Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 8

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

Editing a Featured Picture

I noticed an edit of File:CH cow 2.jpg done by Kyle the hacker was reverted with the argument "This is an FP, please do not change its appearance". Is that our policy, meaning that FPs cannot be edited? Will they lose their FP status if changed? -- JovanCormac 12:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

He can edit all he wants, but then please upload ad a different file, especially if the edit is not a significant improvement. --Dschwen (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That's what I think is the best path as well, but I'm afraid no answer to my question: Does a picture lose FP status when edited? Technically, when an FP is changed, it is different from the picture that passed the vote. But if it is indeed our policy that FPs cannot be overwritten by other versions (or at least not without losing their status), then there definitely must be a notice that says precisely that on the description page of each Featured Picture (probably embedded inside the "Assessments" template). There are way too many things on Commons already that people are just "expected to know" somehow, without them being written anywhere. -- JovanCormac 15:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be quite a bad idea. I could just go an upload edits of the FPs of some of my favourite contributors here and strip them of all their Featured Credits (as they are referred to by some people ;-) ). Nope, no way. --Dschwen (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Apart from that I do not think that further instruction creep is necessary here. Obviously common sense has preveiled so far, and I'm not yet prepared to let all my hopes in humanity go jsut now ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the precedent is certainly here already - which is what made me post about this in the first place. I'm pretty sure that Kyle wasn't too happy about his edit work simply being undone, he probably thought "WTF? where does it say that Featured Pictures can't be edited?" so if that is what the rule is (and I think it should in fact be), it would be common sense, not "instruction creep", to write that down somewhere... -- JovanCormac 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is a huge problem. I think all edits for FP, QI, VI need to be resubmitted to the appropriate forum to confirm that the 'improvement' is actually an improvement. There obviously can't be an automatic inheritance of the award. I think there is already a note somewhere about uploading 'improved' versions over top of an image where the original uploader is still active here - its just polite to ask the original uploader, easiest to just upload it as a separate file - it's not as though uploading over top of an existing file saves any resources or anything --Tony Wills (talk) 05:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Some users have helped me with post-editing of my files (coulour adjustments, noise reduction, taxa) and in all cases I have welcomned the edits even if they were not to the better. The edits show up on my watchlist while completely new files do not. There is always the possibility of reverting the image to a previous version, and above all, the possibility of learning something new. Especially, since I like to take pictures of living things and have no formal training or education in biology second opinions on taxa are very welcome. But I try never to edit existing versions of FP:S, VI:s or QI:s because they have been through a rewiev process of which the new files have not. I think there should be a rule that clearly states that those edits are not OK. The solution is to upload on a new file and re-nominate. -- Korall (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes! There should be such a rule, and one that's clearly written down somewhere. That's my whole point really. It's either OK to edit an FP or it isn't. If it is, don't revert edits with the argument used in my example. If it's not, then precisely that has to be stated clearly on some page (ideally, there would be a section of Commons where all rules used on the site are in one place). I hate how on Commons it's possible to reprimand someone (often a new user) for "violating" one of the many rules that one simply "has to know", but of course aren't written down anywhere - after all, they're self-evident, aren't they? -- JovanCormac 15:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is getting reprimanded. Reverting is a normal editing process. BRD. With files it is even less controversial, as - unlike Wikipedia articles - you can have multiple concurrent versions. --Dschwen (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I entirely agree with Dschwen. I'm ok with adding a general note somewhere that one should be careful with editing FPs etc., but not a general rule that disallows it. If someone thinks the new versio is inferior in any way, he can still just revert the edit and upload the edit under a new name. But it makes no sense that any edit should always be uploaded under a new name; if it's aclear improvement, any article should benefit automatically from it, and no one should be confused with an FP that is inferior to an edit that is apparently better, but not FP. -- H005 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I always prefer uploading an improved version over the old one. Otherwise you'll loose overview because of the many derivatives around, all of which need to be maintained (categories, descriptions, translations etc.) If there's an argument about whether the edit is an improvement or not, you can still revert the uplaod and save the edit under a new name.
Re the original question: I believe that the FP status shouldn't be lost unless there's at least one user who disagrees that the edit is an improvement. Ergo: Upload a new version, inform the original uploader, and unles someone objects the FP status shouldn't be changed. That's for minor changes at least, extensive edits may be different. -- H005 21:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if a user disagrees on the merit of the edit then just revert the edit. To the agreed upon featured version. Why is defeaturing even under consideration? It makes no sense IMO. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok you(plural) have a point. So it would be OK to clone out a dust spot that noone saw during the nomination process but not a totally different crop?--Korall (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, basically. And again I would hope we can rely on common sense here. For example if the dust spot clone job is horrible -> revert (or improve). I would not start a discussion for trivial changes (as you (plural) can see here: discussions can become quite the time-burner...). I would not consider a crop a trivial change though (so, yes, I agree with you). But i do not see the point in trying to improve a picture that has already been found to be of a high standard by the community (up there, in the high standard region, the improvements get marginal and subjective IMO in any case). It is not like we are short on other (useful) work here. --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Entirely agree, in particular on that common sense thing. I don't think we should establish strict rules here, each case is different, and so far I do not see that editing of FPs has become a common problem. -- H005 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review closed nomination

I'd like to ask the community to review the following closed nomination: Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Earwax_on_swab.jpg

The issue:

  1. FPCBot determined a result of 14 support/8 oppose => not featured; however,
  2. kallerna's opposing vote was cast without stating a reason in violation of the new rule passed with consensus of the community and placed on the FPC page on September 3rd, before the start of the voting period.
  3. I marked the vote as invalid, but nevertheless,
  4. Yann confirmed FPCBot's result, resulting in the candidate not being promoted.

While this is (to my knowledge) the first case where this rule is actually being applied, it already has the potential to decide the result of a vote, as with a vote of 14/7 the candidate would have passed. I didn't feel comfortable single-handedly changing the status of the nomination and promoting it in a move that would surely have been controversial, but I still think that something should be done. -- JovanCormac 10:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't think this would be a very good idea. The rule was implemented without telling the regular contributors, who don't read the 'rules' every time when they cast a vote. If rules are changed this should be clearly advertised. I myself was not aware that this new rule was implemented, though I never oppose without argumenting my opposition. Lycaon (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The rule had been open for discussion for 12 days on FPC/Talk before it was implemented. I don't see how it could have been advertised any more clearly. Besides, it's not as if the rule violates common sense or basic principles of polite communication - it's opposing without stating a reason that does that. -- JovanCormac 11:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There was a 5/2 majority, whether that is representative for the number of regular FPC assessors I leave in the middle, but it certainly shows that most contributors have not read that thread. Lycaon (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • The majority would have passed any Featured Picture candidate; and while I agree that most contributors might not yet be aware of the rule (it's fairly new after all), I also believe that this doesn't mean it shouldn't apply - ignorance does not exempt someone from being subject to a rule. A new Featured Picture criterion added by Durova, "Well documented", was not even voted on, yet it is now part of the guidelines and people oppose candidates based on it, while 90% of voters might not know that it even exists. -- JovanCormac 12:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't see there was a positive majority in favour of this proposition, although I don't like when people oppose without a reason. Yann (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I too agree that it is bad not to give an oppose reason, but this 'rule' is worthless, and just means that people can now take it upon themselves to discount other peoples votes because they don't think their oppose reason is valid. Who on earth arbitrates this striking out process? It will result in situations were people see a certain balance of votes, then suddenly, probably after the voting period has closed, votes are struck out and the balance is different. A very, very bad process. And of course it achieves nothing, we already get a succession of "same as xyz" type opposes, which don't show evidence of any real consideration at all (of course they may well have done, but I would like to see them express it in their own words.) I will go and amend this 'rule' (acting boldly ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I reverted your change. To see why, compare revisions [1] and [2] as well as my short discussion with Lycaon here. The bottom line is: no change of rules without a vote. The "oppose reason" rule was voted upon, and passed by the standards used for FP candidates, as well as with a (subjective) "general consensus". So I just don't think it's right to revert that rule without having a second vote in favor of the revert. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Solution for the problem of late votes

I have created a template, Template:FPVotingPeriodFlag, which I believe can solve the problem of late votes in a very simple fashion.

It works like this: When a candidate page is created, below the line "Voting period ends on XXX at YYY", the template is added via {{FPVotingPeriodFlag|timestamp}}, where timestamp is a UNIX timestamp of the time the nomination was created (which can be added by the server, by JavaScript, by the MediaWiki command {{#time: U | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }} and by many other means).

The template stays blank for precisely nine days (the voting period) of server time (independent of user's local time). After that, it becomes

Voting period is over. Please don't add any more votes.

which should deter any late votes.


What do you think? Should we implement this? I must admit I don't know how, since the mechanism by which candidate pages are created eludes me. -- JovanCormac 19:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me as it's quite easy and common that people forget to check the exact time of closing and it is tricky (but of course far from impossible) to implement support for disregarding late votes in the bot. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


While looking for the way an FPC is set up, I think I have found a bug in our system.

From Template:FPCnom/Basic (the template used for new candidates): Voting period ends on {{subst:#time: j M Y| +9 days}} at {{subst:#time: H:i:s}} (UTC).

Note the time part, {{subst:#time: H:i:s}}. From mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions, concerning the #time function: "A date/time object can be specified; the default is the value of the magic word {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}". So this is what is used here, since no other time object is specified. The problem is that {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}, according to mw:Help:Magic_words, returns a timestamp according to the user's timezone preferences. So if a user creates a new nomination, and he has set the timezone in his preferences to something other than UTC, the time displayed will in fact not be UTC at all, and the voting time might be (considerably!) more or less than 9 days.

Fix: Replace {{subst:#time: H:i:s}} with {{subst:#time: H:i:s | {{LOCALTIMESTAMP}} }}. -- JovanCormac 06:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that this sadly can not be fixed, as the "+9 days" convention is only valid when used with the default, CURRENTTIMESTAMP, and "LOCALTIMESTAMP+9 days" produces an error. If anyone knows how to fix this, please come forward. -- JovanCormac 07:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold and enabled the flag for all new nominations. After nine full days, the text will appear. This is the first nomination that will be flagged. -- JovanCormac 07:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't understand. Do you mean to say you have enabled this despite the fact it will give erroneous results for nominators with non UTC timezones? --Tony Wills (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The same holds true for the "Voting ends on XXX" label added automatically when creating a new nomination, so they kind of cancel each other out, but it is still possible for some nominations to run for up to 12 hours less (or more) than originally intended, both with or without the flag (= has been the case for years, it's just that noone ever noticed it until now). As explained above, it has to to with what's possible with the ParserFunctions extension. AFAIK, there's no workaround, but I'd love to be corrected, and if there was I would fix both the flag and the time display which is used to determine whether a vote is late or not. -- JovanCormac 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems

File:Extermination of Evil Shōki.jpg was recently featured, but did not receive a star on the image description page. Should I add this myself. Also, the notice on my talk page did not really come out. bamse (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot assumes the name of the candidate file is in the title, but for some reason it was Commons:Featured picture candidates/Extermination of Evil and " Shōki.jpg" was not included. How did you create the nomination, did you manually change the name ? You can correct it manually by following the instructions in the manual instructions or I could do it later. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something went wrong with the name during the nomination and I changed it manually. I will try to correct it manually with the instructions at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/What_to_do_after_voting_is_finished. That's "4." and "5." I assume. bamse (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I did "4." and "5." was already done I believe. The only problem is that the link from the image description to the nomination is broken. The same holds for the template on my talk page. bamse (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All Featured Pictures with a resolution of less than 2 Mpx

I now have a Toolserver account and have used the database access to compile a list of all photographic Featured Pictures with a resolution of less than 2 million pixels.

All of these are potential candidates for delisting, and I will pull most my future delisting candidates from this list.

