This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Everyone is allowed to nominate - under small conditions. So it depends on who nominates which pictures. There are a lot of photographers from the European region.--XRay💬07:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, this is a great question, one that is perhaps relevant to Commons as a whole and not only FPC. When it comes to photography, there seems to be two big AI buckets:
1. AI tools that enhance or upscale existing images (e.g., Topaz AI, DXO DeepPrime, Adobe's recent AI Denoise, the Stable Diffusion upscaler Cart mentioned)
2. AI tools that create images from scratch (e.g., OpenAI DALL-E, Midjourney)
My knee-jerk reaction is that bucket #1 is acceptable for Commons (and already quite commonplace), but that #2 is problematic if not clearly disclosed. Much like photography contests today, I fear that we'll soon find out that we're woefully ill equipped to detect AI generated images. Perhaps joining something like Adobe's Content Authenticity Initiative is an option? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Not all of #1; I wouldn't want wholesale upscaling of an image by 2x, because it's just inventing details that don't exist for no apparent reason. I'm fine with patching, e.g. if a corner of a panorama needs to be filled in, or if a building is photographed with massive distortion and the top of the building needs to be upscaled to match the bottom of the building. That is, I'm OK with using AI to invent details in part of an image so long as doing so is necessary to allow real details in some other part of the image to be shown at 100%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
These things are evolving at a breakneck speed, is a broader discussion about how to deal with AI in Commons already happening somewhere? If not, what would be the best place to start it?
I go through prouctive and slow periods, and, honestly, the biggest reason to keep up on them is because it's a pain to promote them here after they've been through en-wiki's process, because of the promotion bugs.
So, if anyone wants them, these are the ones I haven't nominated yet. The first two have has been through en-wiki, so no real rush with them. Tonené I nominated on en-wiki yesterday, so still time.
I'm not sure whether this kind of message in the talk page of FPC is a good idea. I've dozens of images that, I believe, can be considered FP. Should I post them hier? or should we just live with it (my proposal)? Poco a poco (talk) 11:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Eh, fix the bug where nominating things after they pass English Wikipedia FPC breaks Commons promotion and we can talk. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Just for your information, the Wikipedias and Wikimedia Commons are different projects. The rules for excellent images differ as well. --XRay💬06:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
FPCBot has a bug regarding promotion tag if image has already been featured in some other wiki, see this for more detailed explanation. MZaplotnik(talk)07:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Aye, that's the big issue I have. I have slow periods and fast periods, but if everything passes En-wiki FPC in the fast periods, nominating things on Commons in the slow periods gets hit with that bug. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
A part of the Featuring and delisting rules says that a picture can be featured if, "At least seven Support votes (or 7 Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days." The qualification confuses me, as I don't understand if they include the nominator's vote or not. Can someone elaborate? Thanks. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Good question (and sorry for being late). My poor understandig was that the user in question is unblocked and therefore welcome again. But I am no expert. @A.Savin: I’m sorry to bother you, but you are a sockpuppets expert. What’s your judgement on this case? Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
In theory you may launch more than one account, if you don't use them for abuse such as multiple votes on FPC... I'm not familiar at all with Максим Огородник's context, just seeing that despite the sockpuppet category he is currently not blocked on any wiki, and this discussion seems to be about a vote with his main account. The Category:Sockpuppets of Максим Огородник was created in 2019 by Микола Василечко, and it seems also that in 2018 Ymblanter first blocked him indef, then in 2021 unblocked him for some reason. So it's actually quite possible that Максим Огородник is no longer a sockpuppeteer today, that said, he may vote on FPC or elsewhere. --A.Savin13:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, my name is 20 upper, and on June 15th, I started my FP journey. It's been more than four months, and I feel like things need to change. So here is what I suggest:
Per others
It simply demonstrates that someone arrived late to a nomination and observed that the majority of voters either supported or opposed the nomination in question. It's as if a football fan bets for a game, let's say between Manchester City and Tottenham, and 76% of bets went in favor of City, not even considering the possibilities, the fan bet on City to win because everybody was doing it, it just demonstrates that the FP reviewer spent more time looking at other people's votes than the image itself. +1 should never be cast in opposition. I've seen that FPC is rife with propaganda, and I think it should stop right away.
Oppose votes
FP regulars seem to be biased in that they treat opposing votes very lightly. If regulars don't like a seasoned professional's nomination, they'll be looking for ways to rectify it or they'll just ignore it, as you've probably noticed how reticent people are to reject their nominations compared to editors who are far less productive like myself. Therefore, I propose that we create a new rule mandating that votes cast in opposition be 10 words or longer, yes, 10 words or longer—not letters—because that is the appropriate level of seriousness. Opposition votes are difficult and need to be handled carefully.
Delisting nominations
In delisting nominations, all participating users must provide a justification for their decision to vote "keep" or "delist". This is similar to a deletion request, but with a lot more reviewers, therefore a justification is required. Simply voting does not assist much because it only takes up space and does nothing to advance the nomination. Imagine the pain of having a featured picture delisted, thus we need to ensure the procedure is of the highest quality. It's encouraged that each user comes up with their own distinctive reasoning.
I welcome your enthusiasm, but urge you to further develop your suggestions before presenting them. FPC has evolved for nearly 20 years, and meaningful changes will likely require more than a few loose ideas sketched over a couple of hours. Here's my brief feedback on your suggestions, which hopefully will be useful as you explore them further:
Per others: why is FPC "rife with propaganda", and how does that relate to using the "Per others" and "+1" abbreviations?
Oppose votes: I believe there's some truth to the fact that reviewers are more likely to oppose newcomers than seasoned participants, but how does a minimum word limit on opposing votes ameliorate that?
Delisting nominations: in a delisting nomination (or any nomination, for that matter), why does "simply voting" only "take up space"? Isn't voting the prime reason for FPC? Apart from limiting the number of potential reviewers, what would be the benefit of encouraging distinctive reasonings?
@Julesvernex2: how does that relate to using the "Per others" and "+1" abbreviations? If you've been voting long enough, you'll understand.
Isn't voting the prime reason for FPC? Yes, voting is the main reason for FP, but just voting demonstrates that a person's vote isn't valuable and it demonstrates their ignorance of what an FP should be, making them poor reviewers.
I believe there's some truth to the fact that reviewers are more likely to oppose newcomers than seasoned participants, but how does a minimum word limit on opposing votes ameliorate that? It doesn't; all it does is dissuade users from utilizing the opposing template excessively. Therefore, users are less likely to reject nominations from inexperienced participants. 20upper15:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
20 upper, thanks for your suggestions. I oppose any limitation on the use of "per others." When I use that it's because I agree completely with what other reviewers said, and never just because a majority seems to be going one way or the other, seeing that I have the choice of agreeing with others, disagreeing with them or not voting at all. There's also no point in requiring people to spell out oppose reasoning longer than that, if they would just say the same exact thing. If I oppose mostly because of a reason someone has stated but differ from them in some respect, I spell that out in my oppose statement. In terms of delisting, though, I'm sympathetic to the idea that a "delist" vote should be treated like an "oppose" vote in a nomination to list and require some kind of statement of a reason to delist, but only on the same basis as oppose votes currently require one, which in this case could mean "per nom." I'm not sure whether a statement should be required for a "keep" vote, but I wouldn't oppose adding such a requirement if others want one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I'm not sure whether a statement should be required for a "keep" vote The purpose of a delisting nomination is to delist the image, both the keep and delist votes are equivalent to oppose votes. If you choose to keep, you are contesting the nomination and should provide why. If you choose the delist option, you must explain why the image should be removed because you are endorsing the removal of someone's hard work on such a significant scale. 20upper15:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
That's one way of looking at it, but the other is that "Keep" is the default and therefore might not require an explanation. Like I said, though, I don't oppose requiring a keep reason if that's what others would like to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for you thoughts, it is good to take a moment to re-evaluate things every once in a while. I tend to write long statements explaining my vote if I have a new perspective to add or when I feel that a previously made point didn't get the attention it deserved. But there's no point in wasting 10 words on re-writing a statement 5 other people before me have already made. That "only takes up space and does nothing to advance the nomination".
Also keep in mind that Commons has a multi-lingual community, while FPC uses English predominantly. That can be quite intimidating if you're not used to communicate in English. Using your native language is of course fine in theory, but there's a good chance others will misunderstand your point because they have to rely on a machine translation. A lot of unnecessary drama has occurred here in the past simply because of language barriers. As much as I would like people to add more constructive criticism to their votes, I don't think that's something that should be forced via the rules. El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
More likely: Focus in the image, draw my conclusions, then realize someone else has written exactly that already. No, I'm not gonna waste my time with writing the same again just because. El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose all three nominations for several reasons:
Proposal 1 just makes things harder for those who only speak limited English or no English. While Commons strives to be a multilingual community, it is heavily skewed towards an English community – your proposal 1 will only makes things worse.
Proposal 1 also makes things simply more tedious. Sometimes, if I have nothing else to say, do you expect me to repeat every single point that was mentioned? This exact reason is one of the few reasons I stopped editing the Simple English Wikipedia – they enforce w:en:WP:PERX to the most critical extremity, which is the most irrational and nonsensical policy I have ever come across.
Proposal 2 has the same issues as my first point. Plus, is this really a problem that's widespread or one that is only seen through your eyes? I never had such an issue when I first joined FPC, and it was for good reason.
How does a minimum word limit seek to resolve the issues you've mentioned in your second proposal.
Proposal 3 – again, my first two points apply. If I have nothing else to say, do you expect me to sound like a broken record? Absolutely not – and this also pulls Commons away from striving to be a fully multilingual community.
@SHB2000: If you have nothing to say, then I suggest you don't bother voting. is this really a problem that's widespread or one that is only seen through your eyes? It's widespread alright, and it's often disguised as a normal part of the process. 20upper15:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
"If you have nothing to say, then I suggest you don't bother voting" – what a snarky, furtive and sneaky way to utterly dismiss a vote/opinion that you don't like. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you're mixing up votes and discussions here. Admittedly the current way of having both intermingled at FP nominations kind of calls for that ... El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I was very tempted to put a +1 under Yann's post. I worked hard at NOT posting it. But your response ... well, +1 to Yann Kritzolina (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@20 upper: Yeah, but if they have nothing else to say, do you expect Yann to sound like a broken record and repeat exactly what I mentioned? That's why proposal 1 is terrible in practice. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I've replied to everyone. Anyways, !Hala Madrid!, let's prepare for El Clássico, Barcelona awaits us. Game starts on 28 October, pick off at 16:15 CET. 20upper15:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Proposal 1 ("Per others"): I understand the concern about blindly following the majority. However, the solution isn't to ban expressions like "+1" or "Per others." Instead of restricting, I would suggest educating or raising awareness within the community about the importance of informed and autonomous voting. Furthermore, there are instances where a previous comment has perfectly encapsulated a viewpoint, and repeating the same sentiment in different words doesn't add value but redundancy.
Support Proposal 2 ("Oppose votes") with modifications:' I'm not convinced that a word limit is the ideal solution, especially considering the linguistic diversity of the community. Nevertheless, I agree with the essence of the proposal: that opposing votes should be accompanied by constructive feedback. Rather than a word limit, I would suggest fostering a culture where objections are justified in a way that allows the nominator to understand and learn from them.
