of models who are paid to pose and who are wearing fashionable new clothes and have their hair and makeup done by professionals and all this costs money that Commons won't pay for. And so on.
I do think, though, that our obsession with pixel peeping has put off many genres of photography. And our link with Wikipedia tends to encourage the taking of encyclopaedic illustrative photos, rather than something that is interesting or beautiful or artistic, while retaining educational value.
The animals are not just sitting there. I know you like to be provocative, but we do try to capture more than "species identification photographs". Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
At this FP nom, you said this "charging rhino" was in fact merely "trott[ing] towards us". Anyway, I agree the Rhino FP photos are not "passport photos". They are in fact, police mug shots:
@Colin: "our photographers don't have access to political or sports events to anything like the same degree as the press photographers are" - some have. Possibly even more than I think. At the European Championships in Munich last summer we were 6 Commons photographers. (photos are still in work)
When I look to User:Stepro/galleries, I think approximately 90% of my pictures shows people. I think a few hundred Wikipedia articles about persons have been illustrated for the first time by me, mostly in the areas of sports and politics. Stepro (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I hope that's a sign things are improving. It still holds, though. Where's the 2022 FIFA World Cup? And our Wimbledon photos have to be shot as spectators hoping the nobody comes along to complain about your long lens (as happened to Dillif). -- Colin (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to sound rude to us, but creative and actually talented photographers wanting to make the most of their photos (whether this is in the form of money and recognition or whatever else) would go anywhere but on Commons or FPC. And unlike Instagram maybe, the process of sharing online and interacting is not the most streamlined nor fun. Also unlike instagram, many photos here are promoted because they look sharp at 100% and I'm not sure how we got here (well I do have an idea...). It would be interesting to see how the FP would fare on a process where the IQ is not taken in account (or if they were taken with a smartphone for instance). How many FP would people hang on walls? Benh (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Photography was not my career, so I'm not interested in money. Recognition, yes, and Wikipedia (not Commons) is crucial for that. For me, Commons is primarily a repository for putting images on English Wikipedia. As a wildlife portrait photographer, I want my images used. So when I go to a museum, visit a wildlife park or zoo, read a field guide, or visit an educational website, I hope to find my images adding educational value. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I want my images used that's a significant issue here. It gets pretty self centered at moments (there's a lot of self nom and vote bias). We should be saying I want the best pictures promoted but let's face it, that's not exactly the driving force on FPC. That said, I'm glad we have a talented wildlife photographer like you on Wikipedia. Benh (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Benh: "I want my images used" is not the same as "I want my images promoted on FP". I also want my images used, that's why I upload them to Commons. FP promotion is sometimes a nice goodie, but nothing more. Stepro (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point on the potential impact of self-nominations: not one of the top 12 POTY finalists was self-nominated. Judging by Tomer's example, who nominated 3 of these 12 finalists, increasing the proportion of third-party nominations could be a way to reduce FCP's sampling bias. I'll try it, perhaps focusing on underrepresented genres and images that push the boundaries of our often myopic view of what constitutes a good photograph. It won't a be a completely selfless exercise, as I find that assessing the images of others is a great way of improving my own --Julesvernex2 (talk)
Like in the discussion above, I am coming in late and a lot of good points have been made already. Let me again add something you have not yet discussed - how can we attract more Commons Photographers to the FI selection process? What changes could be made, to make this process more attractive to those good photographers out there who stay away from it? --Kritzolina (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Getting better at judging images from different genres of photography
Sometimes I think we're lacking the specific criteria for judging images from different genres of photography that are not that well established here on Featured Pictures. So, e.g. when we express our opinions about food photography, it might help to have a list of criteria that actual food photographers might apply when they think about what makes a great food photo. I created a page with an example of what I mean. – the list gives an impression of what to look for when it comes to judging a food photo. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on whether creating such lists for different genres of photography would be helpful. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Frank, thank you very much for your constructive idea for factual and professional evaluation in this genre. I think that such lists of criteria would be helpful in general for other fields of photography, too. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Good idea, but there's a bit of a danger for this to turn into a checklist of "rules" that's being followed blindly. For example, selective/narrow FOV and blurry background are by no means essential to all food photography. I like how you did the "General criteria" section as questions: Maybe it would be wise to frame the whole thing as "Questions you might want to think about for this kind of photography".