There are only a handful of pictures among those that are great enough to mitigate the low resolution IMO. In a few years, I hope we will have this list down to around 30 (there are 190 now). -- JovanCormac 08:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why the arbitary crusade? Resolution isn't really a measure of quality or anything else much. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing arbitrary about this. Of course resolution is a measure of quality - print quality, for example. And these days, you can get a 12 Megapixel camera on eBay for 44 dollars with shipping. 12 Megapixels. Featuring a picture that can be retaken at any time (like this one) with 1/8th of that resolution is nothing short of madness IMO. -- JovanCormac 09:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Sigh, a piece of junk megapixel-mania camera is not a good example. --Dschwen (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Besides you don't usually need 12 MPx, half of this is generally enough if the camera itself is good. Airwolf (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Half of it, yes; but not one tenth of it. -- JovanCormac 09:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your list contains several duplicates. --Dschwen (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I wasn't aware of that. There were indeed 6 duplicates, and a few non-photographic JPEGs that I removed as well. The list is now sorted alphabetically. Turns out it's not as bad as I originally thought: There are only 177 low resolution FPs, not 190 ;-) -- JovanCormac 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wish you best of luck, in the interest of keeping an up-to date technical standard in our FP collection. You'll need it. Chances are slim that for example Fir's low res pics get demoted (a large fraction are his). Wow seems to trump resolution in every case. --Dschwen (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I generally favour wow over resolution, so I agree with you, but (theoretically) if there's a picture with neither significant wow, nor with significant EV and is 1,5 MPx, what's the reason for keeping it? Airwolf (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Less theoretically: File:Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg is not OK with me, while File:Peugeot 206 WRC.jpg is more than OK. Airwolf (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
An arbitrary fig - whatever it is - seems a bit weird to me. If the image is not good, fine - go for delisting but this seems like making work to me? --Herby talk thyme 15:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, better camera technology would not be the only factor in replacing some of the images. Plenty of good source material about the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 is available, for instance, and a better resolution image could be found (although not necessarily the same shot and it would go to the end of my queue unless someone else takes the initiative), but there's another shot of a Tasmanian prisoner that I have no idea how we'd replace. The latter may be too small for FP by any measure, but a wholesale delisting of this type is likely to enhance systemic bias. Access to high resolution historic digitized files skews strongly toward North America. Durova (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course one could argue that the burden for avoiding systemic bias lies with the governments of those states that do not make high resolution copies freely available, just as much as it lies with us. And one could ask how much systemic bias should be an issue, when compiling a list of commons "best works". --Dschwen (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The way that tends to be successful at opening doors is to highlight the best of the available material, and then show the decision makers in that country that the public would be better informed about their heritage if media access weren't dependent upon foreign archives. For instance Samuel Taylor Coleridge is an engraving based upon an item in the National Portrait Gallery collection. With regard to that institution in particular one treads very lightly, but perhaps there are decision makers there who will gain a new perspective from it and soften their stand. Not every substitution is going to be as good as the Coleridge engraving, though. With regard to Tasmania a Library of Congress search turns up 15 items total and the best of them is 1.5 MB in TIFF, which would be about 400K after cropping and JPEG conversion. That's a moderate improvement on the technical specs, but it's a display of whips and irons on a wall rather than a demonstration of irons on a human being. Still less than a quarter of the 2MB minimam which JovanCormac argues purely upon modern digital camera technology. Access to historic media doesn't bear a direct relation to that metric, so why would an across the board change to enhance systemtic bias be desirable? I would love to feature 10MB images about the history of Tasmania, but few curators understand free culture unless Wikimedians talk to them. Volunteers are more successful at knocking on doors when they don't have to enter empty-handed. Durova (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no plans whatsoever to delist all of the low-res images, but a significant portion of them. My rule of thumb is that if a picture can be reproduced at any time in better quality using modern equipment and it has no historic value, then there is no excuse for it having less than 2 Mpx. Looking at the list, I'd say that is true for at least 75% of the pictures there. As for "wow" trumping resolution with Fir's pictures: I wonder how much of that "wow" results from those pictures themselves and how much from the fact that Fir took them. For a long time, he was probably the most famous and influential of all Wikipedia photographers, and his name is still well-known, but fact is that even though his best shots are almost without equal, a lot of his work is just plain good photography; always technically excellent, but not so stellar that it warrants special treatment. We need to be really careful that we don't let nostalgia bring Commons to a halt; there are some disturbing tendencies in this direction already ("this is a 2005 Featured Picture, we had different standards back then so we keep it today"). -- JovanCormac 18:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Technical question: if a picture is a former FP, is it marked as such with an appropriate template? Airwolf (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's a nuanced approach rather than a purely mechanical measure that's fine by me. Durova (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
@Airwolf: Yes, it is. See File:ArcticFoxSummer.jpg for an example. -- JovanCormac 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There seem to also be an older delist template used {{Delisted picture}}, maybe it should be replaced with the new {{Assessments}}. By the way there seem to be an error in the assessments template, for example look at File:Sake_barrels.jpg which reads "… and was [[:|considered]] one … ". /Daniel78 (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that when the first FPs were promoted in 2004 and 2005, we didn't have a candidate page for every one of them but a single big page for a whole month. The "Assessments" template expects to find that candidate page in a specific format (the one used today), so when such a page doesn't exist, no link is displayed. -- JovanCormac 09:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
And the Assessments template needs serious rework, so please do not substitute it for other templates at present. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think you should go back one step and try to get a better consensus on the purpose of FP and hence the criteria as you agree that there is no agreement. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I don't see how I could go back one step at all, since I have not taken any steps. I have compiled a list for my personal use (and the use of anyone who is interested), and I will try to get those pictures on the list delisted that I don't believe deserve to be Featured anymore, using the established procedure of delisting nominations. No revolution here ;-) -- JovanCormac 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you considered that if we carry the "continuously upgrade the requirements for FP as technology improves, and delist images that no longer meet the criteria" that we will end up with an odd situation of a large hole in the chronological distribution of FP images. That is, there will be a significant number of old images, especially black and white, that can be rescanned to quite high resolution, and will probably get through because of historical value, but from the date where digital cameras started to take over we will have a void. Not many film negatives to rescan and almost all images will be eventually deemed too low a resolution. That void will just expand as time goes on. I suppose that in 50 years they might start to get voted in again, the crude technology of today being taken as a mitigating circumstance :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually the opposite usually applies to historic collections. With the notable exception of the Library of Congress, most institutions are not very good at digitizing historic media. Many other online collections are plagued with scanner streaks, JPEG artifacting, insufficient filesize, etc. Except for the rare instances where free culture volunteers have a strong working relationship with an institution staff, management tends to regard digitization as a binary done/not done issue so better scanning and/or rephotography is unlikely to be forthcoming. Budget, staff, and equipment issues also arise. The latter problem is serious in the first world and nearly insurmountable in the third world: a Wikimedian from Indonesia has been interfacing with a local museum and is basically donating his own time and equipment to digitize material from their collection. When he finishes he will probably mail a DVD to the Foundation because there isn't enough bandwidth in his part of the world to transmit it any other way. Durova (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Then the more appropriate approach would be continuously upgrading the requirements for FP as technology improves without delisting old images. It really baffles me how today new FPs can be elected that have barely 2MP. --Dschwen (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Agreed. We should be updating the guidelines, and in fact I think that the "2 Mpx" guideline should read at least "4 Mpx" already, given the technological standards mentioned above. I don't believe they even sell cameras with less than 5 Mpx anymore. However, there is an upper boundary for resolution requirements; when a picture has high enough resolution to be displayed in good quality on any standard display device and printed in good quality in any standard printing format, then the resolution is good enough. That is not the case with 2 Mpx (quality problems even on a small poster-sized print), and not even with 4 Mpx. But somewhere around 10 Mpx I believe we can stop raising resolution standards, as this seems to be sufficient for any standard use.
        We all know that any system employing a double standard is counter-productive. Measuring Featured Pictures by lower standards than Featured Picture candidates is a double standard. I cannot see any "consideration" or "respect" in mitigating pictures simply for their age (unless of course they are historical, or irreproducible). Rather, I see plain old nostalgia, sticking to old stuff just for the heck of it. When the Queen of England does it, it has style (or so they say). When the Vatican does it, it's old fashioned. When a five-year-old web project does it, it's not even ridiculous anymore, it's embarrassing.
        Don't think for a second that I'm stopping at my own stuff when it comes to implementing changing standards. I am very proud that my series of Platonic Solids animations (which uses the animated GIF format) is Featured on Commons. But the very moment an alternative to GIF animations (such as APNG or animated SVG) becomes truly viable (i.e. supported by all major browsers), I will myself nominate every single image in that series for delisting (and create new, better ones, likely). We don't use carriages and washboards anymore. But surely, we don't owe the fact that we have cars and washing machines to those who thought that keeping the "old stuff" around for a little while longer would be doing any good. -- JovanCormac 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure about washing machines, but there is a significant number of people who think that the motor vehicle and associated oil industry was a huge mistake ;-). I find the assumptions about what is an optimum resolution a bit strange for someone who likes to keep up with technology - why is printing images at poster size a prime criteria? Printing is such old tech, who uses paper anymore, its a bit like washboards isn't it ? ;-). I will await with interest the technology that allows us to print animated images at any resolution, let alone poster size (the 'Daily Prophet' isn't available to us muggles). It is admirable that you want to improve the stock of FPs, but don't we need a concensus on where we want to take it? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A possible solution?

I'm not going to get into the debate on where Commons needs to go with regard to FP requirements (though it's a debate we need to have, sooner rather than later) but perhaps we could come to a compromise here? Having read the discussion, I think that both of you make good points. Tony, I agree when you say we should save older featured pictures, but Jovan's argument is just as compelling. We do need to keep the Featured Pictures as 'the best of the best'. So, here are my thoughts when it comes to delisting:

We need to ask this question when we go to delist a picture:

Is the the picture replaceable?

  • If it's replaceable, and of inferior quality then it should be delisted. Simple as that. There is no sense hanging on to inferior pictures. If a replacement can be found that has better quality, and as good a composition/wow, even if it not exactly the same picture, then it should be put up for nomination. If it succeeds, then the previous picture can be delisted.

In conjunction with this, the following line would be added to the Delisting process - "A picture may only be delisted if a suitable replacement is already featured, or has been found, and passed FP nomination."

By making replacement mandatory, we preserve (at least in spirit) the pictures Tony is concerned about, allow us to keep historical images and allow Commons to update its FP library with higher quality images. This could be a Commons wide project; make a page of all the pictures that have been delisted, and challenge our members (who are all around the world) to go out and retake those pictures at FP quality. Not only would it serve the purposes outlined above, but it could bring a lot of people who didn't know Commons or FP existed into the community.

There's more to this idea, but it's bubbling round in my head, and hasn't formed into coherent words yet. Please, ask me questions. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in the VI rule somewhere that says that "a better photo can be taken" is not sufficient reason to oppose. Similarly I don't think the claim that a better FP image can be taken is very useful or meaningful. But yes, if a better photo can be found and promoted it give more credence to delisting poorer versions. But I would point out that the FP rules do not say we cannot have two images of the same thing (just not two versions of the same photo, eg different crops, or edits), so there would be no automatic delisting of the previous image. I really want a wider discussion of FP itself, the stated purpose appears to be "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others", but I don't see the process, or interest in arbitrary resolution cut-off points, as really directed to this goal. So is this really our goal (and if so, why was VI set up) ? Now that we have QI, what are the criteria that really differentiate FP? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Your idea has some merit, but once again it introduces a strange imbalance between criteria for keeping Featured Pictures and criteria for Featuring non-Featured Pictures. I believe with all my heart that those two sets of criteria should be identical; othewise, frankly, FP isn't what it claims to be (a selection of our best pictures) but just a club that it's harder getting out of than into. If we say a Featured Picture must have a replacement before it can be delisted, and we want to keep the aforementioned balance, that would mean we Feature any picture that doesn't have a better replacement - something which nobody wants, obviously. But if nobody wants that, why would they want it for the other direction? Why treat FP as anything more than a label saying a picture is "one of our best", which is lost as soon as that statement isn't true anymore?
For another example of what precisely we need to change, look at File:Canthigaster valentini 1.jpg, which I consider to be a really bad picture (low resolution, blur, noise), and not even close to being worthy of Featured Picture status. I had it nominated for delisting a while ago, yet it was kept with the argument "it's a good image, I would not like to see it go away just due to the resolution". Compare File:White shark.jpg (similar subject and setting), which has the same resolution, better quality and better composition yet was turned down as a Featured Picture candidate at about the same time the other picture was up for delisting, on the grounds of - you guessed it - resolution! This is so incredibly broken, vile, insulting and unfair that it makes my head spin. It also makes me want to throw my hat and give up on FP altogether. But I won't, FP has too much potential. -- JovanCormac 07:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Im not very found on the find better and replace idea because:
  1. I think it is more important for the commons project in general to gather pictures of completely new subjects than retaking already well illustrated subjects. If we have a former featured picture of a subject, then that subject is probably already well illustrated.
  2. I am afraid that a system like that would make it easier for pictures of already illustrated subjects to go through wich is unfair to photograpers/illustrators illustrating new subjects that in my opinion are more valuable for commons.
I agee with JovanCormac that the same standards should apply to aready featured pictures and not yet featured pictures. As it is today, they don´t. --Korall (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Your intention with this notion of images being replacable is understandable, and in some cases useful. In others however it makes no sense. Is a small macro of beetle A only replacable with a better macro of the exact same species? Why? Wouldn't beetle B of a related species make just as good an FP? --Dschwen (talk) 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not reading the entire thread but just because some picture can be replaced, doesn't mean that it will be replaced by something better. How about delisting after this presupposed better replacement comes along? --Dori - Talk 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you read my comment above as well as Korall's reply to it. If a Featured Picture doesn't fulfill today's Featured Picture standards, it not only can, but should be delisted. Any other system (like the "unofficial" one in place today where Featured Pictures are for some reason treated differently than Featured Picture Candidates) is a farce, or at the very least has nothing to do with a selection of "some of the finest pictures on Commons", which is the mission statement on Commons:Featured pictures. -- JovanCormac 16:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that shows where we fundamentally differ. If you have been taking "some of the finest pictures on Commons" as the mission statement for FP, then quite simply you are wrong :-). That description of the FP [page was added in 2007 [3] by a person who is little active on Commons. It appears to be describing the page contents rather than anything to do with the purpose of FP on Commons, and certainly doesn't seem to be a change following any discussion that I can find. I think the FPC candidate pages specify more of a "mission" statement. Up to that change the FP page also described these images as "images and charts that the community considers particularly valuable". I think the excessive stress on technical criteria is wrong (that is what QI is for). I don't mind FP criteria evolving and demanding higher standards, but I don't like the idea that each new direction that FP takes should necessitate a purging of old images that no longer fit the new regimen. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If that is what most people agree FP should be about, then let't get rid of the technical section in the guidelines entirely; actually, let's get rid of the guidelines, period. This is not sarcasm: Surely, the community doesn't need a manual to decide whether they find an image particularly valuable or not. Put the mission statement up on FPC and that should suffice in this case. Or update the "guidelines", and make them binding at last. But please, don't write one thing and do the other. I hate hypocrisy. -- JovanCormac 05:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a pragmatic improvement to allow delisting and replacement within the same nomination? That would provide an organized way to compare a current FP with a similar candidate and upgrade efficiently when upgrading is appropriate. Durova (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes! About time we introduce FP replacing, which has been used on EN for a long time. I only approve, however, if traditional delisting stays as well. It is inacceptable to demand that someone find a replacement in order for an image to be delisted. Bad images have to go, whether there is a replacement or not.
Incidentially, do you think that this would pave the way for a "best of" system where only the best images of a particular subject are kept, even if the others fulfill FP standards as well (compare User:JovanCormac/FPHeadsUp)? -- JovanCormac 10:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this what VIs are about? Airwolf (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well the en:wiki model of optional delist/replacement has been functioning well and might be worth emulating. Seems like a reasonable middle ground if consensus doesn't exist for the original proposal. It's a minor modification to existing Commons policy and would encourage quality upgrades. Durova (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Commons is not en:FP. en:WP has the requirement that the image be used on a Wikipedia page, it makes more sense to only have one FP image per subject. Why does it matter if we have more than one FP per subject? If there is a majority that dislike xyz images, why don't they just vote against them? What is FP for anyway (see below) :-)--Tony Wills (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that delist and replace is an excellent idea, efficiently dealing with cases where a clearly better image exists. In particular, where a higher-resolution copy of the same image (such as a painting or historic work) comes available, delist and replace allows direct comparison of old and new, and could prevent people being ignorant of problems such as, say, a colour shift to the yellow.
However, saying a replacement must always be available before delisting seems a bad idea. For example, let's say we promote something that's meant to illustrate some scientific subject. It's exciting, stylish, graphic - and totally wrong: the creator misunderstood the subject completely. The subject is obscure enough that noone spots the problems during the FPC, and it's promoted. Should we seriously say that it shouldn't be replaced until a new image illustrating the subject correctly, with sufficient style that it can be promoted? Similarly, let's look at a photographic one. Someone copies over a stunning image from Flickr of a European castle. It's promoted. Later someone points out that it's been expertly photoshopped: the castle is on a plain, not a dramatic clifftop. The Flickrite was making art, not a realistic image. Now, there might actually be uses for it, but some discussion seems appropriate - but do we need a replacement to propose delisting to allow discussion of this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Under no circumstances whatsoever should replacement be a requirement for delisting, not just in such special cases as the ones you mentioned. -- JovanCormac 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I quite agree with you, but I don't think that they're so special. Here's a practical example from en-wiki: en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/The_Great_Wave_off_Kanagawa. There's a replacement suggested, yes, but I don't think we should have promoted it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken FPC links

I have tried to fix the broken FPC links in assessment templates. Either by linking to the right nomination page, or by removing the template for images that have never been FPs. But for File:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg and File:Zwickau Rathaus.jpg the best I can find is Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg and Commons:Featured pictures candidates/File:Zwickau Rathaus.jpg which have been deleted as broken redirects. Maybe an admiin can help find out what happened to those nominations. /Ö 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Revisit Proposal: Disregard "Oppose" votes without a reason for opposing

As this is a very serious change and the discussion about it, and vote about it was not widely notified I am re-opening this discussion. Subsequent to the 'vote' opposition has been voiced but ignored.