Support Proposal 3 ("Delisting nominations") with reservations: I concur that both "keep" and "delist" votes should be justified. However, a method needs to be devised to implement this without being burdensome for voters and considering linguistic barriers. Wilfredor (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
About AI generated translations tools
Recientemente, me encontré en una situación que me llevó a una reflexión sobre la comunicación en mis feedbacks de commons y el uso de herramientas de traducción. Todo comenzó cuando observé un comentario de cart, que me hizo cuestionar la verdadera necesidad de recurrir a dichas herramientas. Cuando escribo en mi lengua materna, siento que tengo el dominio completo de cada palabra, de cada frase y de cada sentimiento que deseo expresar. En este sentido, me siento como un pintor con una paleta completa de colores(un ejemplo no literal), pudiendo elegir con precisión cada tonalidad para crear la imagen perfecta, haciendo también una analogía con la fotografía. Mi vocabulario se expande y se vuelve más exacto, lo que me permite elaborar textos más ricos, detallados y de una calidad superior. Sin embargo, la problemática surge cuando estos textos son traducidos. A pesar de mi intención original, a menudo percibo que el resultado puede parecer despersonalizado, casi como si fuera una producción mecánica. Como menciona @W.carter: , puede parecer un "texto generado automáticamente". Si bien siempre he mantenido una sinceridad transparente en todas mis nominaciones, no puedo evitar sentir que el idioma inglés, que no es mi lengua nativa, me pone ciertas barreras. Me encuentro en un dilema: ¿Hasta qué punto es adecuado y aceptable utilizar estas herramientas de traducción en mis interacciones? No busco evadir responsabilidades ni comprometer la integridad de mi comunicación, simplemente busco ser entendido de la manera más clara posible. De hecho, he optado por dejar este mensaje en mi lengua nativa, siguiendo una sugerencia de W.carter, con la esperanza de que pueda resonar de manera más auténtica. El comando (prompt) que suelo utilizar con chatGPT es bastante directo: "Escribe una traducción con un texto más fácil de entender de esto: <mi texto aquí>". Mi intención jamás ha sido engañar o confundir, sino buscar claridad. No creo que estas herramientas deban ser prohibidas, pero tampoco deseo que mi comunicación se perciba como algo impersonal o automatizado. Gracias por traducir este mensaje Wilfredor (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This post made much more sense and was easier to understand than any of the AI reviews you have written lately on FPC. Thank you, --Cart(talk)12:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That text was written with AI too using chatGPT, with the same method, but the difference is that it is in Spanish (translated using google translator) and you translated it again to understand Wilfredor (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
So you have made your point that AIs are unreliable, anything can be faked and we can't take anything for granted these days. Well done. However, I think you might have a bit more control over the AI tool when you work in your native language and also that Google translator can deliver a more human tone to the translation than ChatGPT. I think you should use Google to translate your words in the future. --Cart(talk)12:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Wilfredor, I'm not sure I understand where you draw the line between AI translation and AI generation. Pehaps an example would be useful: would you be willing to go to your ChatGPT history and copy & paste the prompt you used here? I have been following your nominations for a long time, and while I think you are a talented photographer, you don't strike me as being sufficiently into the technical stuff to comfortably talk about colour spaces and colour profiles, MTF measurements and the Nyquist frequency, or apochromatic lenses. --Julesvernex2 (talk)
Yes. It’s useless to repeat myself, but half-truths, buzzword accumulation and off-topic bluster do not help Commons, regardless whether they were written by a natural intelligence or by an artificial one. Neither the one nor the other proves to be especially intelligent by producing such pretentious nonsense. Commons is an open knowledge, open data and art libre project, not a business project for generating the most effect with the least effort. Sorry if my words are not polite, but we should not let Commons go to the dogs. --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
And to be constructive: If you need a usable Spanish to English translation, just try www.deepl.com. It’s far from perfect and sometimes makes funny errors, but at least it tries to translate what you wrote, without adding any kind of fancy half-truths etc. --Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Creo que de aqui en adelante voy a usar solamente español, voy a escribir con algunos errores que pueden ser mal traducidos pero asi convertimos esta seccion en algo mas inclusivo Wilfredor (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Si no entiende mi texto, hágalo traducir, preferiblemente por este gran ChatGPT - así saldrá en español que sus críticas son estupendas. Si ChatGPT es tan inteligente como la gente piensa, no traducirá que pienso que es estúpido. Y entonces todos quedamos satisfechos. (Perdón por los errores – mi español está un poco oxidado.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I didn't translate the text above, buy my 2c is that I'd prefer AI over artificial intelligence when writing reviews – I mean actual intelligence, if anyone didn't get the pun. I don't see the issue with using AI (artificial intelligence – not actual intelligence) for translations, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
New Featured Images Icon
current
proposition
In order to maintain a clear and effective differentiation within Wikipedia's content, it's crucial that featured images have their own distinct icon. As the digital realm evolves and becomes increasingly visual, it's paramount that our markers mirror this trend and offer a refreshing and distinctive graphical representation. By introducing a new icon dedicated specifically for featured images, we're not only aligning with current user expectations but also providing a clearer, more immediate means of identification. This ensures that featured images receive the attention and acknowledgment they truly deserve. Wilfredor (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Somebody must be the first to comment. Well, IMHO this is a good idea, thank you for the proposal! My only concern is: will the new, more complicated icon be easily recognizable also in small sizes (as the previous one did)? A simple test seems to confirm this – despite its more complex shape the icon is recognizable even at 20px. So I am fine with this proposal. Now please more voices … --Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm all for getting a new icon for FPs, I think it's a good idea. Unfortunately my gut reaction to this design is that it looks kind of sparkly, gaudy and "cheap". It's not a design I would associate with the best possible photos and highest quality. I have no counter-alternative, like I said it's just my immediate reaction. --Cart(talk)19:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
This is more of a pragmatic comment, of course. Unless we're changing this for all featured picture projects at once, which would be awkward. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Good points from Adam. Having looked at this one, which has a lot of 'bling' on it, I also remember that the POTY finalist and POTD are based on the FP star too. What should be done with those if we change the Commons FP star? --Cart(talk)23:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey, guys! So, I was checking out this new FP icon, right? I mean, I get it, some of you think it's a bit too... how do you say... 'flashy'? But, you know, everything online is like, always changing, ¿sabes? Maybe we need a little spice, a little sabor to keep things fresh. If this design isn't everyone's cup of té, no problemo! I can totally work on it, give it a few tweaks here and there. And about this whole Wikipedia FPs and Commons thing, why not give each a little twist? A bit of flair to tell them apart. As for the other projects, we can adjust them to match our new style. Change can be tricky, I know, but let's give it a try. If it doesn't work, pues, we change it back. And I'm here, ready to help with the design stuff. Let's make things fun and keep our community engaged, ¿good? :) --Wilfredor (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I like change. And I like the new logo. Looks fresh and almost 3D-like in its smaller iteration. Thanks for spicing things up, my friend! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree that it's nice, I'm just pointing out the practical matters related to the change that we'll need to do to implement it. I think it'll be way easier to do a Commons FP-only change in the first instance, because then we don't have to worry about other FP-projects. Perhaps worth noting: Featured media has this rather nice little logo, so we could probably deviate more from the original with reasons (but should make sure {{Assessments}} covers whatever logo is used).
I'm struggling to understand the symbology of that Featured Media logo. I'm assuming the triangle is a play button, but why is it sweating (?) and why is it on top of a flower? Can somebody explain? El Grafo (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Just to update you, I have made significant optimizations to the SVG image at the source code level. Additionally, it has been validated by the W3C. I will wait for further comments before implementing this major change. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I find it way too complicated for an icon. The old one already is too detailed, and this is worse due to the increase in points. Happy to support a new icon in principle, but I don't see this as an improvement. El Grafo (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm in theory fine with it, but would like to see the former featured picture and other such variants before considering moving forwards. I think it might face difficulty with the way we handle such icons, since an X over it might match the shape too well. We can't very well have former featured picture not match featured Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's good to differentiate Commons FP from Wikipedia FP, and I'm fine with Wilfredor's proposal, though I'd be happy to consider another icon, but not the featured media one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I want to express my gratefulness to everyone who tooked the time for giving their opinion on this so crucial topic about differentiating Wikipedia/Commons's content with a singular icon for the featured images. ok clear that all we have the platform's best interests in the heart, and the diversidad of points of view shared until now reflects this. But..., I must to admit that I was esperando a wider set of feedback considering the importancia of this proposal. Yes the input we've received is incredibly valioso, I believe it's esencial to be sure that we have a completo understanding of the community's position before making any definitive decisions. This is a matter of big impacto, and the last thing we want is for any segment of our community to feel excludido or not listened. I kindly encourage more users to share their thoughts about this tema. The more amplio our feedback base, the more preparados we'll be to make a decision that resonates with the most and keeps Commons FPC's standards at their most high. Thank you all for your comprensión and commitment for bettering our loved FPC Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps this is not such a big deal to many users as it is to you. If this was very important to many of the people here, I think they would have said something by now. Let the idea rest and germinate for a while, see if you can come up with some other (perhaps even better) icon suggestions and then present a more complete plan with how a new icon will funktion with templates and delisted FPs. Best, --Cart(talk)15:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If it helps, I don't think we need to seperate the (for example) en-wiki FPs from Commons FPs by icon because I think they should be different: If en-wiki votes to match Commons, that's fine, but there should be consistency for the projects: The star used for En-wiki in {{Assesssments}} should be the one used for en-wiki there, likewise every other FP project. Coding-wise, it might be easier to change everything at once; but that ignores that to do it properly we'd first need requests for comments in like, 10-20 languages on 10-20 wikis and hope every single one passed. It's not practical to run a vote on so many platforms at once, nor should we change the branding of other FP projects without such widespread voting, since they all use the same File information page. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, thank you for the progressive discussion on the redesign of the FP star. At first glance, however, I was reminded of a Morovian star. I agree with Cart that the design is very flashy. Personally, I prefer the noble restraint of the current star. One should also keep in mind that such symbols, much like unambiguous logos, are the pinnacle of design. In addition to many, many sketches, a diverse corporate design must be developed that leads to an overall concept. This concerns not only the star and its necessary variations, but also the color design of the assessment fields on the file pages, the FP galleries, etc. This is not meant to be discouraging, just constructive feedback. In any case, many thanks to Wilfredor for the impulse and the creative work. It is a valuable impulse for the future corporate identity of the FP project. This is just my two cents. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Let's be bold together and celebrate our multilingualism!
Ich schlage vor, dass wir hier häufiger unsere Muttersprache verwenden. Die modernen Tools des Webs machen Übersetzungen doch immer einfacher. Wir werden alle davon profitieren, wenn wir hier mit durchdachten und wohl formulierten Beiträgen in unseren Muttersprachen miteinander diskutieren. Es macht die Diskussion sowohl für Schreiber als auch für Leser nicht nur fundierter, sondern letztendlich auch weniger konfliktreich. Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Ich bin fast einverstanden, habe aber Sorge, dass das vor allem deutsch sprechenden Benutzern Vorteile bringt, da wir so viele sind. Vielleicht ist es aber gerade deshalb unsere Aufgabe, solche Veränderungen für alle anzustossen. (and look, I did not have to use any tools to translate this) Kritzolina (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't mind the German at all. I have often wondered why the there is so little German on Commons with so many users speaking it; some of whom are struggling hard with other languages. I think we can get better input and reviews if people don't feel forced to use a foreign language. Besides many users active in this international environment have better understanding of other languages than is apparent in Babel userboxes etc.