Might also be a good idea to add things not to obsess about for certain genres. For example, a certain amount of noise and/or motion blur can be expected for indoor concert and sports photography. Under water photographs will likely be less sharp. Drone photographs come from small sensor cameras, with all their problems. Ceers, --El Grafo (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I really like this idea and would love to see people adding their expertise in their respective fields, will add some thoughts on your page, Frank. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
technical photos ?
Hello,
i think there are to many (excellent) photos of food, persons and arton this page here. there are so many photos of technical things here like old cars, tractors...there are not only butterfly-photos on commons. but again its a butterfly photoon the main page..--05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC) Blonder1984 (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I agree that there were a lot of butterfly images selected as Picture of the Day in January and that more diversity probably would be better here. But this is not the right place to discuss this issue. You can either help select the Picture of the Day here: Link - or bring up your point for discussion on the talkpage of that page --Kritzolina (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
But we have the rule 2 images per author per month. Here are at least 5 butterfly images from the same author. ;-) --XRay💬08:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
And I see another one coming up by the same author - could someone who is a bit more experienced with the templates inovlved perhaps change this? --Kritzolina (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Move only isn't a solution. You should fix the templates too. Hopefully the author of the former POTD will agree. Sometimes there are pictures with reference to the respective day. --XRay💬10:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi XRay, as Bodhisattwa was the one suggesting this as the PotD for Jan 20, I think he is the person who can und should move it - as he has done. He did change the description and is working on getting translations for the new suggestion. --Kritzolina (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @XRay: , yeah, I mean I was the author of the former POTD and I have already moved the templates with all the translations and made all relevant changes which was needed. :) -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyone want to take FP photographs of the Austin skyline?
See Commons:File requests#New day and night photos of the Austin skyline. If any of you are interested in taking photos of an American skyline that's not New York or San Francisco but is striking and beautiful, especially at night, and features some imaginative contemporary buildings, give Austin a thought. It's a really fun city to visit, too, with really delicious food. I'd love to see an FP set of Austin skyline photos, taken at different times of day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting project, although being a Latino, I would have problems obtaining a visa for the United States Wilfredor (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Likely Livioandronico2013 sock being considered for unblock
On the base of an idea suggested by Ikan and Charles (see here), I have created a new Featured Pictures gallery page Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Cemeteries and collected on it the FPs of cemeteries and graveyards which were previously scattered over the gallery pages Places/Other, Places/Settlements, Architecture/Religious buildings and others. I hope this is OK for all of you. I have added only photos which show larger views of several graves; for pictures showing individual monuments and memorials (including solitary graves), we will continue to use the Monuments and memorials section, and for details of grave sculptures the different sections of the Objects/Sculptures gallery page.
The icon on top of the new gallery page is not distinct enough, I will exchange it soon by a more specific one. If you find other problems or errors, just tell me about them or correct them yourself ;–). Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Confusing template
On a current nomination I incorrectly assumed Oversaturated was an oppose vote by Basile Morin. If it confused me (been here for years) it will likely confuse others. Should we eliminate this template? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
No, because it's currently used in a bunch of (previous) nominations.
Wouldn't it address all concerns to simply replace the image the template uses to be the same as {{Overprocessed}}? If it's not supposed to be counted as an oppose vote, it probably shouldn't be nearly identical to an oppose vote, and its usage seems to be more similar to {{Overexposed}} than {{Oppose}} anyway. — Rhododendritestalk | 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, GermanyLabeled panoramic view from the Frauenberg in the near of Marburg in Hesse, Germany
I am applying for the extension of approval for set nominations. It's about images that in Wikimedia can currently only be designed instructively with fixed labels, as in this example on the right. Since the labels inevitably obscures content, users should also be offered a label-free version. It is desirable that a technique be developed in Wikimedia to superimpose both images so that they can be displayed optional with or without labels. To do this, it helps to treat them as a set. --Milseburg (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Support From my point of view a reasonable idea as long as there is no reasonable possibility to label larger high-resolution panoramas per tool in Commons. Especially with high resolution panoramas the direct labeling in the image is a very big added value. See for example my labeled panorama at: File:Panorma-vom-Alpspitz-Ausschnitt-2022.jpg. With the usual methods on Commons (e.g. annotations) it is neither useful nor possible to label accordingly. Therefore a nomination possibility as a set is very useful from my point of view to relate the labeled and unlabeled version to each other. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I think it's sensible to allow this kind of pairing as a set. Whether the specifics of a particular nomination satisfy reviewers is and should remain a separate question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose :
Different goals for each picture. One is supposed to be appreciated as a landscape (that does not work in my view), the other aims to be descriptive.