It is a serious change because it allows someone to use their personal judgement to dis-enfranchise another (striking out their vote). This action can be taken at any time without notice to the voter (some people have very crowded watch lists :-) and apparently can also be made after the voting is closed. We go from a very clear "everyones opinion/vote counts equally" (the only limitations being you must be logged in and only vote once) to a situation where someone takes it upon themselves to discount other peoples votes. This is a very radical change. Currently this is a community assessment of images, it does not have any oversight or administrators, or anyone who has the right to strike any logged-in users votes. Nominations are closed in a non-partisan way, judgement based on a simple vote count. There is no latitude for personal biases to change that result.

The proposal is to antagonize and disenfranchise some people and gain what exactly? More "as per xyz" votes? (In a recent nomination the "as per xyz" votes didn't even refer to a previous oppose vote, but a neutral vote with commentary). More "poor quality" votes? More "not up to FP standards" votes? Or are these going to be counted as "empty assessments" ?

Which brings us to the "valid reasons" for striking votes: <quote>*No reason given at all (obviously)

  • "I don't like it", or other empty assessments
  • "You can do better", or other reasons criticising the author/nominator rather than the image</quote>

This is extremely open, what exactly is "other empty assessments" ? What I think is empty you may not and visa-versa (eg "poor quality", "not up to FP standards", "no wow" tell the nominator little or nothing). Shall we appoint a judge (or allow one to self appoint) to decide, or shall we have a discussion each time new wording appears?

"you can do better" is in fact not "criticising the author/nominator rather than the image", it is criticising the image! ie much the same as "not up to your usual standards". So the proposal wording itself show the falicy of the whole idea: Is the difference between "other people have done better" and "not as good as previous nominations" sufficient to strike the first? (the first is about the photographer, the second about the image). We must remember that this is a multi-lingual and multi cultural project. Many people communicate in English to facilitate communication with as wide an audience as possible. But subtle differences of meaning may not be realised when communicating in their second language.

The most common call for change in FPC has been to find ways to improve the quality of candidates. Yet, perversely, this proposal may have the opposite effect by allowing through more 'marginal' nominations! (yah for me ;-)

The suggested change is a fundemental one to the process, the thin edge of a wedge perhaps. It looks like the start of a process to profoundly change what FPC is without a wider discussion of what the objectives are.

My conclusion: The proposal, while well meaning - to rid us of 'empty' votes (though it includes nothing about empty support votes), obviously can not achieve the desired result. At best, it will get rid of blank opposes and generate more constructive ways of saying "I don't like it" or "I don't like you". The most likely outcome will be to increase "ditto" votes. So we change the fundemental "anyone can vote, all votes are equal" ethic to something else for no gain. </soap box>

If we want to fundementally change things, and produce "better" results how about 1) Nominate a few "experts" to judge nominations OR 2) Get rid of "oppose" votes but require a high threshold, eg 20 "support"s to get accepted OR 3) Go to an en:FPC model (if you believe that gets better results). --Tony Wills (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I agree with Tony on that one. No need to rush things. And this whole thing seems to be well meaning but I don't see it bringing an improvement. Do we need to clutter up the instructions even more? Ack about the ditto votes (as I said above already). Are we going to ban those next? What if people start copy/pasting the reasons? Ban that too? So every opposer has to make up a genuinely new reason? --Dschwen (talk) 02:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have two points to make:

  1. I dislike the fact that the "oppose reason" rule was reverted. The original proposal ran for 12 days (from Aug 22 to Sep 3) before I put the rule on FPC. In that time, it received, by the strictest reckoning, 5 votes of  Support (those from Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, Alvesgaspar, Adam Cuerden, Noodle snacks and Daniel78, not counting myself or the conditional support by Slaunger) and at most 1  Oppose, that by Lycaon, though one could argue that it concerned a sub-proposal only, as it was added in that section. There are no standards that say how new rules are implemented (which is terrible, for if there were we wouldn't be having this argument), but since we are on FPC, it appears reasonable to apply the same standards we use for Featured Picture candidates as well, and by those standards the rule was clearly agreed upon.
  2. It is my honest opinion that ideally, we'd do away with popular voting on FPC altogether. There are many people who vote "Support" for at least 90% of all candidates, and IMO that simply shows bad judgement. Some also don't seem to know enough about the standards for certain types of pictures (*cough* macros *cough*), and simply support because they are unusual (see the extensive discussion here). It also appears as if a significant percentage of voters never bother to open a candidate image in full size, or to check an image's source.
    So if I believed that there was any chance of it actually being implemented, I would indeed have long ago proposed that we abolish the popular vote and replace it with a vote by an elected "expert panel" (you could think of them as "FP curators"), creating a sort of "representative democracy" which always seems to lead to better results in practice than a direct one. It would be the responsibility of that panel to ensure Featured Pictures is always comprised of "the very finest images on Commons", a label that changes its meaning over time. The votes and discussions of those experts would be open for everyone to see, and they would be elected for a limited term, say, 6 months or 1 year, after which they would have to seek confirmation, holding them accountable for their voting styles.
    An "expert panel" system would both make FPC vastly more efficient, freeing resources (the voters) for other tasks, and increase the quality of our FP library by orders of magnitude. So if anyone wants to implement such a system, I offer him or her my support and my help. But alas, I think that most voters aren't ready for it yet. -- JovanCormac 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Jovan, I feel with you. I really do. I agree about the fact that a good portion of voters have little knowledge on Photography. FPC is a populat amateur vote. That's just how it is. You seem to be wanting to change that. That would be a big thing, that would surely require more than 12days of discussion with a meagre 5 support votes. Don't you think? What you are trying to do with the oppose-vote proposal is partially solving this problem, partially going towards a solid argument rather than polular vote culture. In theory this would be a good thing. But I doubt it would work. First of all we have to agree on there being a problem. It could be that most people are content with FPC being a populate amateur vote. If so then so be it. If not then we have to find a solution. The expert panel thing sounds like a feasible approach. But it won't be popular, I bet. The mandatory-reason-for-oppose votes proposal is useless. It has no benefit. It is a doomed attempt to sneak in a change from popular vote to solid argument through the back door. It will just replace no reason oppose with dumb-reason opposes. You cannot force quality contribution, you cannot force photographic expertise where there is none! --Dschwen (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, Daniel, but I just thought: "Well, we have to start somewhere, don't we?" Where policies are governed by a large mass of people (as is the case here), any move to make a big change tends to be blocked, or get lost in intricate discussions. So small steps towards a big goal are often the only way to change anything at all. How would you go about doing it? -- JovanCormac 14:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Dschwen above. I think the only way is to teach contributors what is good photography. That's the hard way, but it is the only way which would work. Yann (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to hear about even the faintest idea on how to accomplish this "teaching". -- JovanCormac 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it won't happen in one day. ;o) First using what we have: many great photographers on Commons, but a Wikibooks about photography, which is very far to have even the basic elements explained right. That's one (of many) cases where more collaboration between different Wikimedia projects would be great. The French equivalent is already much better... Yann (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Your approach (providing educational material) won't change anything. The web is full of such material, covering a thousand different facets of photography, and also full of professional photos showing where the quality bar is. If people don't read it there (and they don't), they won't read it on Wikibooks either. There is no way we're going to improve the quality of FP by writing books. -- JovanCormac 16:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, writing books alone won't be enough. But a mention like "please read ... before voting on FPC" would already be useful. Yann (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I admire your confidence, but the very first sentence in the yellow part of the FPC page already says "Please read the complete guidelines before nominating", yet still a lot of people support practically everything. I strongly believe that more radical changes are needed, or no change at all (= popularity contest, one notch above flickr and hot or not). -- JovanCormac 17:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, it says before nominating, not before voting. But we probably need to define more precisely the aim of FP before. Yann (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, step one of the solution would be assessing if we actually have a problem to solve. As much as ill-founded or unknowledgeable votes annoy me, we have to think who are we generating the FP list for. We do not compile a list of FPs for just a bunch of photography experts to enjoy, we compile it for the broad public that visits this website. So it seems reasonable to let the broad public decide what the broad pubic likes. Just don't pretend that FPC is about great photography, there certainly are coincidental overlaps (I'm saying that with a big wink ;-) ), but there are discrepancies as well. But that is fine, as long as we are still catering to the right audience. --Dschwen (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? Discussions like this one tell me that there a quite a few people who don't think that we're maintaining the FP library for the broad public - surely the "broad public" couldn't care less if an image of an artwork faithfully reproduces all colors of the original, or what techniques were used for restoration, as long as it looks like they expect it to. Also, I bet that 95% of the broad public, when browsing the FP library, would want "fewer bugs, fewer birds, more everything else" (the fact that I'm with them on that point is irrelevant). I agree with you that we should think about who we're creating the FP library for - I'm just not sure it's the general public. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are people who tell themselves otherwise. The (sad) truth seems to be that a bunch of amateurs/dilettantes (and I do not mean that in an insulting way, it is just a simple fact that this is not a forum for professional photographers (just ask Tony ;-) )) is voting here. So how can it be for anyone else than the broad public (or at least a non-expert community)? In any case my other points still hold even if we redefine the purpose of FPC: forcing to give a reason won't suddenly turn our contributors into photography experts. --Dschwen (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Personally, technical issues are certainly not the uniq factor to promote or decline a FPC. Educational, historical, and emotional values are as important as technical ones. For example, File:Michele Merkin 1.jpg, while a very good picture of professional quality, is much less interesting as a FPC than File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg, File:Dagestani man and woman.jpg, File:WomanFactory1940s.jpg, or File:Farmer plowing.jpg. Each of these has non technical qualities which the first one doesn't have, IMO. So, I wouldn't like that technical qualities become the almost uniq factor for promoting and declining a FPC. Yann (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I reckon there are many who would disagree with you, particularly on the value of the Michele Merkin photo as opposed to, say, File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg, which one could argue is a disgustingly staged propaganda photo and in some regards even less "authentic" than a photoshopped studio shot of a professional model. Once again, who are we doing all this for? -- JovanCormac 10:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me give you mi semi-loose thoughts on the topic.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if we state is as a rule that while the voter does not have to give the reason for opposing (or supporting, too!), if the author or nominator asks them, it will be expected of them to give a reason. If there are, say, 10 support votes or 10 oppose votes, I don't find it necessary to add anything, it will be just like per all the other guys. But, if there are 10 supports and 1 oppose (or vice versa), I believe the nominator/author has every right to know the reason for such a vote.
If it's just one support, he should be informed what was appealing in the image (there usually is something even in generally poor pics) as a guideline for the future. If it's just one oppose - what is the good thing that others did not take into consideration. It would also provide a basis for discussion (when you mistake something for a technical error when it actually is not).
And as for the way the rules should be stated... Maybe we should rather go for indicating what are and what aren't the generally accepted criteria of assessment. I.e. you should not look at who the author is, what the chosen topic is, etc. Why is the chosen topic not a suitable reason? Because it refers to the photographer directly (he chose to take a picture of a Skoda Superb, I never would...). On the other hand, do take into consideration the quality, the value, and so on, and so forth.

I've got a bit more to say, but I'll leave it for later, when/if I get your comments on the above. Airwolf (talk) 09:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If we used a content management system that was actually suited for a media archive, rather than one designed for a collaborative encyclopedia, we would have features like blind voting (nominator and votes aren't shown until after the deadline), which would make votes less biased, and eliminate many other problems. I really hope that I will live to see the day when Commons finally gets rid of MediaWiki. Sometimes, like when "counting colons" again just to reply to a discussion thread, I find it hard to believe that we're still using that system which is so obviously unsuited for our purposes. -- JovanCormac 10:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Side note on languages

I'm not going to directly address the issue here (as I'm not sure where I stand). However, if you are going to implement the "empty oppose" = discounted rule please make sure it is included in the voting instructions correctly, ie modify all language versions. The stricken vote on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earwax on swab.jpg was by a fi-speaker, and as far as I can tell only the English language page mentioned the must provide a reason. As this could disenfranchise non-en users (even more than is already the case), please ensure translations are added to all the language pages before implementing such a major change to the rules.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Many language versions, such as Magyar, Lëtzebuergesch and Română fail to mention any of the rules, yet speakers of those languages are still expected to abide by them (such as "no anonymous votes", not to mention the numerous guidelines). So unless all of the rules currently in effect are translated to all languages in which there are FPC pages, this is a non-issue. -- JovanCormac 10:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the languages have a minimal interface, which is unfortunate (the ones you stated pretty much say "This is a listing of FP candidates, edit the page to add a new one"). However, when the voting instructions are complete as is the case for the French, German or Spanish pages, we should make the effort to keep them maintained.
Either the other languages should include the correct voting instructions or no instructions at all: If they are correct, there's no problem. If they are not there, we can expect them to go to another language to obtain those instructions (which are then complete and accurate). If they are incomplete, then they are misleading and we can have a reasonable expectation that the users of that language will follow the rules not realising that they are "not valid".
Furthermore, as this is a contentious issue, and had plenty of discussion time (and is now having more), it shouldn't have been/be hard to generate translations for the major languages in the time the proposal was/is being discussed, its only one sentence after all. Giving en absolute primacy is something I strongly object to. Or are you suggesting we put hatnotes on all the other pages saying "these rules may be incorrect - please follow the procedures on the English language page"? Without such a note, the fr/es/de rules are as valid as the en ones...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
For those language versions that do not list any rules at all, I indeed think there should be text mentioning that there are in fact rules, and that they can be read on the English language page. As for the "major" versions, like German and French, I agree that the rule should be translated for them. But your statement "Without such a note, the fr/es/de rules are as valid as the en ones" is highly problematic, for if that were true all other language versions would be valid as well, and many of them don't have all rules that are in effect now (especially when it comes to the image guidelines, many of which are counterintuitive, and so rarely ever broken that in practice they are more rules than "guidelines"). -- JovanCormac 11:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
On the guidelines: If someone nominates a clearly bad candidate it gets FPXed with the relevant guideline thrown back "Low resolution", for example - you can still nominate those images so its still just a guideline. The bits that really should be kept current are the procedures for nominating and voting, and ideally the policy segment too. We can always add notes saying "Check the English" for any bits that are missing. The fact that the guidelines are a pain to translate doesn't mean we should not make the effort for the procedural bits. There is a distinction between the instructions on how to participate and the image guidelines (which are basically FPC consensus distilled into a few sentences).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