I will however spare you my Swedish. Translation programs for bigger languages are ok, but for small languages like Swedish, it's a different matter. The programs aren't sufficiently developed (yet) to deal with our language. Swedish also has much fewer words than for example English, and we make up for this shortcoming by putting the words at our disposal in specific combinations that will often come out as total gibberish in translation programs. I tested this on a message (in Swedish) I now have on my talk page. I Google translated it to some languages I understand, and it didn't come out well; some parts came out with a very different meaning.
So I fear that too much will get lost in translation. But, as a translator, I have no problem using English. In fact, I can sometimes express myself better that way. That is also why Swedish is so infused with English words these days.
We might start facing the same issue as the Tower of Babel. I'm not sure if we can request a tool from WMF that allows us to press a button and translate what we're writing, similar to what happens on Facebook today Wilfredor (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we are at a risk of going "Tower of Bable", as long as we use the translation tools with discretion. Editing photos or editing text are the same for an AI program. Here we are hypersensitive to over-processed photos, and we are very aware of how to use Photoshop, Lightroom and other programs. Text translation programs work the same way, only many here (on an image-oriented forum) are not as skilled in using them, and do not realize that they need to be controlled in the same way.
That is why if you just click on "automatic" you get texts like this, a text that I would describe in words that a photographer can understand best, is "over-processed, oversaturated, upscaled, way too much contrast, loss of details in noise reduction, both Topaz-glossy and full of artifacts and why use 100% clarity". Well used, translation programs are fantastic tools, but don't let them run away with your words. ChatGPT is for words what Topaz is for photos, use it with care. --Cart(talk)11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Voy a responder aqui para no ensuciar la nominacion del Rey de Corazones, este mensaje va en respuesta a ese mimsmo hilo. De ahora en adelante quien sabe solamente algum nativo de portunhol possa entender o que estou a escrever. o simplemente alguien interesado en traducir cada palabra. Lo cierto es que ahora en adelante, voy a escribir en este idioma, vc pode ser que nao va conseguir traducir. Levo muitos anos fora de meu pais entonces tengo un espanol estragado por causa dos anos que morei no Brasil. Despues tenemos el factor de que estoy viviendo en Quebec en donde se habla frances, pero no consigo escribirlo bien principalmente por la configuracion del teclado que necesito cambiar a cada momento. Kin es el nombre de alguien quien trabaja conmigo y por causa de dislexia no escribi el Rey de Corazones. En todo caso, me siento obligado a escribir uma lingua diferente, posivelmente agora as outras pessoas van ser obligadas a traducir lo que estoy escribiendo, van a recriminarme el hecho de que no escriba ingles en esta seccion, pero tampoco puedo usar el traductor de chatGPT porque genera un texto con mis ideas pero usando conectivos que "delatan el uso de chatGPT" Mi lente 105mm es un lente con pocos lentes internos lo que hace generar una imagen ultranitida (hablo del Nikon z 105mm 2.8f) Luego estuve investigando sobre el lente que posiblemente uso King. Conozco muy bien las camaras Nikon, el asunto del agua movida ya lo explique. Intenta tener mas buena fe en lugar de pensar cosas que no son. De donde rayos sacas eso que estoy intentando inslutarlos?. Pienso que cuando escribes Do you want to insult us, es un comentario de muy mala fe. Luego te disculpas pero al mismo tiempo me sigues denigrando por mi supuesto uso de la herramienta pra traducir.
Me gustaria saber que caralho vou fazer agora, pois nao sei em qual lingua preciso escrever para que as pessoas nao achem que estou gerando algum tipo de contenido automatico. Perdoname mas nao aceito uma disculpas a medias. Como comente siempre soy muy sincero en todas mis fotos, nominaciones y comentarios. Por que querria yo inventar o insultarlos a ustedes?. Voy a ser sincero, esta situacion me canso bastante. Pienso que necesito tomarme un tiempo antes de regresar a esta seccion porque esta afectando mi salud mental. Y no, este maldito texto no fue hecho o generado com alguna inteligencia artificial. Wilfredor (talk) 03:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Ich habe deinen Kommentar dank Deepl größtenteils verstanden. Er ermutigt mich, zumindest gelegentlich auf deutsch zu schreiben, damit auch andere Menschen den Mut finden, in der Sprache zu schreiben, die sie am besten können. Kritzolina (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Acho que é assim que tens que escrever daqui em diante. Percebi perfeitamente o portunhol, e julgo que qualquer uma das ~850 milhões de pessoas no mundo que falam espanhol ou português também o perceberá! Os restantes podem usar tradutores como o DeepL (que a Kritzolina testou com sucesso) ou o Google Translate (experimentei traduzir para inglês, e o resultado é bastante bom). De qualquer forma, entendo a tua decisão de te afastares por uns tempos. pois nada justifica colocarmos em risco a nossa saúde mental. Quando estiveres menos chateado com isto tudo, tenta colocar-te na minha posição, ou na posição de outros que te criticaram por usares o ChatGPT. Numa comunidade que valoriza muito a transparência - tanto em imagens como em opiniões - não saber onde acaba o teu contributo e começa o do ChatGPT é frustrante. Entretanto, espero que continues a contribuir para o Wiki Commons com excelentes fotografias: daqui a umas dezenas de anos, estas discussões estarão enterradas num arquivo qualquer, mas as tuas fotos continuarão disponíveis para todos. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Jag är lite ambivalent. Först av allt, vi ska givetvis inte förbjuda människor från att skriva på sitt egna språk eller använda det i bildnamn. Men rent praktiskt tror jag det finns en risk att många användare helt enkelt inte orkar översätta diskussioner på andra språk än sitt eget eller engelska. Speciellt om det förekommer många olika språk i samma diskussion blir det mer tidskrävande att översätta det. Om vi, som det föreslås ovan, bara skriver på de stora språken där automatöversättning fungerar bra så blir det bättre för de som pratar exempelvis tyska eller spanska (eller som behärskar andra germanska eller latinska språk och kan förstå på ett ungefär) men sämre för alla andra. De behöver översätta vad andra skriver, men de kan inte använda sitt eget språk.
Vi har redan idag (både bland fotografer och motiv) en otrolig överrepresentation av nordvästeuropeiska fotografer och motiv. Hur bra fungerar automatöversättning från och till arabiska, hindi, kinesiska, farsi, hebreiska eller Swahili? --ArildV (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Arild, for your statement – you express some of the concerns that let me hesitate, too. Frank’s proposal to “celebrate our multilingualism” is excellent, of course – but when we leave the increased expediture aside, there is also some danger that this could give an advantage to people who speak English, French, Spanish, German …, and put people with other mother tongues at a disadvantage.
because many users will be able to read English, French, Spanish, German … comments without translation and hence ignore the comments by other uses which use less prominent languages because they may regard them as less important and want to avoid the additional expediture for using a translation tool.
because the translation between English, French, Spanish, German … works often well both with Google translate and deepl.com/translator, but less so with other languages (already the translation from Swedish to German is bumpy, astonishing because these languages are closely related) and only very badly with “exotic” languages. Of course I hope this will be improved, but even big tech companies like Google mostly invest their money into “rewarding” tasks, so I fear that many “small” languages will not get proper support for a long time.
People could feel this as a discrimination – which is even worse because this discrimination, regardless whether it is real or just a feeling, would affect mostly peoples from the poorer countries of this world which already suffer from many ways of discrimination. This gives me an uneasy feeling.
Especially I hesitate to use my own language, German. The German people have followed far too long the motto Am deutschen Wesen soll die Welt genesen (“The world shall be healed by the German nature”); this exaggerated national pride has contributed to the outbreak of two world wars. Right now in Germany nationalism and racism are raising again, even established parties and middle-class people share the slogans of the far right. And in Austria and Switzerland, the two other countries with many German-speaking people, the situation is not better. Therefore I personally prefer to be modest and avoid the use of the German language. My English is faulty and my Spanish is rusty, but I feel better using them. Maybe I can polish my Spanish a bit and contribute in this way to multilingüismo ;–). Just my 50 cent, --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Aristeas, was Deinen Kommentar zur deutschen Sprache angeht, so kann ich Deine Intention wohl nachvollziehen, wenngleich mich Deine Position persönlich doch traurig macht. Ich zumindest spreche Deutsch nicht, um anderen Menschen etwas aufzuzwingen oder Überlegenheit zu demonstrieren. Vielleicht können wir uns ja mal am Telefon zu diesem Thema austauschen, denn Dein Kommentar lässt mich betroffen zurück. – Was die Anmerkung zur Diskrimierung von Menschen aus ärmeren Gegenden der Welt angeht, frage ich mich, warum hier einige Nationalitäten überhaupt nicht vertreten sind. Das liegt meiner Ansicht nach nicht nur an der Verfügbarkeit von Kameratechnik, sondern auch daran, dass sich Menschen, die kein Englisch sprechen, hier nicht willkommen fühlen. Wie sollten sie auch? – Wenn ich hier dafür eintrete, dass wir mehr Mut wagen, dann doch vor allem deshalb, damit sich jemand etwa aus der arabischsprachigen Wikipedia hier auch traut, einfach mal ein Bild in ihrer/seiner Muttersprache zu nominieren. Die Ausschließlichkeit, mit der wir hier Englisch verwenden schließt Menschen aus (und insbesondere solche aus Weltgegenden, die die anglo-amerikanisch westliche Welt ablehnen oder die aufgrund ihrer sozioökonomischen Herkunft keine Gelegenheit hatten, Englisch auf dem hier erforderlichen Niveau zu lernen). Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Frank, I am with Aristeas on the impact the use of German language might have on others because of its history. The impact has nothing to do with the intent of the speaker, so the point you are bringing up about your own intentions is irrelevant here. Thank you for raising this concern, Aristeas, I am back to using English again, but will happily read comments from others in third languages and use the translation tools available to understand what they are saying. Kritzolina (talk) 06:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Lieber Frank, es tut mir leid, dass mein Kommentar Dich traurig und betroffen macht. Das war nun wirklich nicht meine Absicht! Ich wollte eigentlich nur meine persönliche Zurückhaltung in diesem Punkt erklären, keinsfalls aber Deine Absicht kritisieren, die Mehrsprachigkeit auf Commons endlich erstzunehmen und zu forcieren. (Und schon gar nicht wollte ich Deinen Gebrauch des Deutschen hier kritisieren – natürlich ist mir klar, dass Du damit die besten Absichten hast.) Vollkommen anschließen kann ich mich auf jeden Fall Deiner Hoffnung und Aufforderung, gerade wer eine andere Sprache als die hier bisher dominierenden spricht, möge diese doch einfach auch benutzen – das würde zwar den gewohnten Trott erst einmal unterbrechen (weil nun wir „Mehrheitssprachler“, die wir es bisher bequem hatten, uns um die Übersetzung kümmern müssen), aber gerade diese Unterbrechung kann doch anregend sein und zum An-Stoß für interkulturelle Begegungen und Reflexionen der eigenen Haltung werden. Herzliche Grüße und noch einmal sorry!, --Aristeas (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Lots of interesting perspectives here. I think the bottom line is that everyone should be encouraged to use the language they feel is suited best to get their point across. I will keep using English for most comments. It is no additional effort for me (quite the opposite) and I can reach a larger "audience". I will, however, consider using German more often when commenting on nominations by German speaking users - maybe give a full review in German and add a summary in English ...? El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Siþþen þe sege and þe assaut watz sesed at Troie, þe bur3 brittened and brent to brondes and askes...