Extreme ratio panorama (like this one, that one, and many others). My appreciation of landscapes is usually not compatible with such long formats, when the eyes are blocked vertically.
Language: German chosen. That makes the document quite unsuitable for Wikipedia in English and all other languages. Example: the first word is "Gladenbacher Bergland", while in English we say Gladenbach Uplands. The second word "Rothaargebirge", in English is "Rothaar Mountains, in Spanish "Montañas Rothaar", in Japanese "ロタール山地", in Russian "Ротхаргебирге", in Arabic "روتهار (سلسلة جبال)", etc. If annotations are wanted, then please choose numbers, and add the captions in the description, which can be translated.
Units: meters and kilometers chosen. Miles and feet missing for the people who live in a country using a different unit system.
Font and text layout do not respect professional standards. Contrasted outlines missing, arbitrary / irregular punctuation spaces (example "Grosser Ahlertsberg 645 m,33 km"), etc.
Inappropriate font size. There are several different sizes of text, of different colors, and the smallest text (like "Hangelstein 305 m, 15 km", "Dannenrod" or "Wahlen") will not display well, given the giant width of the picture. I think even a poster will be hard to read. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you described the problems well but drew the wrong conclusions. I would like to link each label so that everyone reaches after a click the corresponding article in their own language. Can you technically realize this? Until then, the text is related to Germany because the vantage point is only described in detail in the German Wikipedia and is also located in Germany. Vertical limits? Be glad that there is no horizontal limit. A panorama board on site or virtually would have the same format. Rather, I considered a crop with an even more extreme aspect ratio. The geographically interesting content is all in the middle and not above or below, or even outside of the picture. One user on de:Diskussion:Frauenberg (Hessen)#Neues Panorama already complained that the volume was too large. A 360*180 panorama would be the wrong answer, but an even narrower section. The writing is different because it adapts to what is being described. --Milseburg (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
No, if this panorama was printed on a 1-meter large poster, then the word "Hasenkopf" (for example) would measure only 2.3 millimeters large!😮 Totally unreadable without magnifying glass. You can verify the image is 42.483 pixels large, and the word "Hasenkopf" covers 97 pixels only. Many other names like this one would be simply not legible. Sorry but that's a major typographic error that no professional would ever make in such a layout.
Comparing the previous versions to the current one in the history, it appears that there were several (fixed) errors in the captions. Although German is not my mother tongue, it seems that these mistakes have also been pointed out by other users on the Wikipedia talk page. Here at FPC, we are photographers or image reviewers, but not specialists of this geography. How could we guarantee the text is accurate? This is not a picture coming from an official & professional administration -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't think it's a good idea. Graphic designer and photographers are two different professions. It's difficult to improvise as a graphic designer without having studied, or without strong notions of visual communications. There's also a risk that any update of such picture translated in a new language should be automatically promoted to follow the batch, or that we have to review sets with 20 nominations for 20 different languages -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not in favor to promote a set with two same photos, of which one has additional labelling on it. One can always nominate them separately, if both of them are extraordinary. -- Ivar (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose We can certainly host multiple versions of the same image with labels in various languages, but we don't need them all to be FPs. This sounds like a good case for local FPC processes where they exist (i.e. promote the photo on Commons, then the labeled version on KEB on dewiki). — Rhododendritestalk | 13:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think there's a good idea in here, but it's maybe not quite refined out: How about a "FP variant" template for these cases? Because there's a lot of cases where, for example, we have a diagram that uses clunky numbering and lookup from a table to be "language neutral", which technically should be the version that's a Commons FP, I suppose, but it's terrible usability for any actual usage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes,
No, not unless there's additional reasons to consider them a set, like same photographer.
Maybe. Depends on redundancy and such.