While we are on the subject, I would like to point out Kallerna's irritating opposes against GFDL 1.2 images. --Muhammad (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kallerna here: GFDL 1.2 is NOT a suitable license for multimedia files. Yann (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem with not having binding rules: You have no option against irritating votes besides complaining. With Tony having removed the "oppose reason" rule, I could right now pick a beautiful candidate picture from FPC and write
and while I would undoubtedly be flamed for it, you all would have no choice but to count the vote, despite the fact that my "reason" for opposing would obviously be totally inacceptable. Such extreme examples show how weak our voting system really is. Basically, we're depending on people not abusing it, and amazingly enough, they hardly ever do. But there is a large spectrum between abusing the voting system and voting responsively, and with the way we do things at the moment, there is nothing at all we can do about those many votes that fall somewhere withing that spectrum, and no incentive at all for voters to become more responsible. That is precisely what's wrong with FPC, and precisely what we need to change. -- JovanCormac 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Well you could also write  Oppose no wow. and be just just as much of a dick ;-). Or is no wow not a reason suddenly... ? --Dschwen (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • like already pointed out above this "rule" is rather pointless (you can just writhe "agree with xxx") plus suddenly some random person can come along and delete votes because it might be an "empty assessment", "not critisising the image itself" or whatever they come up with.
  • I would also like to propose a new rule: Civic virtue demands all supporting votes need to give a reason why exactly this picture is one of the top 0.001% on commons. This is valuable feedback for the authors/nominators after all (especially for nominators of other failing fpc). -- Gorgo (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what we would hope to achieve with a 'rule' about oppose votes. Much as I dislike the fact that a 2/3rds majority means 'oppose' votes are worth twice as much as 'support' votes, I can not see a rule allowing people to strike other's 'oppose' votes as achieving anything useful. Even if we insist on 'valid' reasons for 'oppose' votes it will just mean people will indulge in more "ditto" votes just to keep us happy, it will have no effect on the quality of the voting. The gains will be imaginary. The downside is that people will be discouraged from participating by having the humiliation of having their votes struck out, people will have endless arguments about what is a valid vote, and we will lurch from the fundamental idea that everyone is equal (one person, one vote) to the idea that some of us can scrutinize and invalidate another's vote - the antithesis of democracy (do you believe in democracy?). I am at a loss to see what problem this 'rule' can solve. Lastly, logically, it would only make sense if we then impose the same rule for 'support' votes. If this is the plan, then we need to be up-front about it, and discuss that too. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I believe that before we even talk about disregarding oppose with no reason, we should stop opposing with a reason that is not found in the current guidelines, and maybe even disregard those opposes at all. If one really wants to oppose an image, one could use "no wow" or something else of the same. IMO there's no use to oppose for the license or the size of the images, if they are within current guidelines.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Points of agreement from previous discussions

While not really the subject of the discussions I think there are already two points of agreement

  1. ) We need an explicit rather than ad-hoc image replacement procedure (for when a new version of an existing FP is nominated).
  2. ) FP image templates should specify the year promoted (I would also group each years FPs in their own category) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both points. Where should I vote?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support both points above, but before we implement this stuff we need consensus on the purpose of FP. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Point 2. can be implemented immediately, I believe. Whatever we decide upon in the future, this issue won't disrupt it. Airwolf (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the point 2 can be implemented immediately. I agree with the "Perceived FP purposes" mentioned above. Note that these are not exclusive of each others. Yann (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support Suggest some form of the en-wiki's Delist-and-replace as a solution to Problem 1, though maybe run in the main listing, not delists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 Support Why not? These suggestions sound fine to me. --JalalV (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What is FP for?

I think fundamental to discussions on the quality of FPs, how they are selected and whether we should remove old FPs, is what is it all for? This might seem a silly question, but even if the answer is simple and obvious, I would like to see it stated before trying to resolve other discussions. What I can answer to some extent is how FPs are used.

  1. ) FP images are displayed on the FP page and sub-pages organized by topic, a place new-comers are directed to from our front page
  2. ) FP images are tagged and categorized to highlight their status
  3. ) FP authors (or nominators) collect FP awards banners
  4. ) The FP pool is used as a feeder source for POTD (but there is not enough room for all FPs to be POTD), which is displayed on the front page, many other user pages, and RSS feed
  5. ) FP images are candidates for POTY
  6. ) FP award counts are used as criteria for inclusion on the Commons:Meet our photographers promotional pages
  7. ) (add other more uses here)?

FPs are variously described as "our finest pictures", "the top xxx% of Commons", "our most valuable pictures", "quality images with Wow"

I can not see that the FP project has any hope of being definitively "our finest, most valuable, or top xxx%". It currently represents about 0.04% of our total image base. I don't know how we can every say that these are the best of Commons as we simply don't have any process to ensure that. There simply isn't enough participation to ensure that all those images have been assessed, and never will be. We might be able to claim it is the best of the images submitted, or the best of the images from the participants (if most are self nominations), or QI with wow as those goals would almost be manageable.

Instead I see FP as all about our "shop window". We can't display all our stock at once, but we can display a choice selection to entice customers :-). A selection that shows some of the quality, some of the range, some of the high value and some of the interesting images that we have. But who is our market, what do people come here for, what do they use the images for? Well, I suppose we could do a market analysis, lots of surveys, maybe we should. Another way to go is assume that we represent our market :-). We have all come here looking for an image of something, or to upload something to be used elsewhere. We are a relatively random sample of our target market. So we have a process where we select those images we like best. As our clients change, 'we' also change automatically (because the two are the same). So a popular selection of images through the FP process represents what we (and hence our clients) want to see. The FP process is very simple, a popular vote with a threshold set to only pass enough images for our front window operations.

If our target market is something significantly different (eg poster makers, professional photographers, art galleries ???) then we might need a different system. I am willing to be convinced :-)

One change that makes sense to me, because criteria change with time (fashions change, people get bored with sunsets, insects, long exposure water, hdr or whatever), perhaps we should simply bracket our FPs into chronological groups. Eg by year. We avoid a constant churn of images as criteria etc change with time, we don't continuously second guess previous decisions, we don't waste a lot of time on reassessing images in some de-listing process. We have a featured picture category with subcategories by year, FP tags on images specify the year of the award. POTY is already chosen from the previous years FPs. I'm not sure how we would structure FP pages, but then I am not sure of the purpose of the FP pages, who actually uses them and how? --Tony Wills (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Most of the image use at wikimedia commons is for wikipedia and other similar projects. With this in mind the process here misses the "target market" almost entirely. If I didn't want to contribute to the encyclopaedia project(s), then I'd move to flickr for my image hosting in a heartbeat. The uploader is given more control, and the management tools are faster and easier to use. I wouldn't have to deal with arrogant (there are exceptions) administrators to get things done. The biggest actual use is that useful images have a tendency to filter across different to language wikis. Among the internet literate, most people have heard of wikipedia, next to nobody has heard of commons. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That comparison to Flickr misses a big point of commons: Commons is a free media archive first and foremost. Unlike Flickr we take free licenses seriously. We do not allow revoking the licenses and we try to make sure that the material that gets uploaded has valid licenses. So please keep in mind that commons is a little more then just a picture dump for wikipedia. --Dschwen (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Commons is a free media archive first and foremost in mission statement. But how many users can you name that submit their images to commons that don't put them in to wikipedia articles? How many can you name that came here before signing up to a wikipedia or other project? We aren't really enjoying great success beyond a picture dump for wikipedia. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If the FP library should indeed be a "shopping window" (which I agree with to some degree), then we are in deep trouble, because our "shopping window" shows a highly imbalanced selection ("arthropod issue").
    Thank you for launching this discussion, BTW. I will not let it die down until we at last have a consensus on what FP is for, since it is beyond ridiculous to work together on a project if you don't have a common goal to work towards. -- JovanCormac 07:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • For now I'm thinking but a useful and important topic thank you Tony. Despite having been around Commons a while I confess I do not have a clear idea of what FP is actually seen as by the people who are normally active here never mind the rest of the community (who mostly seem to stay away from this area).--Herby talk thyme 07:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What are FP and FPC for? First of all, for the fun of it. Second (but this mabe a corollary of the first) to act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media. Also remember that FPC acts as an excellent pretext for people of various cultures and skills to share experiences and learn from others. With obvious benefices for the Commons project. I always found useless and stupid to permanently re-evaluate past FP's according to the present criteria. We are losing our time and killing the history of FPC. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand and agree with the comment. However I think people may be picky and look for something with more definition ;). --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Looking for a definition of what FP is is not being picky. It is the bare minimum anyone who is working on anything can expect: Knowing what he or she is working on. -- JovanCormac 11:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Hence my use of ";)" - be aware, I find humour in much of the world. However it is worth pointing out that much of the behaviour in the world merely saddens me. --Herby talk thyme 12:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I agree with Alves, when he says that by delisting "We are losing our time and killing the history of FPC". Just think how interesting it will be in few thousands yers to look over FP images and follow the history of photograpghy.

Former Featured Pictures that I nominated for delisting   5 nominated, 5 delisted)

  • Delisted
    Delisted
  • Delisted
    Delisted
  • Delisted
    Delisted
  • Delisted
    Delisted
  • Delisted
    Delisted

After all "Delisting does not equal deleting." :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No Mila, in fact I wouldn't mind at all. Believe it or not I'd be glad, for that would probably mean we have at last found a replacement for animated GIFs. If you look at the thread above, you will see that I said a week ago I would delist those very animations myself when a suitable replacement for that aging file format is found. I really, honestly care about the quality of the Featured Pictures library, and I'm certainly not stopping at my own stuff to see it grow. -- JovanCormac 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Erm... [4]. Airwolf (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems there has been confusion about the FPC discussions. The poster who initiated this thread also rebuts several points at an earlier thread that no one had been contending:
Commons is not en:FP. en:WP has the requirement that the image be used on a Wikipedia page, it makes more sense to only have one FP image per subject. Why does it matter if we have more than one FP per subject? If there is a majority that dislike xyz images, why don't they just vote against them? What is FP for anyway (see below) :-)--Tony Wills (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No one at the thread above actually suggested limiting Commons to one FP per subject, nor does en:wiki do so, and nor did anyone assert that Commons FP is or ought to be the same as en:wiki FP.

What was under discussion is that perhaps Commons would do well to emulate a convenient mechanism for delisting and replacing featured pictures when a superior replacement becomes available, such as the famous Japanese woodblock print of The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Note that the latter version is also a Commons FP; the previous version failed featured candidacy here so neither replacement or delisting was needed at this site, but the example conveys the idea. It can be good to have a streamlined way of upgrading these things as we get better files. Durova (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"The poster who initiated this thread", you have permission to use my name :-). Your point does not address the subject of this discussion and seems to relate to the previous heading, perhaps you would like to move it there? But I assert that many do seem to want to limit "Commons to one FP per subject", obviously you are not one of them :-).
The Great Wave off Kanagawa example is not the best, some of the contention there is about different impressions from different blocks, is a good image of a recent copy of the block better than a lesser image of the original block (created by the master himself). But I agree that the process for replacing existing FPs with improved versions should be explicit c.f. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:C17_aircraft_alt.jpg.
Your input addressing the topic at hand would be really appreciate too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is no evidence that either version of "The Great Wave off Kanagawa" was an original creation 'by the master himself'. The earlier upload was relatively low resolution and had bad digital editing; have you read the linked discussions? The initial subject of the subthread was a proposal to require replacements with delisting nominations, not to require delisting whenever a replacement becomes available. Your post to that thread referred to this one, so this appeared to be the correct location for followup. "What is FP for anyway" appears to have resulted from miscommunication, rather than any actual crisis of process. Durova (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This topic is a heart felt question that has been brought to my mind by the head long rush to delist FPs, especially those of quite adequate resolution for what they depict. I want to know what the objective is, what we want to turn FP into. Which in turn begs the question what is it for anyway? The answer may be obvious to people, but I think that answer is different for different people :-). It also relates to things like restoring historical photographs. For example how we evaluate restored photographs for FP relates to the purpose of FP. For example (I am not saying this is the purpose!) if the purpose of FP is to acknowledge the skill and expertise of the image creator (or restorer in this case) then we would evaluate it differently than if we think FP is for selecting only images of the standards of todays best photographic tools. --Tony Wills (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well perhaps there was a misunderstanding in the perception of a headlong rush to delist FPs. Follow the analogy?

If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

(A proposal that was recently floated):

If you want to delist an FP, you must propose something better and similar.
You have something similar and better to an FP.
Therefore, you must propose the existing FP be delisted.

All the editor was really suggesting was that upgrades are preferable to outright delistings. That much is uncontroversial, let's agree? Although some of us wouldn't go quite so far as to require upgrades because upgrades aren't always possible. Durova (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting I am sure ;-), perhaps you would like to move that too, to the relevant discussion (hint two discussions before this one). I would still like your views on what FP is for :-) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added a message linking to this discussion to the header of FPC. The question of what the purpose of FP is concerns everyone here, so hopefully this will draw more input. -- JovanCormac 09:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I have decided not to vote or nominate anymore on FPC until we have a consensus about the purpose of the project. No use working on something when it's not clear what you're working on. -- JovanCormac 09:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have the ethical authority to hold up the current process, no harm will be done carrying on bussiness as usual. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we should keep it here, moving it elsewhere will not improve the quality of discussion. I think we can ignore most of what has gone on above this point for the moment, the 'voting' appears to have stimulated some real input and a bit of discussion. Maybe archive the discussion and conclusion somewhere seperate if (when!) we reach a useful result. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For me the most important function of featured pictures is to to put all the best pictures in one place so that it would be easier for wikipedians to illustrate articles and other stuff. For example, when you need to illustrate a very broad article (for example astronomy, plane, ocean) you just go to featured pictures and search. Furthermore, in Lithuanian wikipedia we have a featured picture in our main page and when we change it (every 3-4 days) we usually search for a new picture in featured pictures. I think it is done on some other wikis too. Also, I think some people just look at FPs to get aesthetic pleasure.--Tired time (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perceived FP purposes

I will try and summarise the essence of peoples reply to the question here (carry on discussion above, and feel free to correct any summary of your view)
(Don't discuss the points here, address them above where they have been made)

  1. For the enjoyment honor of the participants (Alvesgaspar) --George Chernilevsky talk 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  2. To act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media (Alvesgaspar)
  3. A forum to share experiences/skills and learn from others (Alvesgaspar)
  4. An attractive entry point into Commons (JovanCormac)
  5. A selection of the very best pictures Commons has to offer today, as a showcase/portfolio for what we do (JovanCormac)
  6. Great historic value. A selection of the very old images (old photos and ancient scanned document, that cannot be retaken in better quality) (George Chernilevsky talk)
  7. Ultra-rare by object, that cannot be retaken easy (Example: great politic or sport situations, photos of died-out animals in XIX-XX century, unique astronomy situations, etc...) (George Chernilevsky talk)
  8. For education of our readers (Mbz1)
  9. To point out useful pictures on a wide variety of subjects to Wikipedias, Wikisources, and the like. (Adam Cuerden).

FPCBot handling of alternate versions

Today I have implemented some basic support for handling the candidates that contains several alternatives with the bot which until now have just been marked as ignored by the bot and left for full manual closing. Those candidates just seem to pile up as no one seem interested in closing them manually for some reason :).

But note that I have not done a full implementation that handles counting as that is more complex issue. For now my main focus was just to add a simple way to hand over the closing procedure of these candidates to the bot. So from now on when the bot encounters a candidate with several alternatives for which the voting period is over it will add the {{FPC-results-ready-for-review}} template with all counts set to 'X' and an unfilled parameter named alternative. If any of the alternatives has passed you must tell the bot with this parameter which one that passed, if no one passed just ignore it and leave it empty.

One thing to note is that the notification left on the user page for a passed candidate will say that the original image passed even though it might have been one of the edits.