To be honest, even if the Google's and similar transators worked brilliant for every language in the world (which, as we know, they are still light-years far from), I still had no desire to run through a translator every comment I want to read. And regarding comments or requests on my talkpage or via e-mail written in a language I don't speak, I'll most likely not answer. --A.Savin22:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
No need to feel sad, as this is just what I (among other things) expect as a polite interaction. That is, if you want to speak with me but don't know my language, you should go for a translation of your comment, and not expect me to do this for you. --A.Savin10:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
This reply makes me feel even more sad. You realize that you and me are some of the most privileged users of this project, do you? You are missing out on so many wonderful things with these expectations. Yes, this makes me sad. Kritzolina (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Wie du meinst. Mir sind ein paar ungeschriebene Grundregeln zum höflichen Miteinander wichtig. Es ist überhaupt nicht viel verlangt, die zu beachten. Auch nicht das mit dem Übersetzen. Mir ist schon klar, dass es viel genug von Armut und Elend in der Welt gibt und dass alles stetig nur noch schlimmer wird. Aber wir reden ja jetzt vom Miteinander in einem Internet-Projekt, und wer Internet nutzt, ist definitiv in der Lage, auch den Google-Übersetzer zu nutzen. Ich habe ja auch nicht geschrieben, dass ich auf keinen Fall antworte. Ausnahmen, die die Regel nur bestätigen, gibt es immer. So habe ich Ukrainern, die aus Prinzip ausschließlich Ukrainisch reden wollen, desöfteren trotzdem geantwortet, frag' nicht warum ;-) --A.Savin14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Browser extensions make translation much less of a hassle: just hover over a block of text or right-click it and a translation pops up in your preferred language. Here's Google Translate's extension for Chrome, for instance: [2] -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I even saw people writing in browser a text in German that synchronously translates into English. Not sure I really wish to work like that, however I'm quite conservative browser user, for example -- this might shock you -- I still use the Vector2010 skin for all wikis, and am not planning to ever use this strange new skin which currently is being activated as default by more and more Wikipedia versions. --A.Savin10:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Using English as the only option excludes those who don't speak English at all or very poorly. For those of us who are fluent in more than one language – let them choose how they'd like to interact with others (I've posted comments and reviews in German, French, and English in the past and I will continue to do so). When I said "let's be bold and celebrate multilingualism", I didn't mean to create a new rule (the rule actually already exists: Commons is a multilingual project). Instead, I'd like to encourage people to use their own language whenever they feel like. I for my part had no problem at all following the discussion in this section. This is about giving people a choice and making those more comfortable who are not fluent or native English speakers. Let's be more inclusive and also welcome those to the Featured Picture process who'd like to participate in their own language. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. Jokes about Middle English are simply not helpful if we're serious about diversity, inclusiveness, and the respect for others who are different from ourselves.
说的有道理！可惜 no hay mucha gente aquí en FPC que hable chino, así que no tendré la oportunidad de dejar comentarios en ese idioma :/ -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it's all about how much risk you're comfortable with that other people's machine translation will effectively capture your intended meaning vs. overseeing that translation yourself. If it's about where the labor is, Chrome makes translation of many languages so easy I see no trouble if people want to just speak their own language (again, as long as you're comfortable with whatever Google Translate decides you said). I just right clicked the page and selected "translate to English" and the entire page, with its multiple languages, were all translated immediately... except for KoH's first few words. That required opening a separate window and copy/pasting. So I guess it would more or less be swapping an English lingua franca for the easily machine translatable European languages (and still precarious for everyone else). — Rhododendritestalk | 17:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Vipi kuhusu lugha kama Kiswahili? Mimi ni Mwafrika, na nina hakika kuwa mimi ndiye pekee hapa, ambayo inasemwa nadhani hakuna mtu yeyote anayeelewa Kiswahili, kwa hivyo sitajisumbua kukitumia. Kiingereza changu sasa kimekuwa bora kuliko Kiswahili changu, kwa hivyo...ndio.
In a few days, or even today, I'll return to FPC with two more delist nominations. Those nominations will be made in English. I don't think Frank's proposal is going to work for everyone. 20upper05:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
For sure, delisting nominations should be made in English out of respect to the photographer, unless they happen to share your language. Even then, I think it is generally a good idea for nomination statements (both regular and delisting) to be made in English to reach the widest audience. It's mostly in the voting section where we can have a greater diversity of languages. Either it's a common language shared by the photographer and commenter (the conversation will feel more 亲密), or the commenter is unable to express themselves fully in English so they can write in their native language and expect readers to machine-translate it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠07:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hopping in a bit late, let me comment on what Frank wrote here. The problem of not getting enough people from outside the big languages to make nominations (at all, in whatever language), does not lie in the language used on the FPC page. Nope. It lies in the inadequate translations of the (sort of) original English page of rules and "how-to-do-it" for FPC. Commons can be viewed in several languages, but the translation teams that should keep the different pages up to date are few and therefore can't keep up. The rules and procedures for FPC are complicated and often updated, but the translations of these are very insufficient for most languages.
It doesn't matter how well we use languages on the FP project, if people can't read the directions to get there. The project of making translations of Commons, must be encouraged somehow. Maybe with translation drives or banners on Wikipedias, Wiktionary or Wikidata. Most users on Commons are more image-people than translators. We need some "outside" help.
As an example, choose a foreign language you understand in some way. Temporarily switch to that language at the top bar with tabs of any page. It's where it now probably says "English" and your user name. Take a look at how different Commons basic features look in other languages. I think you might be surprised. As it is, the FPC header that says: "This project page in other languages:" with the Template:Lang-fpc, is a joke of fragmented, old and incomplete translations.
Example, the facts in the Norwegian translation of the FP rules were last updated in 2011(!). The page still states that you need five support votes for an FP and it doesn't mention how you make a nomination at all. :-/
Also a word of comfort to Aristeas. Please don't be afraid to use your German language out of the notion that it might be perceived as "too-right-wing-ish". I can assure you that right wing phalanges are flourishing in too many countries by now for this to be a "German problem". They are now global and speak in many languages. Not using your own language for that reason, is to let them win. Reclaim your language and make it once again the language of science, music and literature that it once was. The Scandinavian countries had a similar problem with our old Viking symbols and heritage being misused, and we have gone through the process of reclaiming them. --Cart(talk)15:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Newbie question: after FP, what's next?
All, I'm still quite new here and apologies if this is not the right venue to ask, but after browsing the FP intro here, and the Community Portal, I didn't find a clear answer -- maybe someone can point me to the relevant document. What are the typical steps after one's image has been promoted to FP? Does the process just end there or what happens with that picture? Where is it featured? Does it automatically become Picture of the Day candidate? What steps normally authors / submitters / nominators take after being promoted to FP? Podstawko ●talk08:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Podstawko. That's right. Many thanks for adding the categories yourself! It's close to perfect, for my part I would also add the Category:Featured pictures of reflections, and if I'm seeing it correctly that there is fog on the picture, then also Category:Fog in Ireland, Category:Featured pictures of fog. As for me, it can be fun to choose categories for an image, unfortunately way too few of us can follow me here, and many (see the thread just above) only care for how to promote as many own photos as possible. As for FP-related categories, formerly I did the monitoring for every recently promoted FP, then after a bullying campaign against me (powered also by a sysop and active FPC participant) I decided to let it be, and since then the images have not been continously monitoring. That means we can well use any help in categorizing FP's (especially those promoted in the last two, three years or so), and not only FP's of course, just saying... --A.Savin14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
... might also lead to conflict. As someone who encourages more diverse participation on this page, I thought sharing some thoughts on good allyship and best practices for support for people who are not part of the majority here on Commons might be a good idea.
Not all advice in the following links is fully applicable for our environment, but there are a lot of useful ideas and some food for thought, I hope.
Thank you for the very informative links on this important topic, Kritzolina. The struggle for social justice and diversity in our society is thankfully an ongoing one. Changing old patterns takes hard work from everyone. Many people in leadership positions are not worthy of their power, and this affects all social classes and genders, especially in the workplace. I am glad that the WMF defines diversity as one of its highest values in its charter. But it is up to us to defend, promote and realize this diversity in the Wikiverse. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
And, sure, maybe that's just different people putting the line in slightly different places. The galleries aren't reviewed that often. But it might help to have a discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Meaningless "Gallery of Animals in their Habitats"
Hello, a new gallery called "Gallery of Animals in their Habitats" has been created recently. I don't think it's a good idea, because 99% of the animals here are obviously shown in their environment. So it does not make sense to sort the new FPs in this gallery, separated from the others.
The Commons Category:Habitats contains the subcategories Artificial habitats (including "Zoos" and "Aquariums") and Natural habitats. Why not a gallery page dedicated to "Habitats" (if there are enough FPs) but I would recommend to reserve this gallery for photos where the main subject is unambiguously the habitat itself.
Why not both? I know we typically sort each FP into exactly one gallery page, but we don't have to do it that way. Thinking about user experience, I don't see why we shouldn't allow visitors to discover the same image through multiple paths/galleries. El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
That's a lame excuse. Bots are not magical beings that need to be catered to, they are tools created for a task. If the task changes, adapt the tool. And as far as volunteer maintainers go: maybe let them speak for themselves - after all it's them who came up with the beautiful new coffee table book you are complaining about here. If people like Cart tell me they don't like the idea, or it's too much work or whatever, I'll shut up about it immediatley. El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
In theory, your idea works. But in practice, don't rely on it. That's my humble opinion. You're free to imagine the perfect bot / programmer of you dreams, though :-)
We're all required to set the "gallery" on each nomination. And I don't think "Gallery of Animals in their Habitats" is a clever box. I'm not the only one to share this opinion. Hence a constructive request for modification. I prefer nothing than something lame. Yours faithfully and kind regards and what you want :-) Basile Morin (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Here I second Basile’s view. Only this autumn W.carter and me have finally removed the remaining duplicate entires from all FP gallery pages, for several reasons. Besides the mere size of the gallery pages and the waste of time for maintaining double entries, there is also the problem who decides which FP occurs on how many pages. (I have seen clear cases in which people obviously wanted to promote their own FP by adding it to several gallery pages. If we tolerate this, other users will do the same with their photos. In the end the gallery pages would become hopelessly crowded and confused.) And, yes, we already have not enough maintainers. Many people want to nominate photos, but only few ones do the necessary housekeeping. Cart does an incredible amout of work here, other people help here or there. To be bold and take myself as example: I regularly repair gallery links, sort FPs when the bot has failed or the gallery link was still wrong, improve captions, add categories, fix nomination links broken due to file renaming and the laziness of filemovers, run each week a self-written program (which has costed me many hours and days) which searches for some typical errors and problems in the gallery pages, repair the found problems, including fake FPs, missing FPs, etc. pp. Some people have asked me why I don’t nominate more FP candidates, including some of my own photos. Do you know why? Because I am tired. Over the year I spend so many hours which work related to FPs that I just have no more power for nominations. And often not even to process or upload my own photos. And there is still much more work which could be done to improve the FP gallery pages … e.g. improving the captions. We cannot even do everything which would be necessary, so all the more we cannot also handle double-duty FP entries again. --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The reasons for creating the gallery page were given in the section above. Please see #New Gallery pages and the the subsection #Some thoughts about the Galleries, and also my comment on a nom. And to answer El Grafo, yes, maintaining the galleries is a helluvalot of work, and we who do so regularly and try to keep it looking good are very few. Often it is just one person having the main overview of the system. We recently spent a month just sorting, weeding out doubles, trippels, fake, misplaced, etc. FPs to keep this section of Commons that hardly anybody uses looking good, and also setting up all the FP categories so that people can actually find the photos. --Cart(talk)10:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem is not the galleries themselves, but this specific section, for the reasons given above. I would not imagine a gallery called "living animals" either, because they're almost all living -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
(General comment) IMHO there is a little misunderstanding here. The title of the new gallery page, “In their habitats”, does not just refer to the fact that the animals were photographed in their natural habitat or (for pets and domestic animals) in the context of animal keeping. This, of course, applies to most of our zoological FPs. The title rather points out that this new gallery page is for photos which show the habitat and how the animals live there. Some clear examples:
As you see, in these photos the environment is very important; to describe such an image, one cannot just say “This is a photo of <animal>”, but the habitat or other context is a necessary and essential part of the message. Therefore the new gallery page and its headline are certainly not “meaningless”.