Comment Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Female Russian photographer with the Antonov An-225 overhead.jpg this nomination had 18 supports before the first oppose, and then 7 opposes in a row. Two additional opposes and it would have failled. That is not the first time that I see this kind of thing. I think we should be careful with new rules about potential "instant declines" or "instant promotions". At he opposite, an extension of time could even sometimes be interesting for some cases. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Info "Votes" replaced by "Subjective remarks" in the table above -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Done Rule updated. Thank you -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
the combination of the uniform pattern blending in with the surroundings striked me. I'll give it a try, hoping to receive some input from the "photographers team". Lotje (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
. Better nominators? But better equipment too. Hard to analyse the reasons of a drop of value concerning the FP label. I just hope people will keep the courage to oppose, or to cast a subjective comment, to maintain the process as enriching as possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
,_Pier_66_--_2022_--_1792.jpg)
_6.jpg)
_1.jpg)
_4.jpg)
Oversaturated was an oppose vote by Basile Morin. If it confused me (been here for years) it will likely confuse others. Should we eliminate this template? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
No, because it's currently used in a bunch of (previous) nominations.
Overprocessed. The color is different from 
{{Flower}}'s 
was indeed originally intended as an oppose vote. We don't use it like that, which is confusing because 
Oversaturated, 
.jpg){kind=link}
_julesvernex2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_female_composite.jpg){kind=link}
_composite.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bergtocht_van_Guarda_via_Ardez_en_Ftan_naar_Scuol._20-09-2019._(actm.)_29.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ensemble_of_the_Solovetsky_monastery_in_the_fog.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Liberty_Science_Center_Jersey_City_October_2020_panorama_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D%C3%BClmen,_Fr%C3%B6belstra%C3%9Fe,_Mohn_am_Feldrand_--_2021_--_9174.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%EC%A2%85%EB%AC%98_%EC%A0%95%EC%A0%84_%EC%8B%A0%EC%8B%A4_(2013)_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A1%D0%B2._%D0%9D%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tram_station_%22Branko%27s_bridge%22_in_2021_(Belgrade,_Serbia).jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tari_Topeng_Malangan_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ansel_Adams_-_National_Archives_79-AA-E23.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ujujad_Ohepalu_j%C3%A4rve_k%C3%B5rval_asuvas_laukas_2021._aasta_juulis.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Divje_Babe_flute_(Late_Pleistocene_flute).jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lepsius-Expedition-Cheops-Pyramide_(full).jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bonnet_Macaque_HD.jpg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kabood_(Blue)_mosque,_Tabriz,_Iran.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museum_of_the_History_of_Polish_Jews_in_Warsaw_Main_exhibition_Gwo%C5%BAdziec_synagogue.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aiguille_et_Porte_d%C2%B4Aval.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%9Cberlauf_Edertalsperre_vom_Uhrenkopf.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rostock_Power_Station,_SW_view.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Museu_da_Rep%C3%BAblica_1_edit.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pi%C3%B1a_de_mar_(Phallusia_mammillata),_Parque_natural_de_la_Arr%C3%A1bida,_Portugal,_2020-07-31,_DD_72.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Cross_church_in_Rottweil_(9).jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Celing_of_Wien_Hauptbahnhof_(Vienna_Main_Station),_Austria_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%A0kofja_Loka_Castle_(%C5%A0kofjelo%C5%A1ki_grad,_Slovenija).jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bird_mosaic_by_Jean-Michel_Folon_(DSC_2928).jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alcoba%C3%A7a_October_2021-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Batalha_September_2021-53.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2011-05-31-praha-metro-by-RalfR-52.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two-Tone_Fountain_Pen_Nib-Plum.jpg){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D%C3%BClmen,_Leuste,_B%C3%A4ume_im_Nebel_--_2020_--_5041.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carlisle_Cathedral_Choir,_Cumbria,_UK_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Detail._31-03-2020_(d.j.b.).jpg_07.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.jpg){kind=link}
_composite.jpg){kind=link}
_mating_composite.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_female_head_composite.jpg){kind=link}
_female_2.jpg){kind=link}
_female_and_male.jpg){kind=link}
_juvenile_and_common_jezebel_(Delias_eucharis)_female.jpg){kind=link}
_female_and_young_6.jpg){kind=link}
_feeding_on_egret.jpg){kind=link}
_in_flight_with_transmitter.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_female_with_prey_Carniolan_honey_bee_(Apis_melifera_carnica).jpg){kind=link}
_with_bee_prey_Babadag.jpg){kind=link}
_feeding.jpg){kind=link}
_4.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Delist :-) Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