Please notify me if you see any problems or if you have any further thoughts on this. /Daniel78 (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very useful. The bot does the boring part, we just have to fill up the template. ;) Yann (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination sets

Hi all, found and restored an exceptional group as a set. In 1875 Édouard Manet did a series of lithograph illustrations for a French translation of Edgar Allan Poe's "The Raven". It's something special to locate high resolution scans from a well preserved first edition, especially with a major artist. How would you recommend these be nominated? As a unified set or individually? Best regards, Durova (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The Raven
As a set.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FPC review templates

I just tried to change the appearance a bit of the FPC review templates, {{FPC-results-reviewed}} and {{FPC-results-ready-for-review}} to make it easier to spot which candidates that are reviewed or not. Feel free to suggest different looks ( or revert back to the <pre> version ? ), this was just a first try. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work, they are easier to spot not and also look more aesthetic. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The "missing category" message should have another color, though. The contrast with the bgcolor is too low. -- JovanCormac 09:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I updated the color now. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

VotingDiscussion

Please, add votes here. Please add your thoughts on each idea here, indicate your support/oppose if you must, but at this point discussion is what is valuable. Don't look at this as either/or options, look at this as what we can get out of the FP/FPC system. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify what is the purpose of these votes anyway? What we are going to acieve?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info A poll at this point is not useful, there has not been much discussion on the topic (lots of side issues and off topic stuff), there has been no where near enough time to collect ideas, let alone vote on them. I wish to build a consensus about this, not have a poll. We don't need to include/exclude any of these purposes unless they completely conflict with one another. Please don't bother voting on these ideas yet. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The remark by talk way. I was at a meeting of the Ukrainian Wikipedia writers. I also the writer in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. I have created more than 30 new articles and hundred corrections. At a meeting even there were few administrators, not only writers. For them it has appeared a surprise that photos/illustrations can have awards Featured pictures or Quality images. They know only awards "The Good article" and "The Featured article". The award "Valued image" has caused the big surprise... It is not Ok. I try to correct it. We badly keep in touch with other Wiki-projects. How it is in your countries are? And now about FP status. We have begun a storm in a water glass? FP status is unknown outside Commons :((( -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Commons is unknown outside Commons ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment 2 We live people instead of robots. And we never can clean emotional making of our voting. And it is good, in my opinion. Any robot will always reject work of art as the picture of the artist is less exact, than photo. Canvas and paints too noised, picture blurred. Absolutely narrow and exact rules can't be created. Even after that discussions we will emotionally vote and not just with mind only. This my opinion, friends. -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

1. For the enjoyment honor of the participants

Changing enjoyment to honour, I think this one is almost identical to #2.--Korall (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

2. To act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media

3. A forum to share experiences/skills and learn from others

 Info We have one, but probably because it is hard to find if you don't know what it is called it is under used and has low participation - Commons:Photography critiques --Tony Wills (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

4. An attractive entry point into Commons

5. A selection of the very best pictures, as a showcase/portfolio for what we do

6. Great historic value

7. Ultra-rare by object, that cannot be retaken easy

8. For education of our readers

  •  Support There are some phenomenon, nature mysteries or even places that will be missed in Wikipedia, if a reader has never heard about them. If this reader will see an image of something that he's never known existed as picture of the day, for example, he can then find corresponding article on Wikipedia , read about the thing and learn something new, in other words, get educated. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We are not Wikipedia. -- JovanCormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
We aren't high quality beautiful images photo forum either. I do not see anything wrong, if somebody will get educated by looking over our FPs, if it is even by an accident.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Commons is not Wikipedia, but is sure is Wikimedia. Wikimedia foundation is certanly about providing knowledge and education. Featured pictures should be useful for wikimedia in someway, otherwise I do not think they belong on commons in the first place.--Korall (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Readers ? I might support "for education of our content uploaders", but general readers sounds too vague. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Strong Support per Korall. This might not be Wikipedia but I believe all FPs should have educational value.--Avala (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Art education is still education, and if it's neither educational nor artistic, why are we featuring it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support It really works -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Wikipedia already has a Featured Pictures section. If EV is to be considered crucial, why don't we just feature the same pictures that are already featured there? It'll save us a lot of time. I don't see any point in doing the same work twice. -- Petritap (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Commons project mission is to serve as the image repository for all of the Wikimedia Foundation's other projects. Without prioritizing or deprecating any among them, the common factor is that these projects serve educational goals. Durova (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Commons does not solely exist for the wiki projects, but as a free repository for all to use, for whatever purpose. As commons grows, I can see it becoming a resource for anyone, or any projects (wiki or not) looking for open content. In my opinion, FP is a collection of the "best" and most attractive images, VI is a collection of the most educational and valuable for highlighting a concept (and VI should be promoted more and made more user-friendly IMHO), and Quality Images is a place to encourage higher quality and reward participation from the Wikimedia community itself. --JalalV (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's a consequence of FP, not a purpose per say. --S23678 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

9. To point out useful pictures on a wide variety of subjects to Wikipedias, Wikisources, and the like.

A draft

The Purpose and Mission of Commons:Featured Pictures

First and foremost, the mission of Commons:Featured Pictures is to seek out and promote images that are generally regarded by the participants to be the 'best' of Commons; that is, they fulfil, to a greater of lesser extent, the Featured Pictures criteria, including (but not limited to) guidelines on Quality, Composition and Value. As a result of this, the Featured Pictures process will:

  • Act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media
  • Highlight useful pictures on a wide variety of subjects to other projects
  • Serve as an attractive entry point into Commons

Though not officially part of the Mission, it is hoped that the above will have the following effects on the Featured Pictures community, and consequently, Commons as whole:

  • Contribute towards the education of our readers
  • Make Featured Pictures an enjoyable and professional place, where contributors can exchange experiences/skills and learn from others


Is this sort of what we're heading towards? I've tried to incorporate everyone's ideas, but it's still a bit rough, please, give me some feedback. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need this statement? And why "though not officially part of the mission" when this is the first time the mission is ever getting defined? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Truth be told, I'd rather see real changes, i.e. clear rules. A mission statement is nice (and we definitely should have one), but a wording like "they fulfil, to a greater of lesser extent, the Featured Pictures criteria" is meaningless, and in practice is going to translate into business as usual. We don't have a lack of "project spirit" on FPC. What we do lack is common promotion criteria, and that has become a problem since the spectrum of personal criteria is too wide at this point. A statement that includes the words "to a greater or lesser extent" basically encourages this, when we should be doing the opposite: Unify criteria again with clear rules and standards, which must not be voluntary. -- JovanCormac 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, you asked (above) for someone to define the 'common goal to work towards', which (unless I'm pretty far off the mark) is 'to seek out and promote images that are generally regarded by the participants to be the 'best' of Commons'. The rest of the objectives (which everyone is discussing above) are integral parts of Commons, but they will follow if we're achieving our first goal. And yes, I'd like to see real change as well, but everyone seems to have a different idea as to where it needs to happen and what needs to change. I was hoping something like what I wrote above would be a starting point, someething we could all agree on. Your 'common goal', as it were. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And as to why I said 'to a greater or lesser extent'? Well, not all pictures are equal, correct? Some are higher quality but not as aesthetic, others have nicer compositions while not being particularly valuable, and in others, their age and value excuses a lack of quality. Therefore all pictures that are promoted will fulfil the criteria, but to a greater or lesser extent. I do agree that we need to settle on concrete criteria, preferably separate sets each modern photography, historical pictures, artwork, illustrations and animations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely where I seem to disagree with the majority of users. I strongly believe that there should be certain minimum requirements for (photographic) Featured Pictures that are non-negotiable, most importantly the minimum resolution. I hope we can set up a system where any candidate (or any existing FP) that has less than the minimum resolution can simply be closed or delisted without the need to argue about potential "mitigating reasons" (those are weasel words) - because IMO, there are no mitigating reasons for a resolution that isn't even good enough for printing a postcard. -- JovanCormac 11:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got no problem with that, as long as those non-negotiable requirements are worked out separately for each category - modern photography, historical pictures, artwork, illustrations and animations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course. But the minimum resolution should apply equally to photography, historical images and artwork. One must not forget that our "historical images" aren't really historical images - they're scans of historical images. The same applies to artworks. For that reason, we can expect state-of-the-art, high resolution reproductions even if the picture in question is 100 years old. -- JovanCormac 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 Comment One problem with resolution is that seldom do we have access to the originals. Most historic collections are jealously guarded (and some of those guards try to claim copyright). We obviously should use the best reproduction available, but can't expect our reproductions of historical images to ever keep up with the latest technology. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
We can if they are to be Featured. Obviously, not every reproduction on Commons will be of the best possible quality. But some are, and those are the ones that should be Featured. The others are nice and valuable as well, but simply not FP material. -- JovanCormac 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that, if we do not have a better original than it should not be a FP, it might be suitable for VI instead. /Daniel78 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 Comment I think what the discussion shows so far is that, in a narrow sense, the purpose/goals of FP are not so obvious, and is not agreed upon at all. If we were to decide to tie it down to any one specific idea of what it is for, it would be a different project altogether. It would effectively be a take-over of the project to serve only one purpose. Rather than that, I can envisage having sub-projects that use FP material as feeder-stock. Eg the POTD project uses FP images as feed-stock and is broadcast via RSS and syndicated to other wikiprojects, it actually appears that it is the POTD project, rather than FP, that deals with some of the goals mentioned here. Even small changes to the POTD criteria, like specifying that it use recent FPs whenever possible (within the constraints of balance etc), would address some goals. That also brings to mind that our front page doesn't look much different from other 'pedia pages, but this project is rather different: Why haven't we got a more graphical page that shows what we are all about, our point of difference - media not lots of text. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Update to perceived purposes

A problem often with these discussions is that things get unwieldy and difficult to follow, I applaud User talk:Sarcastic ShockwaveLover's draft, but want to work on those purposes a bit more first. Some of the 'purposes' rather than than describing the purpose of selecting FP images appear to be about 'purposes' of this FPC process (which is fair enough as this is the FPC talk page and the two are obviously strongly linked!). Others have not been phrased as 'purposes' (or goals if you like), so I have reworked thing slightly:

FPC purposes/goals

  1. To select images for FP (User:Tony Wills)
  2. A forum to share experiences/skills and learn from others (Alvesgaspar)
  3. For the enjoyment/honor of the participants (Alvesgaspar, George Chernilevsky)

FP purposes/goals

I am trying to summarise these in terms of importance/un-importance. Forgive me if I mis-represent anyones views or appear biased - and then point out the error of my ways :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1) For the enjoyment/honor of the participants (User:Alvesgaspar, User:George Chernilevsky)
2) To act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media (User:Alvesgaspar)
3) As a feeder for POTD and FP pages as an attractive entry point into Commons (User:JovanCormac)
4) To point out useful pictures on a wide variety of subjects to Wikipedias, Wikisources, and the like. (User:Adam Cuerden)
5) A selection of XXXX that Commons has to offer today, as a showcase/portfolio for what we do. Where XXXX includes:
5a) the very best images. (User:JovanCormac)
5b) images of the greatest historic value. A selection of the very old images (old photos and ancient scanned document, that cannot be retaken in better quality) (User:George Chernilevsky)
5c) images of ultra-rare subjects. Images that cannot be retaken easy (Example: great politic or sport situations, photos of extinct animals in XIX-XX century, unique astronomy situations, etc...) (User:George Chernilevsky)
5d) images of highest educational value. For the education of our readers (User:Mbz1)

What next

We have a list (in no particular order) of purposes/goals of the Featured Pictures project. Six (#3, #4, #5a, #5b, #5c, #5d) of the nine purposes are about creating a pool of images. I see each of these six 'purposes' as describing different subsets of that pool. Collectively we are looking to build a collection of images that highlights all the different facets that Commons covers using outstanding examples. To the Commons community these images showcase important aspects of the Commons free media collection. They may be important for a number of reasons, eg

  1. quality
  2. historic significance
  3. rare event/rare subject
  4. high educational value
  5. (and perhaps others not listed here).

Not-withstanding current descriptions, on the FP page and FP templates, Commons FP has never been just about the 'some of the finest' images on Commons. It has always been about highlighting our images of high value. This was originally described on the FP page as 'particularly valuable'[5] and that description has remained in the FPC page as "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" to this day. It appears to me that without referring to that original theme that we still collectively think that this is our goal, but people give different weightings to the different aspects when they consider value.

Having assembled this select group of outstanding images we select from it to achieve various goals

  • Some of this collection is suitable as eye candy to attract the attention of someone who runs across our front page or other places where POTD is syndicated, they need to look good at small (typical webpage display) sizes, so that people will stop-by and investigate further.
  • Some of this collection is suitable as the lead image (how should I phrase that?) on *pedia article pages (eg high quality animal/plant/product images).
  • Some of this collection show rare events/subjects/phenomena of high value to other projects.
  • Another aspect of this collection is highlighting some of our historic and educational images.

My point is that the FPC process doesn't have to be tailored to suit any one of those goals. Each of those uses can take from the pool what they need, FPC's job is to feed that pool, to select from X million images a few outstanding ones. For example:

There are now more images promoted to FP than are needed for POTD - POTD is therefore inherently selective from our pool - use #3.
FP pages are grouped by subject, what is the purpose of these pages? If they are to serve use #4, then do they actually need to contain every FP (eg more than one image of the same object/species etc), should they not be a gallery that selects from our FP pool (our pool is essentially a category, the FP pages are the gallery).

How is this collection of outstanding images to be assembled? There are a number of possibilities:

  • We could define every criteria to the nth degree (image quality rules, object rarity rules, historic significance scale, educational value scale) perhaps each vote giving ratings from 1 to 10 for each criteria (easy for a bot to assess),
  • We could appoint a panel of experts (plenty of experts around here ;-),
  • We could accept the raison d'être for the *pedias and hence wikimedia : the wisdom of crowds.

Over-all crowds seem to exhibit wisdom. They may go for the novel (how about little planet pics this week?), but like with pictures of sunsets, that wears off very soon. To get wisdom from a crowd we apparently need diversity of opinion, independence, decentralization, aggregation. I think we can tick all the boxes: Diversity of opinion (yes!), Independence (we are quite good at ignoring other peoples opinions ;-), Decentralization (individual interests and expertise), Aggregation (FPCbot). The output of the crowd-engine is a selection from the candidates of outstanding images that the crowd values. The real limit to how representative that collection is, and its quality, is the breadth and quality of the nominations. If we accept the validity of en:the Wisdom of Crowds then we don't actually have to do much apart from telling them the goal - select the most valuable images. We don't have to define everything, we don't have to police everything, all we need to do is provide likely candidates and stand back :-).

But the output can be no better than the input. We need the crowd to also be doing the nominations- this also brings me back to an earlier theme of limiting self-nominations :-)

I can hear the cries of "but it doesn't work", but I think we need to reflect on what doesn't work. We don't get the quality desired? - the quality who desires? We don't get the breadth of nominations we desire - who's nominating?