This emphasis on the context is a strong contrast to many of our usual animal photographs which focus closely on the animals themselves. Some typical examples:
I think the contrast is obvious. Here each photo emphasizes only the animal, and the context in which the photo was taken is unrecognizable or quite unimportant. Very often, when somebody nominates a photo of an animal for FP status, people recommend or even require to crop it closely in order to show only the animal itself; or people state that the animal itself was too small because the photo shows more of its environment. These crop suggestions are great if the background is uninteresting or ugly, but they are not so good when the photo shows the habitat etc. of the animal and therefore actually contain much useful information. Of course closely cropped animals photos are great for Wikidata infoboxes and the top of Wikipedia articles, but already for the description of how a animal lives etc. the photos showing the larger context are absolutely useful.
And here the new gallery page is really helpful: In our traditional zoological FP galleries photos showing the larger context often look a bit lost or even irritating among the majority of close-up photos; collecting them on a special “In their habitats” page keeps the traditional zoological galleries clear and clean and at the same time emphasizes the value and importance of photos showing animals in their habitat or other living context.
The question is where we draw the line. There are some photos which can be received in both ways, because they show some context, but not much. Some examples:
In most cases I would tend to keep these photos in the traditional galleries and to reserve the new “In their habitats” gallery page to cases in which the context is an essential part of the image message. To define this border, some experiments and habituation are necessary; please don’t forget that Cart has just started the new gallery, it is still in its initial phase. In the long term we will handle the question to which page any new FP belongs in the same way we already do this in other cases: by a proposal of the nominator, which can be discussed during the nomination, but can also corrected afterwards, if somebody sees need for improvements. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
It might make some sense to have this as a category for categorising FPs, to keep the organisation simpler. If not, categorising advice ayt the top of the page will help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this review. I understand that it can be tempting to pick various items left and right to create new galleries. With the diversity of animal pictures, it would be very easy to make also a "Gallery of groups of animals", a "Gallery of close-ups of animals", etc. But my feeling is that the main galleries of animals, easily identifiable by their biological characteristics, all lose a little with each item snatched. In my opinion, new galleries should be mostly about unclassified or poorly classified items, rather than those perfectly adapted to their original gallery. Animals that were previously grouped by family and genus are now split. Animals that could previously be seen under complementary angles (including large framings revealing sometimes their environment) are now in different locations. These original galleries are old, mostly created between 2006 and 2007 by different contributors, and I don't understand why a bear has been arbitrarily removed from there, a single snake from elsewhere, a frog, a fish, etc. Unnecessary patchwork, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I have come to this discussion late but "Gallery of Animals in their Habitat" is, I agree, meaningless, misleading and very unhelpful. The changes should be reverted as soon as possible. We should assume that a picture of a wild animal is taken in its natural habitat i.e. the wild. If not, and the animal is captive, rescued etc. then these images could (should) be split out. Images of specimens and shells (i.e. dead anaimals or parts of them) should be clearly identified as now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
What exactly did you do for FP maintenance to be in the position to tell the others how to do FP maintenance properly? --A.Savin12:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
We all select the appropriate gallery when nominating a candidate, and we often check the similar pictures of animals already promoted when we review. But now, the links are broken. Example in the most recent nomination of hedgehog, there was no hedgehog to compare. Why? Because the hedgehog was at the right place, not in an extra disconnected box.
I get that you Basile, and Charles are unhappy with this new gallery, but if they are so bad and horrible as you two make them out to be, where are all the other people complaining about this change? Usually when we do something the community don't like, we get an opinion about that from several more users, not just two. --Cart(talk)15:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if we are 2, 3, 5 or 47. I just know that 443 FPs of animals belong to Charles, a few dozens to me, and these works are worth showing up in convenient galleries.
Moreover, I don't need to be more than myself to {{Abstain}} from voting any candidate deliberately separated from meaningful others.
By the way, you don't need a "majority" to make dissatisfaction with the management of these galleries (those ones with animals in particular). And live with it if it happens. I don't wish so, just warning it's better to find a solution -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I definitely object to you reversing this change. There might be more than only you and Charles, but here in the discussion you are not in the majority. If there are more people who are with you on this, then they should show up here and give their opinion. --Kritzolina (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Also object to reversing this without a clear consensus to do so. I agree the definition of "in its habitat" is fuzzy -- something I learned that well when running a photo contest that had a prize for something similar -- but also think it's possible to define. There's plenty of fuzziness in our galleries (is a car that was wrecked in a tornado a car or a "natural phenomenon"? is a cluster of buildings an exterior, a cityscape, or a settlement? what if there's a person in front of the buildings? what if there's a waterfall next to the buildings? what if one of the buildings is a church? what if there's a bridge in the frame?). As long as it's interpreted consistently, more or less, I don't mind. If anything, I think we should support more flexibility and subjectivity in the galleries, because every single photo in those galleries should also be in at least one category that's less subjective. If a picture of a squirrel is put in the "in its habitat" gallery, and you're worried that it's separated from its taxonomy, have no fear! It's still in the taxonomic category tree (and could be added to it if it's not). I'm generally in favor of granting some latitude to the folks who spend their time organizing these galleries. — Rhododendritestalk | 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
My own FPs, promoted to belong to specific galleries, will be restored soon. The consensus to put them there should be respected -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Done and by the way, this cat and this lizard are clearly not made to live together. It's not like Chinese egrets you can see on the back of buffaloes, for example. It would be a mistake to believe cats and lizards share the same habitat -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
New Gallery pages
A note from the Gallery fixers: There are now three new Gallery pages with nice sections for your FPs.
The Gallery are constantly swelling with FPs, and we try to keep up with all the new ideas for photos that the community has. During the latest big cleanup and organization of FPs in Galleris and FP categories, it became clear that the new techniques available to photographers have also left its mark on the FPC; people are more creative than before. A lot of photos were awkwardly placed in subject Galleries, when they would fit in better in photo techniques. So such two such were created.
The second thing we saw, was that many photos involving animals were straddling two or more Galleries because of location, weather or multiple species. This turned into an idea of animals in their habitats, and sorting them out became one of the most beautiful Galleries we have now. However, a lot of the photos are a bit on the old side. It seems that lately animal photos has gravitated more towards using expensive tech to get very close to animals, to capture them with almost forensic accuracy or to isolate them from their own environment in a haze of artistic bokeh or neutral background. I think the Wikis are losing something with this. It is so great to see the animals as part of photos of their habitat. So please, when you super-record the critters, do also take a step back and compose a few great photos where we can see a bit more of the places where they live. I hope this new Gallery can inspire you to do so.
Finally, as I wrote on a nom: "All sorts of excellent images are welcome at FPC, it is only a matter of sorting them right. Unfortunately, people tend to think that if there isn't a Gallery for it, then an image can't be featured, but it is the other way around: We create Galleries for the images that are featured, whatever the subject or technique used." Don't let the lack of a good Gallery slot keep you from voting for a great photo. Ask us to fix something for it instead. --Cart(talk)02:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you should be telling us what to photograph Cart. I take many 'wide angle' wildlife shots but these are seldom going to make it at FP. Go to the Wikipedia page for muskox and you will see an image showing the park where these animals live. That photo would not be promoted FP. But if it was FP the image should sit in the same gallery as a close up. I think it is a very silly idea and you should abandon it. You should also have consulted with those of us who provide many animal FPs rather than just appointing yourself as the person to make a unilateral/bilateral or whatever decision. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp , on the Wiki-projects it is not unusual to express requests, whishes or ideas for photos. I once went and photographed all the churches on Gotland at the request of another Wikipedian for a featured list. I'm sorry you feel so strongly about this new gallery, but it was a joint decision with Aristeas, who manages the galleries these days, on how to handle photos that were spread over two or many galleries. Perhaps you should read his explanation of this a bit further down on this page. --Cart(talk)13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for the new gallery pages. It feels like these pages have always been missing. They show in particular what is possible with photography. I hope that many people will find the courage to experiment and, above all, to nominate these pictures as FPCs. I look forward to many great pictures. --XRay💬06:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I also want to add my thanks. I have a only a vague idea how complicated it is to create those new pages, but I know it took quite some time and work on your side. I really appreciate you doing this! I also hihgly appreciate the insights you shared along with the new pages and want to add my voice to yours for the last paragraph! --Kritzolina (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your invaluable work, which certainly took a lot of time and precision. The galleries are well chosen! In my opinion, several colleagues could take part in the organizational maintenance work in order to reduce the workload for the individual. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I would like to second these affirmative statements and happily welcome the new gallery pages. They are a very valuable addition and help to draw attention on important aspects and subjects of photography. To emphasize just a single one of many possible advantages of the new pages: The new Animals in habitats gallery could help to remedy a ‘defect’ of our visual habits and voting customs. When somebody nominates a photo which shows the larger context in which an animal lives, people often recommend or even require cropping to show only the animal itself. In some cases this actually improves the photo (namely when the background is boring or meaningless), but sometimes the cropping does not only diminish the aesthetics of the photo, but also removes valuable information about how an animal lives, hunts, rests, etc. I hope the new gallery will make clear that Commons does not only welcome ‘passport photos’ of animals (which are very useful for Wikipedia and Wikidata infoboxes, of course), but also appreciates photos which tell ‘the whole story’, i.e. show how animals actually live in their habitat. Best --Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Cart says above that the two of you created this new gallery. I think it is a really bad idea, scientifically unsound and misleading. I request that you temporariry revert all your work then canvass opinion properly. It is surely sensible (and polite) to ask the leading contributors of animal images for theri opinion, is it not? I am sure the galleries were created with the best intentions but best intentions are not always what we need. As Basile says somewhere, habitat is a meaningless word in the context of ccategorizing images of animals. Just think of a two examples: any flying bird (the sky); any caterpillar (on its host plant). I have had a look at the images of mine that you have chosen for your new gallery. You have made random choices which serve no useful purpose - take my FP on Monarch butterflies. It has a few butterflies on a tree. I did upload an image showing hundreds (lots of habitat), but that has not been nominated for FP. I don't know if you have removed my images from other galleries, but if so, can you please replace them. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp, your request is fixed on behalf of Aristeas, who is unavaliable to Commons for now, renovating his house (see his user page). I too will be gone from the site for some time now, due to a medical procedure. We both wanted to get as much work on the galleries done before life outside FPC took over. Those of us who work with the galleries provide a framework for FPs. As the galleries grow, new pages have to be created and sections that were previously not available, appear. When that is done, images are moved to positions that might suit them better than the ones that existed when the nom was made. Users who don't agree with the new slots are of course always free to have their images moved to were they prefer them to be. All too often on FPC we hear that an animal in an image is "too small in frame" or "we don't see the tail" or similar comments on an otherwise great photo. This new gallery is a place for such non-identify-species photos as well as other reasons given here in other comments.