(To be continued) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for that valuable overview of what we have discussed so far. Here's a little more input:
  1. The Wisdom of Crowds: A very nice point, problem is: We have no "crowds" here. The number of people actively contributing on FPC is ridiculously small when compared to the number of active Commons or Wikipedia users, and represents not the Wikiusers in general but a selection of people with very specific interests. "The Wisdom of Crowds" works only when the crowd is comprised of people with many different backgrounds and interests, which isn't the case on FPC (most FPC regulars - unsurprisingly - have a strong interest in photography, while the "crowds" on Wikipedia seem to be science-heavy).
  2. Image quality: While I agree that of course FP has many facets, I strongly believe that image quality should be the "common denominator". An interesting idea would be to say that a picture can be Featured when its quality is good enough for use as a full-page image in a reputable print magazine. This covers scans of historical images (provided they are well-done and of sufficient resolution), and puts an easily calculable general lower limit on resolution:
    --- CALCULATION
    Standard magazine format is A4
    A4's longer side is 11.7 inches long (en:Paper_size)
    Minimum resolution for magazine-quality printing is 300 ppi ([6])
    => The longer side of the picture needs to be at least (11.7 inch * 300 pixels/inch) = 3510 pixels long
    Assuming a portrait-format photo with an aspect ratio of 4:3, this puts the shorter side at 2632 pixels, for a resolution of (3510 pixels * 2632 pixels) = 9.2 Megapixels!!!
    --- CALCULATION END
    That's right folks, more than 9 Mpx is needed for an image that is to be used (full page) in a magazine. Now, one could argue whether full page printing should in fact be the standard, but what this calculation clearly shows is that there is precious little that one can do with a 2 Mpx photo besides viewing it on a computer monitor. I really believe we should offer more than that with our Featured Pictures. -- JovanCormac 10:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In case you're wondering, only 458 out of our 2112 photographic FPs currently have 9 Megapixels or more (21.6%). -- JovanCormac 10:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your effort to improve quality, but my point in asking what is the purpose of FP is the exact point here. Why does resolution suitable for a full colour A4 print magazine have anything to do with FP? Do you recognise that you have specified an arbitrary specification that is not linked to any goal. If we have a goal to select images for the print media, specifically full page, A4, full colour glossy magazines, then we can look at what the technical requirements actually are. But I assume that A4 magazine pages are just an example, but why not an example of poster sized images or bill-board sized images? I can accept that for any particular image we want the highest resolution available (we also want the sharpest, best DOF etc etc), I can never see that 'resolution' is such a strong arbiter of quality that it trumps all else. My (long winded ;-) previous posts are trying to suggest that if we have a project that really needs a particular resolution for technical reasons then set up a system to select that subset. An obvious existing example is the computer-{{Wallpaper}}, {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} templates that tell us that FP image has a suitable aspect ratio and resolution for computer desktop-wallpaper. The criteria for applying this tag change with the technology of computer screens, so as we get larger and wider screens, FPs can be added to and removed from this pool. Similarly we can have a project that tags images as suitable for A4 glossy magazine printing, or wall-posters, or 10m wide bill-boards.
  • I haven't challenged whether 300dpi is the actual requirement for printing because I really don't know. I had a trawl through the web and it is certainly a figure often quoted for printing. One of the most comprehensive sites I came across is cambridgeincolour.com who have a nice little calculator. I appears from there that it all comes down to reading distance. So for poster applications, observed from say 1m (3ft) away 2Mpixels is good for a 19" high poster. A magazine cover 27.5cm (11") tall is one of the most demanding applications: looking at it from normal reading distances of say 25 to 30cm (about 1 foot) you would want 11Mpixels (this is assuming a reader with 20/20 vision). Whereas if your aim is high quality 6"x4" prints then 2.9Mpixels is good (say 2100x1400 resolution).
  • If printing images did actually have anything to do with FP, surely we should be judging printouts of the images. Doesn't the colour-space used, type of sharpening, type of down-sampling, image contrast, and image dynamic range all effect the perceived quality of prints differently to perceived quality of on screen displays?
  • My contention is that most Wikimedia projects use our images on web-pages, if that is our main audience we don't need to be driven by possible external uses when deciding what is a great image. (Personally I have never printed out any of my digital photographs, let alone anything obtained from Commons). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
My standpoint is very simple: High image quality should be a condition sine qua non for a picture to become Featured, not simply another aspect that weighs in when judging FPs. By any stretch of the imagination, an image cannot be called "one of the best on Commons" when there are pictures of the same type (historical, photographic, scans, illustrations) that have better image quality. Image quality consists of resolution, sharpness, DOF and the likes. What the standards of image quality are can easily be seen from the standards of digital imaging equipment, and with those, 8 Mpx are entry-level now. Anything below is as inacceptable for a picture wanting to be called "one of the best" as a black-and-white picture would be when taken today. -- JovanCormac 15:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bit more complicated that: obviously the quality is important, but it is not the only aspect to be taken into consideration. IMO the value is also very important. And I don't compare the quality of pictures from professional protographers and governement agencies (i.e. NASA, US military, etc.) with these of amateurs Wikimedians. Yann (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • But resolution is *not* a simple measure of quality anyway. High quality only needs resolution high enough for the purpose we are selecting images for. More pixels don't make any difference once you have sufficient (which you seem to agree with). We disagree on what is sufficient for our goals.
  • The comment about black and white pictures is odd. Some people still use black and white film because of its different qualities (ironically low grain, high resolution is one of them). Why don't you think one could ever be an FP? If you like high resolution you could try digitizing 1m x 3m (3ft x 9ft) negatives - [7], [8] :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Recently taken B&W FPs File:Compact Fluorescent-bw.jpg, File:Human shields greeted crossing border into Iraq.jpg, File:Porticoguardiagrele.jpg, File:Potsdam Park bw amk.jpg, File:Tree hadrian's wall.jpg --Tony Wills (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Tony, you seem to be confusing B&W-Photography with desaturated digital shots (which your examples are). --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry the two seperate posts are on slightly different bents. The first point is that there are serious reasons for B&W photography (esp on film), the second point was regarding the suggestion that non-historical B&W photographs would never be regarded as FPs today (That most digital cameras don't have a true monochrome mode, and these are derived from desaturated colour imaging perhaps even more emphasises that B&W has its place). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have opposed desaturated images several times, and will continue to oppose any picture that is desaturated (i.e. "black-and-white lookalike"), for one simple reason: Anyone can desaturate with a single click in Photoshop, but a picture cannot be resaturated. More is more on FP for me. -- JovanCormac 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, a good crop full size image will appear of better quality than a much higher resolution but resized image to most FP users (you know, those people looking at the website). Another irony, free web content is killing print media, and we should judge our best content by how it would appear in print media?? Jovan, I'm curious, you bring up the MP count of most cameras today, have you ever cropped an image to make the composition better? Maybe you're a true photographer and can get it right from the camera, but I have a feeling most FP's have been cropped. Did you by chance look at what percent of those FPs would be above 9MP if they weren't cropped? --Dori - Talk 03:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a photographer at all. I'm a mathematician who hasn't taken 10 photos in his entire life. Still, I have a pretty clear idea of what I'm looking for in a good photograph, and this idea stems from what I am used to in professional publications. One thing I've never seen in a professionally published photo is bad image quality. In fact, superior image quality appears to be the #1 defining criterion of professional photography. Therefore, I believe it should be the #1 criterion for us as well, since all Wikimedia projects strive towards professionalism. -- JovanCormac 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bravo! Now we have a new goal stated - To select the best/most valued images suitable for publication as full sized pages in glossy A4 magazines. That will certainly cut down our FP collection to a manageable size. And all the other purposes/goals can be achieved by some other project. Or how about, assuming that all such wondrous pictures are a subset of what FP now selects (unless they are totally boring, or badly composed), we just tag FPs that meet that requirement with something like "This featured picture is suitable for printed publications of A4 size".
  • I think your lack of photographic experience is allowing you assume things that are not true. Professional photographers spend thousands on professional gear so they can produce those sort of photographs. If they could spend $100 on a 12Mpixel camera and achieve 'professional' results, they would. Few of the acknowledged contributors to Commons have more than "semi-professional" gear. Usually they have upgraded their equipment as funds allow. So generally they work hard to get around the limitations of what they have (eg people like Dschwen stitch multiple images together to produce fine detailed photographs - I don't know that 'professionals' would bother with such a time consuming process (eg if even one of those multiple shots is marginal then there is not much you can do about it when back at the computer (eg see QI nom for File:Mathematik Göttingen.jpg)) they just buy suitable gear for the job. But this sort of technique (and others like focus stacking) have severe limitations - eg neither are useful for non static objects. All that is to say we are not going to get photographs on a wide range of subjects, from diverse parts of the world, at really high resolution, from part time photographers using semi-pro (or lesser) equipment. If we are happy for FP to represent only that subset of the range of Commons that is either from commercial photographers that donate their work (of course most people can only be professional photographers if they are taking photos for someone else, so their work concentrates on things like product shots, promotional shots, and celebrity shots); governmental agencies (eg Nasa); historical archives; the few contributors who can afford expensive equipment; or of only static subjects; then so be it.
  • I would also point out that apart from perhaps publications that are primarily about the images (eg "coffee table" magazines and photo industry/hobby publications), most published photographs are only going to be 1/4 to 1/2 of the page. Allowing for the white space surrounding them that is 2.7 to 5 Mpixel at 350ppi.
  • If FP is to be our front to the world and it mis-represents what we have, are people going to be impressed anyway? They would be greeted by a bright shiny high-tech shop window, but when they come in will quickly see all the donated goods of varying quality. They won't find what they expect and will go away disappointed. FP needs to represent good examples of what we have, we are featuring our wares, not publishing a magazine. The important thing is to improve the quality of our stock of images, not mis-represent what it is. Three of the goals talk about the contributors to FP, I think these aspects play an important part in improving our stock of images. Many contributors have spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars (or roubles etc) upgrading their equipment, and thousands of hours improving their skills. A process in which few can ever hope to participate will not encourage them much. Even acknowledged photographers such as User:Fir0002 used a semi-pro, now 5 year old, camera. I suggest that the reason many of his images were only 2Mpixel is not just from an idea of keeping the best for commercial use, but that simply after cropping and down-sampling (to improve apparent sharpness and wow), that is all there was (I may be shot down on this point by experts ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I had cause to delve into dpi issues a while back. I found this interesting...
The easy solution (rather than trying to educate them about real digital photo resolution) is to simply change the DPI of your image to whatever they want and send it along to them.. If nothing else it amused me. --Herby talk thyme 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article you mention is about DPI, not PPI. DPI really matters very little, while PPI matters a whole lot (which is why I talked about PPI in my previous post). The difference is explained in detail in [9]. -- JovanCormac 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
You do seem to be under the illusion that everything is about you & your comments Jovan.
There is considerable discussion here about print quality. It is possible that I am the only one here who 2 months ago had not realised that this is largely a printers illusion or I may not. I found the page to be of interest. I hope others may feel the same.
However the broader point is that to have a fixation on any specific numbers for anything seems to run contrary to my understanding of what FP (& indeed Commons) is about. --Herby talk thyme 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

<indent>That article makes clear that both PPI and DPI are irrelevant to image quality. The only "resolution" that has any effect on quality is pixel count. I dislike the idea of hard MP limits (whether its 2, 4, 10 or 50), something like "sufficient resolution to resolve all significant details" is better. If the only real difference between a 4 and 8MP image of a building is better definition of the grass in front of it, the 8MP is better, but the 4MP image doesn't lose anything critical. Getting rid of the hard limit will give us adaptability on this front, a 6MP image could be opposed on that basis if some critical detail wasn't clear, but in other cases a 3MP-shot could have "everything". It is useful to know images suitable for very high quality prints (a {{Wallpaper}}-like template would be good), but I don't think "suitable for use in photojournalism magazines" has ever been a primary goal of FPC and I'd oppose the suggestion that it should become so.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


The discussion appears to have died down/be going nowhere. I'll therefore resume voting now. -- JovanCormac 11:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Author withdraw

Just as a nominator can withdraw it's nomination, why would we not allow authors to withdraw their pictures? Sure we have a great freedom from the image licenses, but I see no point in pissing off the authors who had the courtesy in giving to everyone a lot of their rights on their images when he's asking for a withdrawal. Plus, I don't see why a nominator would have more withdrawal power from our rules than the author. I'm obviously referring to this, but especially this one, which will be covered with  Opposes for a 10 days waiting period on FPC until it will get removed from the view of everyone... Any thoughts? --S23678 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No way. This looks like the start of another slippery slope. Something is released under CC, it can be used for any purpose, period. I can take a CC picture and use it for war propaganda, in a porn movie, on a poster for the Nazi Party of America, and for many more unpleasant purposes. And, of course, I can also take a CC picture, upload it on Commons and nominate it wherever I choose. I don't even have to tell the author, much less request permission, and there is nothing the author can do about it. This is what CC is about. CC is one of the pillars of Commons, and it would be terrible to somehow introduce more author rights on Commons than the license requires. If an author doesn't like that, he or she is welcome to release under a different license. In fact, any complaining from the author about any use of a CC-licensed work (as has been done here) shows complete ignorance of the idea behind CC. And we really shouldn't cater to ignorants.
I do agree, though, that withdrawing shouldn't be possible for the nominator, either. What harm is done by letting a nomination run until the end of the voting period? -- JovanCormac 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes way! We are not here to make contributors feel miserable. It is a matter of courtesy to respect their wishes. This is no slippery slope and does not set any precedent. Extensive wikilawyering is completely inappropriate here. --Dschwen (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What's next, image authors being allowed to decide if their pictures can be used in "controversial" Wikipedia articles or not? Do you honestly not see how dangerous such a move is? -- JovanCormac 06:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • @Jovan, I believe you are mistaken. If a nominator has the right to withdraw the image, the image's creator should have the smae right. If anybody could FPX the nomination, surely nothing bad will happen, if the author wihtdraws it.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with S23678, Dschwen and Mbz1 here. Of course the author cannot legally demand that his work is not being used for any purpose, but in my opinion it is a matter of courtesy and of respect to follow his wish in particular if all that you need to give up for it is a possible (in this case extremely unlikely) FP status.
By not respecting the authorship anymore once it has been released under CC you will achieve only one thing: Just discouraging people from releasing more of their work. Great job of keeping up the CC idea! -- H005 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should show courtesy to the contributors, I see no point in beeing über strict about the licensing here. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Über strict? What the hell??? Say I'm an image author, releasing under CC, but I feel offended if my images are used in any Wikipedia articles related to sexuality. Will you honor that wish in order to not "discourage" me? I sure hope not. Let's not even start with that nonsense! -- JovanCormac 07:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • FPC is a "meta"-page. There is a clear difference between that and usage in an article. FPC is in part a project for the contributors. Why should we pervert the motivational character into making people feel uncomfortable? --Dschwen (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the author doesn't think that their piece is worthy of being FP, and you can't convince them to the contrary (and of course, if no one else thinks the picture is up to scratch) then I can't see a problem with honouring that request. The same thing happened to me here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose to replace General Rule Number 6 from this :

  • Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

to this :

  • Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

 Info Voting is to end at 21:29, 8 November 2009

Unless the author has released it to the public domain, they still 'own' the image. They are the only person who can issue new licenses for their work. They still own the "copyright", they have asserted their right as the owner by issuing a license for everyone to use it under particular conditions. They certainly have the moral 'right' to ask it not be used in certain ways, but they have no way to enforce that request. As you say, the request would be honoured as a courtesy to the author. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't quite seem to be going with the wiki spirit - anybody can participate, there are not second class users from 'out there'! :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose and objection to procedure This proposal calls for a rule that gives image authors more rights than the license they chose themselves requires. That is so obviously contrary to Wikimedia's spirit that it would be preposterous to even attempt to decide it here. This is at least a matter for the Village pump, and probably for Meta or even the Foundation itself. What's next, giving image authors the right do decide which Wikipedia articles their images can be used on? -- JovanCormac 06:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Per arguments above. MadGeographer (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as per my arguments above. -- H005 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Petritap (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think that any author of content would agree with the "doesn't concern them" comment. Commons wants to encourage CC-BY-SA content, not discourage it. Negative interactions with the project are not going to help that cause. The author of the example posted has stopped sharing those photos on flickr. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not giving authors any additional legal rights. Evaluations or competitions can still be done on those images by any other project that wants to. We are just saying that we as a project will not run such an evaluation of their image against their wishes. There are plenty of things that we are allowed under CC-by-SA that we do not do. 99of9 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? I wasn't aware of that. Could you give an example for your last point? -- JovanCormac 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      • We as a project do not sell printed images commercially, though we could according to the licence. Our users may well do this, but our project does not. 99of9 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That is not a good example, since it is about something we don't do (for the simple reason that it's not the project's focus), while the proposal asks for an active limitation of what the license permits. -- JovanCormac 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Au contraire, this is a perfectly fine example. Just because the license gives us some rights does not mean that we have to exercise them all. We are not weakening the free license, we are just choosing not to take full "advantage" of it just to humiliate and anger our valued contributors. --Dschwen (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Semantics and weak reasoning, Daniel, and you know it! Just because the license gives you certain rights it means that you may exercise them any time you want. No need to be a lawyer to understand this. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
            • That is entirely besides the point. Yes, you may exercise them any time you want, but what I am saying is: We should not want to exercise them if it makes people sad :'-(. Jovan wants to take that freedom - the choice to be nice to people - from us. Well, ok, take it with a grain of salt ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I beg to differ - if an author believes that there is a possible use of his/her image that might hurt his/her feelings, he or she is very stupid indeed to release it under a license that permits any use! Complaining afterwards about a use when they themselves chose to license the image for any use seems quite ridiculous. -- JovanCormac 10:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
                • I agree with you both. The author has made a mistake to release it under conditions that leave them vulnerable to hurt. They request that we stop. Now the question is: Is leaving the nomination up sufficiently important to continue to hurt them? I say no. Another project may decide to, but I don't think Commons should. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • Uhm, we probably don't want to call this a mistake. After all without these mistakes there would be no Commons. So, yes, releasing an image under a free license as a donation is sacrifice, a sacrifice we should be grateful for to all our contributors. Do we want to make the sacrifice more painful than it has to be? I say no. --Dschwen (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • I'm not calling every donation or sacrifice a mistake. But for those who feel that criticism is too heavy to bear, they should probably have guarded themselves better. 99of9 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                      • What does licensing have to do with criticism anyway? Uploading an image to Flickr as -NC wouldn't stop me getting criticism from random people, the only way to avoid that is to not share the image in the first place. It does prevent me receiving criticism from here, but that's a different question.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Unquestionably. Reviewing the above I see no reason at all to irritate people by sticking rigidly to some rule. --Herby talk thyme 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support what ever the result of this the author(copyright holder) has moral rights even under a free license so if the person so chooses then an image can be withdrawn Gnangarra 05:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support If the creator of a freely licensed image doesn't want criticism, why should they be forced to accept it? Refusing to honour a request to withdraw is potentially harmful to the project, as it could drive away a contributor or make that person switch to non-free licensing to avoid this place. Actively encouraging ([10], [11]) photographers to switch to non-free licensing, merely so that they can avoid criticism here, is outright harmful to the goals of the Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support –blurpeace (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Results : 17 support, 3 opposes --> proposition adopted --S23678 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Proposition

I propose to remove General Rule Number 6, which currently reads:

  • Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

No harm is done by letting a nomination run its course.

 Info Voting is to end at 06:51, 9 November 2009 --S23678 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  •  Support -- JovanCormac 06:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As long as a reviewer has the right to FPX nomination, both the nominator and the creator should have the right to withdraw it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - On the light of Commons' general rules, I really can't see any other legitimate solution because the author has exactly the same rights over his pictures as any other user. Suppose now that a picture is nominated for delisting. According to the same principle, the author should have the power to withdraw the nomination, which is ridiculous. The FPX argument is also a falacy, as the template can be removed by any user. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
@Alves, you have missed one important rule: "FPX template can be removed by any user, but the nominator". That's why the nominator, who usually is the creator, should have some rights too. Besides I am really not sure what a big deal. No nominator will withdraw the passing image. On the other hand, if the image is not passing and an image creator got enough of opposes, why not to let him to withdraw? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Rules and voting seems to be a great pass-time :-). It is not as though FP is a fundamental part of wikimedia and the whole thing will crumble around our ears if some image does not become featured. I agree with many points made on both sides - people can't demand to remove the nomination, but on the other hand it is a courtesy to the nominator/author to have a nomination withdrawn on request. Just treat {{Withdraw}} as a humble request by the user (nominator or author) to remove the image from consideration. As noted above people seldom (never?) withdraw something that is obviously going to pass. The {{Withdraw}} is like the {{Fpx}} in that both are essentially to avoid long drawn out voting on images unlikely to pass. {{Withdraw}} is also often used when a problem/fault with the image becomes apparent, and the nominator/author wishes to have time to fix the problem, then resubmit later. In short the {{Withdraw}} function just keeps FPC moving along smoothly and saves wasting peoples time.
  • If it should ever happen that an author wants to remove an image which is obviously about to become featured, then we ought to find out what the problem is, and perhaps suggest that the author puts in a deletion request for their image - if the decision is to keep (we can not be persuaded to delete the image on the basis of licensing problems or as a courtesy to the author) and the community wants to feature it then so be it (a deletion request normally stops an FP nomination in its tracks anyway, maybe authors should be encouraged to use that rather than attempt a {{Withdraw}} as they obviously don't understand the license.) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't see a problem with withdrawals. -- H005 17:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I support the proposal above. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If you really don't like a nominator withdrawing an image, just nominate it yourself afterward. 99of9 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose –Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Neutral there are moral rights of the author which are applicable even under a free license such that we can be compelled to comply with the request irregardless of the process rules. Gnangarra 05:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support While their certainly are instances under which it would be necessary to withdraw a nomination, "under any time" simply allows too much. For example, there have been a number of instances (for which I could provide links and diffs, if I had the time) where the withdrawal of a nomination was simply made by a user with hurt feelings (in response to criticism, etc.). The current rule is not very reasonable, imo. Unless it is necessary to withdraw a nomination (i.e. licensing reasons), it shouldn't be withdrawn, since then, as 99of9 said, another user could simply renominate it afterwards, which would make the original withdrawal redundant. Anrie (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, obviously. I'm not to fond of instruction creep and all for common sense, but sadly wikilawyering seems to make it necessary to have clear rules. --Dschwen (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Results : 3 support, 6 opposes --> proposition rejected --S23678 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Features

Would it be possible for someone more adroit with code than myself to do the following two things?

1) Add the clock from POTD to the top of FPC? It will help those of us not on server time to keep track of nomination finishing times.

  • I don't know how to do that, but in the mean time, you can use the UTCLiveClock gadget from the Gadget tab, in "preferences" (not sure it's the good English word, it's written "préférences" in French for me). --S23678 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

2) Create an automatic counter for Featured Pictures? It's been sitting on 1772 for the entire time I've been here, and I'm pretty sure we haven't delisted as many pictures as we've promoted.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove "no downsampling" requirement from the guidelines (proposition)

I believe those two should be illuminated from the guidelines:
  • Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
  • Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.
My reasoning are:
  1. It is impossible to enforce (in case of cropped images and panoramas). What the purpose in keeping the rule that cannot be enforced?
  2. That statement "Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file" does not apply to all images. For example that fogbow of mine File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg will not suffer and/or benefit neither from downsampling nor from full resolution.
  3. Some readers (rather many) are not able to view big resolution images because of slow connection.
  4. If the rule is enforced somehow, (and I do not believe it could be enforced) FP could, and probably will loose many rare, high EV images.
  5. This rule will never be fair. Even now between current nominations while some of the images are getting opposed for downsampling, the others are not, just the opposite.
    Would the inability to convict every criminal be reason to abandon the laws entirely? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
My last argument (#5) was not about criminals (like me, who downsample images :) ), it was about the judges, who should always be fair and balanced :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
But not as in fair and balanced, but really fair and balanced ;). Yeah. That would be great. Still, having the rule is more benefical for commons than removing it. IMO. --Dschwen (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh my English :). I meant removing the guideline. I see you have a different opinion :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess you meant "eliminated". :-) -- H005 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As stated below --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per S23678's points. Plus it is a mystery to me why people keep repeating that downsampling improves the picture quality. It doesn't, plain and simple. --Dschwen (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think we need an easier way for low bandwidth consumers to view images. Preferably a bunch of different resolution links from the summary page of each image. I'd also be open to reviewing each image at some kind of standard resolution. But apart from these issues, I don't see any reason for downsampling since it may well prevent some applications of the work. --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as per SS23678 -- H005 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Arguments

This debate is almost ideological, so, I'm not trying to convince you Mila of my point of view, but I just want to offer a counter-argument to your points.

  1. "Impossible to enforce. It's very easy to enforce, just by asking people to upload an original, untouched version of their image. Crop and downsampling would be easy to detect. I did it for my last nomination.
  2. "Full resolution does not have benefits to all images". Where's the limit? Until where should we downsample, if the goal is only to illustrate a phenomenon. Let's not play with "how small is not too small" and simply ask for full resolution versions (especially since it's already available straight out of the camera!)
  3. "Some readers have slow internet connexion". These readers can use the wiki to view downsampled versions. Too simple.
  4. "We may loose rare images". As these are just guidelines, we can do exceptions if there's strong mitigating reason. But for images downsampled directly from the nominator to artificially raise quality, it should not be accepted. --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I am very sure that you cannot force people to upload originals. Please remember that while I, for example, downsample some of my images to hide quality issues :(, others downsample them because they are selling high resolution ones. If we are to force them to upload originals, they will simply leave Commons. Besides uploading the originals will create lots of extra work, and would take lots of extra space.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately we cannot force anyone to upload anything here. We can only make commons a high-quality high-profile site by encouraging the contribution of high-quality content. Keep in mind that this page is about FPs. It has nothing to do with what is uploaded or not, but with rewarding what is uploaded. People can upload what they want, but we should reward those that contribute the highest quality material. And downsampled images are not the highest quality material. --Dschwen (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Not force people, but strongly suggest would probably incline a majority towards doing it. As for extra work, outside the download time, it barely takes 2 minutes to upload a different version of a file. As for extra space, server space is well used if it's fulfilling Commons goals. Aiming for better FP is well used server space. Finally, for people selling pictures... this is very personal, but I'm participating in Common because I think giving my pictures to such a cause is more fulfilling than making money with them. I think you can either have money, or recognition by peers on Commons... but requesting the standards to be lowered to have the 2 at the same time.. I personally don't like. "Tu peut pas avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You forgot about panorama shots. And what about uploads from Flickr and other sources like US Goverement for example. Would you ask them for originals too? Let be reasonable! Anyway why don't you open the voting for your proposition to ask the people to upload the originals, and let us see how that voting will go :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not aiming at making it mandatory, and I don't think a vote in favour of that would pass. But downsampling can be verified by asking the author to upload an original frame if we think there was a downsample, making it possible to enforce. For images from outside commons, I think we should raise our standards and accept downsampled versions only with strong mitigating reasons. --S23678 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen and Mbz1 make very good points. Durova (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines clarification

The guideline text is quite clear about not downsampling, but the image next to it is sending quite a contradictory message, since it's downsampled...! I'd like to put a full resolution FP to be used as an example. Any thoughts about that?

Depends...who are you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Oups But does it really matters who I am? --S23678 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

temporary bot downtime

The bot will be down until sunday evening as I a have no access until then. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

proposal for a JPEG quality bot

I noticed that in the featured pictures process there are often discussions about JPG artifacts (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3). Many users cannot tell JPG artifacts apart from image noise or grain so there are plenty of mislead discussions going on. And if the compression is really too high and the author has left Wikimedia we can't do anything anymore.

On the other hand there would be the technical possibility to check the compression level either while uploading the image or at nomination for FP with a tool like JPEG Snoop]. Now I'm a photographer and not a programmer so I'm unable to implement such a tool. But others may be. Do you think this is a useful idea? --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The JPG quality setting of the compressor is (as far as I know) not included in the JPG file. However it would be rather simple to calculate a compression factor form the number of pixels and the filesize, both of which are stored in the database. My fear is that such a calculation, especially when targeted at the FPC audience, would do more harm than good. The values will be misleading for most people. It is not possible for a stupid computer to determine if a particular compression level is suitable for a given image. The computer simply does not know how much detail the image had in the first place and how much of that was thus lost in the compression process. I guess we'd see pseudo-educated opposes based on "oh, this image has a compression ratio of 40:1. Anything above 5:1 is bad for JPGs", which of course is utter nonsense. It might be possible by careful analysis of the spatial frequencies in the cosine-transformed JPG-chunks, to make an estimate (try and see if there is high frequency clipping, or if the higher frequencies gradually decline in the data), but this might depend a _lot_ on the actual image data and even on the compression algorithm. This is a bit of a pet-peeve for me. A few years ago I tried to come up with an raw-JPG-data-based analysis method to detect unsharp and shaky images very fast (I often shoot series in bad lighting conditions, and finding the one good shot is tedious). But effects like noise (high frequency) killed my initial approach (looking at the directional frequency distribution in the image). --Dschwen (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention one could just recompresses a low quality image with a 95% (or more) quality indicator to bypass this possible measure. Esby (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the interest is close to zero. I just like to restate the algorithm is already implemented and working (in JPGSnoop). And recompressing the image at higher quality would be very obvious on a Wiki with version control. --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Set Nomination

I am planning on nominating these four images as a set. I consider them all to be worthy of FP status, and since they all depict the same squadron doing various manoeuvres, a set nomination appears to be in order. Any comments, advice, critiques etc are most welcome. If all goes to plan, I will nominate them in 5 days. Speak now, or forever hold your peace. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re-uploading them under shorter filenames before nominating would be a good idea. Wolf (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh please do. There's a set I've meant to nominate and haven't gotten around to digging for the multi nom. format. Will nick yours. ;) Cheers, Durova (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Just note that the bot does not know anything about sets. Thus it would have to be closed manually unless you make separate candidates for each image. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm happy to do that. It'll be a bit of work, but worth it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: Set is up, and ready for voting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The FPC bar has lowered?