Naming new gallery pages is really hard, especially as they keep expanding all the time, and the names need to be short and concise. As Rhododendrites rightly pointed out, the name is a bit "fuzzy", but so are the definitions of several other gallery pages. They need to be that way to be flexible for all the photo ideas that pop up at FPC. The category system, which is now used instead of the galleries, is much better for identifying images, and I recommend that you place your photos is several of these relevant FP categories. There are many new ones now after Aristeas and other fixer's huge work. --Cart(talk)12:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
🗯 If I dare share my point of view, for animals, the new gallery is a step backwards. As I read yesterday on this page “Hell is full of good intentions”. Competition of several identical sections now, "Amphibians", "Arachnids", "Diptera", "Hymenoptera", etc. Hello maze -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Some thoughts about the Galleries
If you look at it critically, the galleries are obsolete as a tool for the WikiProjects. When they were set up, they were simply the same as the FP categories, and every FP went everywhere, but a lot has happened since then. Today all searches for photos are done via the categories, normal categories as well as FP categories. The galleries are not integrated with the usual search tools that help people find the right images for their projects. And looking at the viewing statistics, very few people actually look at the pages. The Gallery is more like a nice glossy coffee table book that a work tool.
So why keep it? Why putting all this effort into fixing it and maintaining it? Well, for my part it is so that Commons can have that nice coffee table book to show for our work here. It helps as collection of references when people vote at FPC. And every online organization also needs a good "window display" of what it has to offer. I also think that most of the photographers here like to have their photos as part of a coffee table book,even if it's just digital. ;-) --Cart(talk)14:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I think you're hitting the nail on the head with the coffee table metaphor. I love to sometimes just scroll through the gallery pages and I've been thoroughly enjoying the new ones (especially Styles and Techniques). Thank you all for keeping them tidy. El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The latest Galleries to burst at the seams were the 'People' galleries. With all the work the emminent Adam Cuerden has done, it was time for a new gallery page:
This new gallery contains portraits made before 1970 (head, busts, half, 3/4 and full length). For 1970 and onwards, the color portraits photos are found in Portraits and black & white portraits photos are a section in the Black and White gallery.
For photo of events, big and small, before 1970, please use Historical. For black & white photos after 1970, you use the Black and White. There are a surprisingly small number of modern black & white FPs. Hopefully that will change, and that gallery can be expanded. Descriptions about what to list in the galleries have been added to the top of them.
Thanks for all you hard work with making these photos of people! Keep filling the galleries so we can create new ones for you. --Cart(talk)17:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Very special thanks to Cart and Kritzolina for arranging the historical people photos in a suitable gallery. This makes our wonderful coffee table book look even tidier and more attractive as a showcase for us and reusers :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking care of such fine details, Cart. This gives a professional impression to all viewers and especially to experts who know the photographers' working biographies. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Adam, glad you liked it. The template has been updated, see [3] and [4]. You might have to purge your page to see this on the template. For some obscure reason, it is taking forever for the system to update all the transclusion on the pages with this template. It might have to do with the template not yet having been visited by the translation team. I hope that will happen soon. --Cart(talk)17:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I'm waiting for. I tried to do that with the previous new galleries, but that turned out badly since I don't have the proper authorization to do this. The marking to translate is apparently done via a special program. I just don't want to be a pest and go asking for this (again), it will happen when the translate-code team has the time. --Cart(talk)18:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Hey, I have been here for a few weeks, and now I have given up because I discovered featured pictures is not what I was expecting it to be, and thus not a place for me. Don't get me wrong, the community is welcoming and very nice, so there is nothing personal here. It is more about the mechanics of the featured picture nominations.
I came here with the expectation to help promote my own, and others', pictures of the top artistic and technical quality. The crème de la crème of informative and aesthetic value. I'm leaving with an awkward feeling of dissatisfaction. Isn't Wikimedia a project so important to our world that something "featured" actually means the absolute top value and quality? Are these the photos we're leaving for our posteriority as "the best"? Is my granddaughter browsing old featured photos in 2053 going to ask: "So the world of 2023 was mostly birds?" "But hey at least they are all perfectly focused!" I'll respond.
I know this forum has existed for years so you may not be interested in a newcomer's observations. I'm sure you have had all the ideas below, you have processed them as a community, and likely torn them apart. So feel free to ignore them, but I'm still going to leave my thoughts below in case there's anything enlightening.
TL;DR: Featured Picture voting often does the opposite of what it supposed to be doing by promoting so-so photos instead of excellent photos.
I deliberately refrain from calling any names or giving links to specific examples. Whoever reads attentively will know what I'm talking about.
Details:
Photos are judged by people who are not trained to criticise a photograph, because the requirements to vote (10 days and 50 edits) have nothing to do with the knowledge of photography (as either profession or art). The few people who actually know what they are talking about are in minority and unable to win a vote. No good solution to this to be honest other than designate a panel of judges who would be picked based off of some criteria, a test, past accolades in photographic contests, proven career in journalistic / artist photography, published printed work?
As with any unskilled electorate, there's a strong conformity effect. Many green "Support" marks? Oh, this photo must be good, let me support too.
The effect of the first vote (negative or positive) is very strong, and can skew the result. This is difficult to overcome and a solution would be to cast votes without seeing other people's votes.
Bias towards safe subjects. A bird photo got featured, a photo of a child in war conflict did not. Take a random group of people and they will kill an AFP-class photo which Newsweek editors will gladly put on a cover.
Strong bias towards technicalities. High resolution, good white balance and sharp focus don't make a good photograph yet. What is even more and close to a heresy in this forum, it is possible to have a good photograph that is not technically perfect.
Dominance of local gurus who have collected dozens of FP nominations which entitles them to express "expert" opinions on all types of photography. Of course, these opinions again influence voting, because not everyone understands that being able to take a perfectly sharp photo of an airplane does not necessarily say anything about my portraiture skills.
Extreme low entry bar to have your picture featured. Bias to put up pictures for voting which will get an easy win. I posted 4 images and got 2 of them easily featured. And they were not the ones I'd consider "better". So for my next nomination I'd pick an easy winner rather than having to struggle and "defend" a better photograph. This is how one kills individualism, and promotes mediocrity.
@Podstawko Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I think I'll have to agree with pretty much all of that. I have mostly given up on voting on certain kinds of nominations that are technically fine but otherwise just following a cookie-cutter style approach of submitting the same kind of image with a slightly different subject over and over again. Sometimes it feels like most voters here are plain out incapable of making up their minds about something they haven't encountered before, so they stick to the "proven" familiar themes (which get supported by default unless someone discovers some kind of technical defect). Many of these nominations feel like nothing more than QI+. That's boring. If someone comes up with something truly fresh, people don't know how to handle that and latch on to the only thing they feel comfortable judging: technical quality. Due to lack of experience, they don't know that some things just don't translate from one situation to the next, and expect the noise level of a tripod-supported blue hour shot from a handheld concert shot. El Grafo (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Julesvernex2. It feels like people are cozy in the environment which I described, and there's a lively community built around it. The view I presented is highly subjective, and many people will not agree. To implement many of what I listed, the required changes would have to be so fundamental that it would probably require setting up a new project from scratch. I am not even an admin and don't have enough clout to enforce such changes, so all I can do is leave honest feedback and leave. I'm sure many photographers left without even leaving that feedback so hey I went that extra mile :) podstawko ●talk11:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Not everybody is as cozy as it may seem to you in this environment. There are quit a few of us pushing for changes, even if we don't all want exactly the same kind of change. But yes, we see the problems you have so aptly listed, especially the strong bias towards technitalities and safe subjects and the dominance of local gurus. Thank you for calling out these things so clearly. And if we could encourage you to stay, I would be happy, but I know how frustrating it can be to push for changes on wiki projects, so I also have a lot of respect for your decision. Kritzolina (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Podstawko, for sharing your detailed, critical, and therefore constructive thoughts with us. It is very important for the project. Personally, I think it's a great pity that you're leaving us, because the benefit for FPC lies in the diversity of photographers and their work. Every experienced photographer is a valuable asset. The nomination processes often have their ups and downs, they are not perfect either, but I am sure that in the end the community takes care to act fairly. The voting system you suggest is, as far as I know, also used in photo competitions like WLF or WLM, and is certainly the better method. Applying this system to FPC would require restructuring and more effort overall. I cannot judge whether this would work permanently in the voluntary system. In any case, I would like to repeat that experienced photographers are invaluable to FPC and I am very sorry to see you leave. You are always welcome to come back and make your useful contributions to this project. Best wishes / Pozdrawiam serdecznie, -- Radomianin (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Dzięki @Radomianin. Again, I'm not asking for pity or calls to stay, this is not the point. The point of the posting is to outline the possible reasons why you may see some people enthusiastically joining and then leaving shortly after. podstawko ●talk13:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think basically the reason why you leave is quite simple: you are not amongst those who are dedicated to Commons. The Right to leave is of course always with you and not contested by anyone here. Farewell. --A.Savin13:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin, it is not up to you to judge how dedicated I am to Commons, as you don't have the knowledge of what time I can, or do, devote to what activities. Given this, your statement is arrogant. Also, double check your link -- I'm not leaving Wikipedia or Wikimedia for that matter, I'm only choosing not to participate in this forum. podstawko ●talk13:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment I share many of your ideas about the FPC assessment process and its vices. This has driven me, in the past, to start more than a couple of discussions here. Yes, I also agree that the promotion criteria adopted by many (if not most) reviewers are too loose, sometimes running the risk of transforming this forum into a “like” kind of social media. I tried to convince the community that the default sate of any nomination here is “not promoted” and should only change in the presence of something exceptional. This was my view 11 years ago: [[5]]. But my attempts were not successful, and maybe that is the main reason why FPC is no longer a challenge to me. More and more I believe that justifying a support vote is more important than justifying an oppose one. I also share the position of the other editors that there is no reason for you to leave. We need some kind of a revolution here and someone with a fresh mind to start it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I think we have heard most of the reasons left by Podstawko from just about every dedicated photographer giving up on FPC. The were a few years some time ago, when we had more photographers with a good level of photography skills active on the forum, but most of them were worn out in some way or other. This is an open forum, and with that comes a lot of participants with not much extensive experience of different aspects of photography. I too would like it to work better, but the forum has a too great inertia to move it to something better than it is.
If the Olympic games worked the same as FPC, we would have judges from all the sport branches voting willy-nilly on any sport and bold members of the audience chiming in with their votes. ;-) --Cart(talk)14:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I agree nearly 100% with your assessment: people without knowledge of photography, local gurus with disproportionate weight, inappropriate political, social, or technical comments unrelated to the vote, overemphasis on cute subjects vs. good photographs. I would add a disproportionate importance to digital photography. Photography existed for more than 150 years before digital photography was invented. Yann (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd even go so far as to say disproportionate importance to photography in general – to the point that I think we should just call it "Featured Photographs" and move things like maps and illustrations to Featured media. That would help Featured media to grow a bit and get the files out of the way of photography reviewers trying to apply megapixel limits to vector graphics. El Grafo (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like Featured Media is at a stand-still, and that nobody is maintaining it. Same as with many things here; people like to talk, vote, have opinions, etc. but not much love for maintenance, grunt work and keeping things running. --Cart(talk)10:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a problem. It's easy to pop in and out, leaving vote here and a comment there, but committing to a maintenance task is a whole different beast. I'm not in a position to do that right now. El Grafo (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
💡 A few words for improvement
Hi Podstawko, many of us enjoy FPC because this section helps us to ameliorate our technical and artistic skills, in order take better photographs. Most of the reviews are honest and constructive.
At this stage, you made 458 edits on Commons and uploaded 47 files since September 2023. I had a look at your works, and think you can improve them:
🖼️ Crop / Framing: Many of your subjects are awkwardly cropped (too tight), examples 1, 2, 3, 4. If you present your subjects in full, without cutting out any border, they may be more attractive to the eye.
🔍 Focus / Depth of field: Some of your images have a blurry foreground because the DoF is too shallow, examples 1, 2, 3. You should try to offer more sharpness by adjusting the aperture. A tripod may help too.
📐 Tilt / Perspective, some of your buildings are tilted, or have leaning verticals, examples 1, 2, 3. If your original pictures are not horizontal, you can fix the perspectives in postprocess by using a software like Lightroom or Photoshop.
🌗 Light / Exposure, to avoid burnt sky or dark subjects, examples 1, 2, 3, you may try "Manual exposure" on your camera, and then adjust the contrasts in post-process.
Those user-related categories are part of the problem. Some people just look at the numbers, not the quality. And this is also definitely related to the quid pro quo mentality. —kallerna (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment Not sure if it is really a good idea to review here the images of a user who have not asked for that. But this highlights that here, as well as in the FP forum, reviews made by others may be (are) very subjective. E.g. Basile has a review regarding the "Focus / Depth of field" of File:County Waterford - St Declan's Oratory - 20230929133545.jpg, me I think that the focus/DoF is not good.... I think it is near to be perfect, however the prominence of an object out of focus is a bit disturbing, so if "criticism" is needed for that photo, IMO it is more an issue regarding the composition. Subjective. Christian Ferrer(talk)11:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore potential constructive criticism about our FP forum should be welcomed instead of, as answer, a criticism about the contributions of the user who made them [in my opinion]. That being said, an immune reaction from a specific community, when criticized, is rather normal. Please everybody a little restraint. Christian Ferrer(talk)12:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing this, @Christian Ferrer, and dropping this note. Indeed, none of the photos mentioned above except one has ever been, or ever meant to be, put up for critique. That person went as low as criticizing hasty snapshots taken with a phone which I needed for ad-hoc illustrations of the articles I wrote. Not to mention the deliberately patronizing tone. He lectured a photographer who spent hundreds of hours in a darkroom (the real one, not Lightroom) on the basics of cropping, focus, exposure... at least I hope it made him feel better in some way. podstawko ●talk05:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Reading your feedback, I supposed you were considering subjective critics as constructive. But look, in this FP nomination by you, there are clever reviewers who did not vote {{Support}} or {{Oppose}}, but just left constructive comments. Do you see and appreciate them? I think you could try to improve and upload an updated version, as we all do here. However, you're free to leave also. You don't need a pass to come back later -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Did you even read the comments under the nomination link before you pasted it above? In my withdrawal, I thanked for the constructive comments.
Responding to my criticism which was never aimed at any specific person but at the rules of the game, you have now picked on me personally twice and used my photos and my comments selectively in order to assert dominance in a discourse. Any further discussion with you would be an ugly back-and-forth leading nowhere, similarly to how you played it when people pointed out your inappropriate comments just a few days ago. From my side the discussion ends here. podstawko ●talk13:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
In the paragraph "Extreme low entry bar to have your picture featured [...] This is how one kills individualism, and promotes mediocrity." do you feel like you're in a position to spread such dismissive allegations? I mean, it could be acceptable from a master to hear that the level here is weak, but with your current profile I feel more like you struggle personally to create masterpieces. Wrong feeling? Although you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself, by putting down others, the risk is that some readers just remember a big mouth with little charisma. Anyway, bye bye! ✋️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear Christian, note I absolutely don't contest podstawko's critics above. They might be accurate (and useful for those who discover them) but my personal opinion is that the reality of the voting process is much much more complex (and interesting) than that. I could argue and prove a quantity of points with clear examples. Just a simple remark: we are numerous here to oppose a nomination and at the same time support another one by the same creator, proof that revenge / quid pro quo behavior is very contestable. Despite a few problems, FPC is working overall. I have seen many users improving their skills and sharing breathtaking photographs. COM:POTY competition is not too bad, also, whereas the voters are total ignorant in photography, often. Magic? -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
No problem Basile. However by pointing the discussion toward the specific contributions of one specific user who have a different opinion, you have more chance at best to cut short the discussion, and at worst to be unpleasant with that user, and there is a only few chance, if not none, to make them understand that the process is "much much more complex (and interesting) than that". Only those who already thinks that the process is "much much more complex (and interesting) than that" will completely agree. That's what I said above, it is an "immune reaction from a specific community", in summary, to highlight their contribution looks a bit like to at a kind of message "we know very well that we do here, we do not need the opinion of someone like you whose photos over and over again has many defects very easy to find for someone like me who am a faithful of the FPC process"". This may not be your goal but that's what it kinda looks like. And besides, it's not really your fault, for what I know you seems rather nice, it's one of the perverse effects of the project as it currently stands. Christian Ferrer(talk)08:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion with great interest, and @Podstawko: , your points have truly resonated with me. The essence of photography, its soul, lies in its ability to capture moments that move and provoke thought, not just in perfect pixel clarity. It seems we've gotten tangled up in technicalities, losing sight of the narrative power of an image. Remembering my beginnings in this section and how difficult it was to transform myself into what I am today, the user with the most featured photos from the American continent, but when I started several years ago in Venezuela with a 2MP Chinese camera, it was impossible to get featured photos. I had to achieve some balance between photo quality and composition, but this was only possible with the donation of a camera from a user as a gift, which opened the doors to FPC. What makes this section special is the balance between both parts, but I agree that we have gotten lost at some point. The idea of a democratic vote is noble in theory, but when it comes to artistic matters, it might do a disservice to art. The experience required to truly evaluate the merit of a photograph goes beyond the reach of the ego, and a panel with a deeper understanding of the craft could serve to elevate truly deserving works. Furthermore, the conformity effect you've highlighted, where votes tend to accumulate, is something I've also noticed. It's somewhat disheartening to see unique and challenging images overlooked in favor of the familiar. Blind voting could change the game, allowing each piece to stand on its own without the weight of groupthink, although I'm not sure how it could be technically speaking, perhaps an external tool. And I would dare to say that it's not just about knowing who votes but also who comments on a photo, even though the fact of seeing many positive votes encourages others to vote more positively for those European buildings that predominate in FPC, a white, male, and European view. It's a real pity that the system seems to favor 'safe' subjects. Art should challenge and comfort, incite and soothe, all at once. When we play it safe, we rob ourselves of the opportunity to experience and learn from diverse perspectives. Your departure is a wake-up call. It underlines the need for evolution in how we recognize and reward photographic excellence. It's not about rejecting the current system but improving it to reflect a broader spectrum of what makes photography such a powerful medium. I sincerely hope the community takes your feedback seriously. Change is never easy, but it is necessary for growth. Your contribution could be the catalyst for a new era of featured photography, one that values the heart, the story, and the essence of the moment as much as technical perfection --Wilfredor (talk) 13:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment First of all, a word of sympathy to Wilfredor, whose first attempts in FPC I remember quite well! My story is, in a way, similar to his although our ages are probably very different… When I first came here my knowledge about digital photography was almost nil, although I had a past experience in analog photography and had spent many hours in a darkroom, feelling the aggressive smell of those chemicals. But I immediately understood that I still had much to learn, not only about the technicalities of taking pictures but also about the aesthetical aspects of Photography. That learning experience was extremely rewarding as I had the privilege of having my work constructively criticized by very talented photographers. For that process, I am deeply grateful to FPC and its regulars. Having said this, I also want to express my understanding to the comments of Basile Morin, who apparently reacted against what appeared to be an argument of authority, made by a user whose contributions to this forum are still modest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Foi com um sorriso que li as tuas palavras, tão cheias de entendimento e camaradagem. A tua história, semelhante à minha, é uma inspiração, e sentir que há quem reconheça o caminho que um principiante tem pela frente é um conforto grande. Estou-lhe muito agradecido pelo apoio e pelas críticas construtivas que já me ajudaram a melhorar. Que a fotografia continue a ser esse elo que nos une e nos faz crescer, cá na nossa comunidade do FPC. Wilfredor (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
If I may make a remark as someone who shoots photos only on my iPhone and has yet to upload any of them here, and who went to school for and is a professional in the field of music, not photography, I think the most interesting remark in this thread is Alvesgaspar's idea of requiring an explanation for every supporting vote. That might be a really good idea, and maybe we should consider that as a proposal, discuss it and vote on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
As the aphorism says, “hell is full of good intentions”. Yes, it would be a nice improvement to see reviewers explain why they support a nomination, as those explanations might call the attention to relevant aspects not immediately perceived or valued by all. But how to enforce such a practice even assuming that it will be endorsed by most of us? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Cross out all the votes that are not explained, ping all the reviewers to ask them to "give a reason according to the new rule", the first week will be difficult, the second week everybody will have learned -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Responding to the constructive articulation of observed trends defensively, singling out OP's photos for the very kind of criticism which were the basis for the initial complaint, is a sure-fire way to ensure "the way we've always done things" is "the way we will always do things", because newbies either assimilate or leave. Like when a newbie complains on the English Wikipedia that experienced users communicate with a litany of acronyms rather than just explaining what the newbie did wrong, and then someone else jumps in to throw another pile of acronyms into the thread. I agree with many of OPs points, for what it's worth. The thing is, as should be clear by this subsection, it's not going to fix itself. The only way it's going to change is if enough people willing to support more diverse images have the perseverance to stick around and vote. Another issue, however, is that there are a lot of us who would like to see a broadening of FPC's horizons, but we don't agree on how to expand those horizons -- "more of this kind of image, but no, not expanding FPC to that one -- that's still just not good enough"). FPC is a vote, and photos that appeal strongly to just a small number don't do as well as photos that appeal a little bit to a large number. You can attribute that to being a bunch of stodgy long-time participants set in their/our ways or the way voting among a diverse crowd elevates the lowest common denominator. With a vote, at some level you have to appeal to a wide audience to ensure a 2:1 vote, and that's not often compatible with pushing the limits. — Rhododendritestalk | 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment Having just returned from a long tour, I've read this thread. I note Podstawko's imagined comment: "So the world of 2023 was mostly birds?" "But hey at least they are all perfectly focused!". The quip irritated me. Those of us who submit action photos (vehicles, sports people, moving wild animals...) know the challenges of framing, background, lighting, timing etc. as well as having the right lens and appropriate camera settings. For many wild animals, simply finding one is a challenge. When you find it, you might have to stalk it or wait in hope that it will find a decent place to perch. Then you have to try to get as much of it as you can perfectly focused. What ends up looking like 'passport photo' (as someone snarled in a similar debate a year or two ago), might have been the result of many hours trekking in distant lands; and dozens of 'not-quite-good-enough' shots. The idea of explaining positive votes has some merit, but might result in many fewer votes. I support about 9 in 10 of David Gubler's amazing train pictures that are nominated at FPC. But for each one I could cut and paste the same accolade: "Amazing skill and dedication (and money spent) to research the train's route and schedule; choose the most dramatic setting; find the best PoV; wait for the right time of day and the right weather. Perfectly focused." Would that improve FPC? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would. I find it interesting to learn what you think is the most important thing about these images. Because that is not what I see in these pictures. If I don't give an explanation for one of my positive votes, it is usually because other voters already stated the things I would say. Or because I am in a bit of a hurry .. I will try to take the time and put in a few words. Because I believe that could start more intresting discussions with learnings for all of us. Kritzolina (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I have nothing against you as a person, I only think we should all follow the rules that have been agreed upon by the community here, rules that you keep breaking. --Cart(talk)18:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I know this has come up many times before, but in case this is a real proposal, I would support a limit of two self-nominations and three total nominations. In other words, I'd supporting expanding the total limit, but probably not the number of self-nominations? I could probably be persuaded to support a flat limit of three, though. — Rhododendritestalk | 18:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Currently we have no limit to the number of nominations a nominator can have visible (transcluded) on FPC, as long as no more than two are active (i.e. not closed or withdrawn). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I will say I'm generally willing to nominate another as soon as either Rule of the 5th day or the time period being up has happened, whether the bot had got to them or not. I used to point this out, but it never was an issue, so I stopped mentioning it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It's a good idea to engage our FPC users, and we have good approval rates; in general, users (such as DD, Giles, Ermell, King, among others) would benefit from the limit expansion.