For lack of time, I'm no longer reviewing or paying much attention to FPC. But feel a bit surprised on how easy it is now to have a picture promoted (including mine, a couple of days ago). Have the overall quality and value (and 'wow') really improved so much in so short time? Hard to beileve. But even if it were true, then we should raise the bar to go with the improvement. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Apparently everybody is happy with the status quo. Fair enough. I always defended that one of the main reasons for keeping FPC is the stimulus for creators and nominators. But that will work only while nominating a picture is a chalenge. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I haven't been here long, but I've seen some fairly poor quality FPs from the past (some which have been kicked out now), so the bar isn't at a long-term low. One low-bar oddity that strikes me is that the historical restoration guidelines don't seem to require WOW, which I personally would still factor in. --99of9 (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest that things are a little quiet on the discussion front due to Christmas being rather close. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Quality improved a lot in the last three years or so due to better and cheaper equipment and also to a more or less continuous flood of new talents. So, the comparison between the candidates of today and yesterday's FP's is not entirely fair. It is also a useless and ugly thing, IMO, to delist past FPs, except in the rare cases of obviously flawed judgements. As for historical pictures, their sucess rate has always be higher than all other types of images (can't understand why, either). But there is no such thing as 'promoting a restoring job': see harsh discussion on this somewhere, some months ago. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually Commons FPC is a hard place for historical featured pictures. I have 80 featured credits here, versus 271 featured picture credits at en:wiki (and 90 on tr:wiki). Reviewers aren't easy on candidates; it's self-screening. Durova (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar, you asked if the quality (etc) has really improved so much, but now you say comparison with the past is unfair? I don't understand, are you talking about different timescales? --99of9 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that we should not evaluate the candidates of today based on the quality of past FPs, for the reasons given above. Mutatis mutandis, we should not try to apply today's standards to the FPs of the past, exactly for the same reason. Delistings are useless and help to kill the FP story. The bottom line is that we should raise the bar, to go with the general quality improvement, but only apply it to new candidates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing in principle that standards should rise over time (especially as technology improves), yet project archival purposes would be adequately served by a "former featured pictures" category. Durova (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly, Durova. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
We already have that: Category:Formerly featured pictures --Slaunger (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Set guidelines

I think we should write guidelines for evaluating sets. The current nomination has obviously prompted me, but we probably won't have a resolution in time for it. Feel free to edit the draft text below, it is provided just to prompt discussion. 99of9 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Set nominations
If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.
  • Isn't it worrying that (if the bar is lower for an image in a set) one might sneak in images that are not really up to the standards of our other featured images. Aren't they categorized like normal featured images ? I think we should not lower the bar anywhere. A set nomination should fail even if only one of them would fail a standard nomination. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The instance I'm aware of valued completeness highly enough to accept a least one sub-wow image, the fourth in the following set is primarily blank space! Set_Candidate_-_Henry_Holiday's_Illustrations_to_Lewis_Carroll's_"The_Hunting_of_the_Snark". Hence I drafted the wording to be consistent with the community consensus in that candidacy. I didn't vote in that one, but I agree with the voters that a small discount seems reasonable if the set itself is more valuable complete. To stop really bad images getting up, I added the condition that all must be of high technical quality (which is possible even for the dull subjects). --99of9 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone? --99of9 (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it seems reasonable. Daniel makes a good point that all images within a set ought to be high quality, although a little flexibility may be a good idea. Reasonable exceptions could include historic artworks produced in a series where portions of the series were irreparably damaged, yet the series itself is important. Durova (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

POTY 2009

  • A discussion is taking place here about the preparation of POTY 2009. Only a very limited number of users are participating and I fear that some of the proposed solutions (one of them being that any picture can be nominated to the contest) will not reflect the general consensus of the community. In my opinion this is a too important event to be left to the initiative and opinions of so few. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation for restored featured pictures

Have added the following text to criteria (which is really necessary and I had thought was already there):

"Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison."

Our desire to improve files needs to be balanced against respect for the provenance of historic material. Durova (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The change makes good sense for me. A recent FPC which did not have these cross-links were promoted with 13 supports, 3 oppooses despite the fact that you had clearly stated this lack of cross-linking as your personal oppose reason. It seems like this argument did not change the opinion of other reviewers, which might indicate that most COM:FPC reviewers here do not emphasize it as much as you do. Considering this, I would personally have seeked consensus for the change here before just changing it in the guidelines as you have done. Interestingly, that FPC had been nominated twice before but the lack of cross-linking was not mentioned by any of the reviewers then too. --Slaunger (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Only two of those 13 supports were after Durova's oppose, so I'm not sure how much that says about consensus. I'm personally happy to accept her change to the guidelines. --99of9 (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some may not have noticed, others may have found it an insignificant detail. Therefore best to gauge the opinion before changing. --Slaunger (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This is why it's better to have individual discussions than omnibus straw polls. This type of documentation--and whether or not we do it--has been a factor in museum negotiations. Institutions have said "yes" or "no" to requests for media donations specifically because of whether or not they believed our documentation practices were adequate. Durova (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly favour this change and I agree that provenance is the important aspect both for us and for GLAM's why this is an important improvement. GerardM (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 Question I have a question about a detail in the added text. In this FPC of a LOC photo you argue that the nominated picture is "completely undocumented" albeit it has a link to the original source and it is stated what the modifications to the original are in the file page. I see it fails your added requirement that the original should have been uploaded to Commons, whereas the FPC only links to the LOC using a unique id. Although I can appreciate that it is nice to have the original uploaded as another version which you can click on immediately to see for comparison, are there other reasons for requiring that it is uploaded instead of linked to (fewer clicks)? At first sight it sems more like a nice-to-have than a need-to-have, but I may be missing a vital point here. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Concern over effective delisting of image

I am concerned that a single user appears to have decided to effectively delist an image without consensus.

Kallerna's edit here removes this image after a delisting request here failed.

It seems to me that Kallerna is acting as judge jury and executioner here in the absence of consensus. This is not my image but I feel that anyone might have their images effectively delisted in such a way and so should be concerned about this matter. I would appreciate comments, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It failed, because no one voted... + "This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. Please note that this is not the same thing as the picture of the day." —kallerna™ 12:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
POTD is different to FP. He has not removed its FP status. We get more than 365 FPs per year, so I think it acceptable to be a bit selective when choosing POTDs. I'm not sure who should do the selection, but the POTD pages certainly have "change image" quite prominently. --99of9 (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
My words were effective delisting which is what has happened. Kallerna says that he feels it is not of FP standard and has removed it from being featured. The uploader was unaware and is not happy (as I would not be). The fact that there were no votes on the delist means the community did not want to delist it. --Herby talk thyme 12:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I haven't removed it from being featured, haven't I? IMO the fact that there were no votes meant that no one saw the nomination, otherwise somebody would have voted "Keep". But that is irrelevant to the question, this is not about the picture being featured, this about POTDs. EDIT: And that's why this whole conversation is on wrong talkpage. —kallerna™ 15:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Is that comment elegant? —kallerna™ 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
As elegant as your actions here. So - I apologise for my comment & you...? --Herby talk thyme 15:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I have apologised my actions, but I still think, that because we get more than 365 FPs per year, we can choose only the best FPs to be POTDs. Don't you think so? —kallerna™ 15:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I have not seen any apology - where is it? And, if you are apologising for having got it wrong, I take it you will revert your actions.
I certainly think we should have the best FP as POTD. However once listed and when a delist proposal fails I do not consider they should be removed I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
"However once listed and when a delist proposal fails I do not consider they should be removed" - FP and POTD aren't the same as far as I know. Yes, I don't think that that picture is still good enough to be FP, but because the delist proposal failed, I can't do anything. It is FP and it will be in future FP. But IMO it isn't the best FP of ours, so we shouldn't but it on frontpage. —kallerna™ 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
OK - I still do not see the apology & given that the fact that you will revert your actions.
I understand the differences between FP & POTD (& this maybe should have been on another page - however that does not change the subject). Your personal view that it is not good enough is not good enough for me once the image has been scheduled to be featured I'm afraid. I understand what you are saying but this is only your opinion as the delist failed. I cannot help the fact that no one considered you correct there but they did not. Other images are delisted, this one was not and was already scheduled for POTD. In the circumstances I do not consider one person's view enough to remove it. --Herby talk thyme 16:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know if it's going to be POTD, but then I saw it there, and I felt like I should do something. What should I have done? Why is then one person's view enough to add it? —kallerna™ 16:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That "apology" did not sound too convincing, and it was not an apology to me.
Is there any good reason why the double-tongued snake should not be a POTD? Or is all this just about arcane FP processes that I cannot bring myself to get concerned about? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC) I somehow had not written "not" /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No reason at all why it should not be featured and it will be. Please read the thread properly if you wish to contribute as all the necessary information is above. Then you can contribute on the basis of knowledge. --Herby talk thyme 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It was a public apology - not sure what else you think might be appropriate?
Maybe you should review your English or check the thread properly. The discussion is not about the snake image... --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Unless I have this quite wrong any FP image may be a POTD. So, once it is an FP, it is fine to place it on POTD? Assuming I have that correct then it is the removal on one opinion that I see as wrong. You tried a delist which is fine but it did not succeed so the image gets to stay and FP and, because it was already scheduled, a POTD in my view.

I have not reverted you however I think that the image should still be featured once it is booked. please point me to your apology. --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was already scheduled to be a POTD. I just think that POTD is only for the best FP's - the picture needs to be FP and that is the only thing that FP and POTD share. —kallerna™ 16:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
You stated above that you had apologised meaning you accept you are wrong. Where? Also if you are sorry then we can revert this.
You did know it was scheduled - you changed the page it was scheduled on. --Herby talk thyme 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry about how I did it, but I don't think I was wrong. I didn't know it was scheduled to be a POTD when I made delisting nomination. —kallerna™ 17:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Herby and Alves, dear friends. With all due respect I think you are overreacting a little here...

  • Yes, the image was nominated for delisting by kallerna. No votes were given, so the delist failed. And the picture is still featured, as it still has the FP template on its file page. It may be so, Alves, that you do not personally agree with the delist process we have, but it is there due to an overall consensus among the community, so if a user nominates a photo for delisting I do not think it is fair to flame that user for doing so. Any user is entitled to do so. If you want to change it, you should seek community consensus for changing the delisting process.
  • The POTD process is entirely different. Guidelines are very sparse, and there is an increasing problem with POTD, that the pool of FPs to choose from is increasing. It is nowhere stated in those sparse guidelines that it is prohibited to change an existing nomination. One could actually say that it is encourages if a change would lead to a better spread of subjects over a sequence of days, e.g., avoid the dreaded seven anthropods-in-a-row. In fact every image which has been inserted also has a "change" link. Given that I would assume good faith in the given situation, as kallerna has not broken any written down rules. With the increasing pool of FPs to choose from, it is now perhaps the time to get more elaborate guidelines.
  • Having said that, the edit summary "IMO not good enough to be POTD nowadays" is not very tactful, and I certainly think there should be substantial reasons for changing a POTD once we have gotten to the point that translations have been added for severela languages. At that stage, I think we are getting close to obstructing the process.

--Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No drama or offense taken (and no overreaction, for sure). Just the conviction that replacing a picture in the POTD list because of a personnal opinion on its demerit is not a sound practise (and should be reverted). As for the high number of FPs in the stack I have taken the initiative, for at least twice, of proposing harsher promoting rules. With no success, as some may remember. If overall quality is improving and there are too many promotions all we (you) have to do is to make them a bit more difficult so that the proccess still remains a challenge -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting, are you saying that the FP-promotion-rate should equal roughly 365 per year to service POTD only? I am of the opinion that the two are somewhat distinct, and that it's perfectly ok to have more FP than POTD, even in the long term. For POTD, ideally I would prefer to choose from a large pool of FPs, and often choose something that is relevant to the date or current events. That is why most of my POTD nominations have been quite far in advance. Although I understand that we do not have enough FPs to always do that at the moment. (I also realise that this is slightly off-topic because neither the flower-insect nor the lizard had much temporal relevance). --99of9 (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • On topic. Regarding changing an already-allocated POTD, I personally don't think that I would do it, so I understand where you're coming from. But I believe according to current guidelines kallerna has the right to do so if he feels it is not as good as another image for POTD. A single user's "personal opinion" is what got it selected from amongst the many available FPs in the first place, so it seems to me that a single other user's opinion is roughly equal for a replacement. Bold, revert, discuss, right? I guess this discussion here is how we formulate a selection/replacement policy. But really it should not be about censuring kallerna, since he acted within the (limited) guidelines. --99of9 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Glad you are not offended Joaquim. May I come up with a compromise solution: How about you adding the hoverfly image on another day instead of just reverting. (Because reverting now would destroy some translations). Although I do not think there is a an official international "Hoverfly day", maybe you can add it on a day of year which matches the day it was actually taken? Then it matches the season at least. And then, Kallerna, be so kind not to remove it again? --Slaunger (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Concerning the bar, I would like to raise it as well. There is a clear difference in the quality of the images that gets promoted. The best are just way better than those that just scrape though. For instance, to my surprise, I recently got this photo promoted, which is basically a point and shoot by steppng out of my car on an occasion with good winter light. Anyone with a decent camera could have done that. Producing something like this on the other hand is something which requires much more skill. It is just in an entirely different league. I really think we should only feature the best of the best. Some of our promoted FPs are laughable (my own included) as compared to the best images on other image sites, like flickr. The bar should not be raised so high though that POTD cannot be feeded, so an influx of 1 FP/day in average sets a maximum limit for the bar. But as Joaquim also notes raising the bar does not seem to be what a majority of the regulars want, and we just have to accept that. --Slaunger (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the manner in which 99of9 has inserted POTDs is good examples of the right way to do it; to find some connection between the subject and a given day. I think that maybe this aspect of nominating photos for POTD should be emphasized more in the "thin" guideline. I also think that this could be mentioned as a valid reason for changing a POTD to another one would be that the new photo fits better on the specific day. Late changes ruining several translation should be discouraged though. Images from recent or historic events should for instance preferably be placed on on the day the event happened. A landscape photo from a given country may be well suited for placement on the national day of that country, region, etc. Nature shots could be presented on the same day of the year when it was taken. I think this occasion would be a good oppertunity to add some details of this kind to the POTD guidelines. --Slaunger (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it should be acceptable to change POTDs for a number of reasons (such as to avoid too many similar subjects in a short space of time, to insert one with temporal relevance and so on). I'd say with both nature and landscape shots, try to get them close to the time photo was taken but maybe not on the exact day as that may be too limiting as the time-of-year relevance isn't that precise. National days may or may not be appropriate, a shot of DC in the snow wouldn't really be appropriate for July 4. One additional selection criterion I would like is a preference for illustrating the work of Commons users as opposed to that of others, though we shouldn't exclude those entirely and miss out on all the NASA images.
  • As for the specific image in question here, and the whole concept for changing an image similar to replace with a better one (in editors opinion), in principle I don't have an objection provided the change is done somewhat in advance of the POTD date and provided a number of translations haven't been already provided. Once those arbitrary numbers have been exceeded only allow changes for a specific reason, such as temporal significance. My concern with the hoverfly image, is in addition to changing the image Kallerna deleted 11 translations leaving only the English. Only 6 translations have since been provided for the snake, which is exactly why that sort of action should be discouraged by the guidelines. My suggestion here would be to move the snake to another date and then restore the hoverfly (administratively simpler than moving the hoverfly).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Agree with Nilfanion. If it is administratively simpler to revert, than to keep the snake, then let us do that. --Slaunger (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
    Short on time at present but Slaunger suggestion seems perfectly reasonable to me & thanks for the input. --Herby talk thyme 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I've reverted Kallerna's edit and put the hoverfly back at 02-21. I've moved the snake to 04-24 (which was first free day). I've also moved/restored all translations as appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nilfanion. I have adjusted an extended the instructions for inclusion quite a bit as a followup on this. It is a rather big change I have made, but I hope you agree with the intention behind. I am not the best at writing concise and precise English, so feel free to adjust, tighten, improve as you please. Of course, if you totally disagree with the change I will take no offense if it is reverted either. In that case let us just discuss what to do. --Slaunger (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_8&oldid=708170912"