It's good to hear that you propose this, so that user like ones you mention above can get a faster approval rate, and not because you are impatient and prone to overstepping the two-nom limit. ;-) --Cart(talk)20:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
With this reasoning I can't really go along with the suggestion because it would help cement or even increase the bias we already have in FPs. We need to find more FP candidates from users not yet participating in the process, and to encourage other useres to participate. I am afraid more nominations from "the usual crowd" might even discourage users to come and nominate their images. Kritzolina (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Adding to what I wrote above: If I'm being realistic, I'm most active at FPC when I have things to nominate. It's just practicality: I do a lot of wiki activities, and I don't think of FPC quite as often when I don't have candidates myself. Sometimes I do, but less often. At the same time, I aspire to do more work to find/nominate other people's photos, but only remember to do so when I'm active (and thus, when I already have two of my own nominations). I suspect this may be true for others. For me or for people like me, adding a third spot that can only be filled with someone else's images would very likely lead me to nominate other photos. That seems broadly desirable IMO, and I don't think it would result in a massive increase in overall nominations such that it would become untenable. YMMV. — Rhododendritestalk | 20:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I do Support Rhododendrites's idea of a maximum of 3 nominations per nominator, with the restriction that no more than 2 can be created by the nominator and no more than 2 can be created by others. Hopefully this will encourage FPC creators to nominate others' works and FPC nomination specialists to contribute their own work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠03:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Two nominations per user are enough, in my opinion. The more candidates there are, the less carefully they are evaluated individually, due to the time spent for each.
Oppose As one of those who do the "behind the scene" work with FPs, I think that 2 noms are enough. An extra nom will add to the bulk of FPs to process, and for that more people would need to get involved in the tedious sorting and fixing; the less glamorous side of FP. While Rhododendrites's idea of that extra nom for other people's work is commendable, I'm cynical enough to assume this will give rise to users "buddying up" and nominate each other's photos, by agreement or because people might feel they should return the favor. Plus there is Kritzolina's very good point. --Cart(talk)09:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Making good nominations with reasonable reasonings and answering any questions, comments etc. in an appropritate manner is much work. Therefore even maintaining two nominations at the same time is sometimes too much. If we allow even more simultaneous nominations, we punish the serious nominators and inspire the careless ones. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment Additional reasons for opposing: People may not realize but there is much work going on behind the scenes to keep the Featured Pictures nominations and galleries up and running. Countless gallery links need to be repaired or improved, often the bot still mis-sorts FPs so we must sort them manually, I scan all gallery pages and categories regularly for missing FPs or fake FPs, etc. As Cart has already stated, this is much work, and while more people enjoy the sunny side of making nominations, only very few help with the maintenance. Therefore getting more FP candidates is not a good thing; selecting candidates more carefully is the way to go. --Aristeas (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Dear colleagues, I agree with the previous commentators who mentioned the maintenance effort. Until some time ago, I used to clean up the file pages of promoted FPs, for example when the bot placed the FP label between two sections in individual information fields. This looks ugly and unrepresentative. I also added appropriate categories or improved the captions in the FP galleries. In my experience, with a few exceptions, hardly anyone participates in this kind of maintenance, especially in the case of third-party nominations. In addition, as mentioned above, new or infrequently active nominators will not benefit from an extension. Therefore, I agree with the forward-looking views of other discussants and vote against a rule change. This is my two cents on the matter. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Oppose without further arguments. I'm tired of this discussion. It feels like once a year somebody brings this up and every single time the answer is a big fat NO from the community. --El Grafo (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
It's not looking great for this proposal, but I can say that it would put me in an interesting case of being able to half-justify three nominations at all times, since they're images I restored by different artists, so....
Mind ye, that feels like a malicious reading, and Wikipedia has never been the type to accept something just because you can rules lawyer your way into that being a possible interpretation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Oops
I just realised I accidentally nominated a third image, as I forgot I had nominated Nettleton, and Nordenfelt has a day left to run. Do as you see fit to correct my mistake; it's a little awkward to nominate as a File:[filename].jpg/2, but if that's the best way forwards.... If there's an easy way to pull it out and then just reset the timer, that may be ideal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations Germany, you did it again! Thanks to all talented photographers, your 'Castles and fortifications' section broke out of the gallery page and you now have a page of your own. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications/Germany. Again, I would be grateful if a native could check the page and see what mistakes I might have made, or if you want to sort things further/differently. If you want another image to represent you on Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany, please change it. I selected that one because I think it looks good as a miniature and it has many of the elements of German castles in the image. Just keep adding to the page! Best, --Cart(talk)23:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow, thanks a lot for making the space for more German castles and fortifications! :D I did a quick first glance at the page and didn't find any mistakes, but I might have missed something, especially for those states where I am not familiar with most of the objects. One thing I noticed - and which has nothing to do with your good work - is that we have 5 FIs of Schloß Neuschwanstein taken from the same viewpoint. Now I have my own issues about this castle representing Germany in so many places, but even not regarding this, I think we might reduce the number of FIs for this subject a bit. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Kritzolina (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about that. This is not the only structure with many FPs, we also have the Golden Gate bridge, Tower Bridge, Berliner Fernsehturm and the Eiffel tower. Having several good photos of the same subject can be useful for comparison issues like weather, ecology, monument maintenance, cameras, time of day, image processing, whatever. But I am curious about what new angles of the Neuschwanstein might be discovered now that we have drones, and aren't depending so much on places to place a tripod. --Cart(talk)10:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
You are right about the weather conditions, monument maintenance and ecology aspects, I did not think of those ... you are right about all the other things as well of course, but they don't convince me as much. Thanks for making me think beyond my Anti-Neuschwanstein-bias! Kritzolina (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello, when I made {{FPGHeader}}, used in FP galleries, I included a table of content within a scrollbox in the upper left of each page. However I just noticed that this is not supported by the Vector 2022 skin (because this skin already includes automatically a table of content), and for who is using this skin the result is an empty box in the upper left.
Questions:
Does anyone has the skills to write a code for the template in the purpose to detect the skin used, and then, in case of Vector 2022 the scrollbox is not displayed (to avoid an empty box)?
If no, do we keep the statu quo, i.e. we do nothing and the users using the Vector 2022 skin have an empty box in the upper left of the galleries?
If no:
We use a table of content __TOC__ without scroll box. The result will be the empty box will disappears for the users using the Vector 2022 skin, however for every one else there will be a table of content which in some case will be very long, this is why I used a scroll box, e.g. for Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds you will have near the top of the gallery a table of content with 75 lines.
We do note use anymore table of content neither scrollbox.
Hi Christian, thank you for mentioning this problem! I have noticed it, too, and searched for a solution. But I did not find a satisfying one, so I did not make any changes … IMHO the TOC is quite useful on the FP gallery pages (I often look at the TOCs to understand the sections hierarchy of a particular gallery page, also to spot errors), so we should not remove the TOC. The perfect solution would be be to hide the scrollbox when the Vector 2022 skin is used. But I can’t help here, for me skins like Vector 2022 are so complex that I don’t want to mess with them. So I hope somebody else can help here … Until that, I would suggest to keep the status quo. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Germany and the US - galleries
Nope, nothing new or controversial, just a lot of talented and active photographers in those countries. Congratulations, you have both become the first countries to break out of a non-Natural gallery page. There are now two dedicated pages:
Funny, much more FP's from the town of Münster rather than from all East German states together except (East-)Berlin. --A.Savin 19:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Nevermind, it's only about Architecture/Exteriors. --A.Savin19:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
The guidelines (for QI and FP) state that Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Now that cameras (and particularly smartphones) can produce huge images, this rule should probably be modified.
What about
1. Images that are larger than 4000 pixels (on the shorter side) should be uploaded at maximum resolution, but can then be overwritten by a smaller file with a minimum of 4000 pixels (on the shorter side).
2. Images less than 4000 pixels (on the shorter side) should not be downsized/downsampled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with Charles’ proposal. I prefer people to provide their photos at the highest available resolution, but if people want to scale them down this may be tolerated for photos over a certain minimum size; 4000 pixels on the shorter side would be a sensible lower limit.
Maybe it would be even better if we would continue to require people to upload their photos at full size, but would consider the resolution when reviewing photos for QI and FP – e.g., all in-focus areas of photos with < 12 megapixels should normally be pin-sharp on pixel level [with some exceptions for very difficult action or wildlife shots], in photos < 24 megapixels the in-focus areas should be very sharp, and in photos > 24 megapixels some concessions regarding sharpness are appropriate, even more in photos > 40 megapixels. This could be implemented by applying the scale-down approach which is used by some photo equipment testers; e.g. by saying that the sharpness of every photo should be evaluated at a copy which has been downscaled to some normalized size, e.g. 12 megapixels. … But having said this, I understand that implementing an approach like this one may lead to endless discussions, therefore it may be more realistic for now to allow the exception proposed by Charles. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Use of a modern smartphone
I'm sure this has already been discussed before, but I couldn't find a clear answer for this on the page about creating a nomination, so I'm asking here. Is it an instant failure if a FP nominee is taken using a modern smartphone? I would love to nominate my File:Bowl of Pigs in a Blanket.jpg image which I took using an Iphone 14, but I've never done a FP nomination before, and I'm wondering if an Iphone has enough technical merit to be elligable a FP. I've read the criteria, but I'm still a little ignorant on this topic, so any feedback is much appreciated. Thanks! Johnson524 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I suggest you nominate your pictures to quality images first. If they pass there, and are exceptional in some way, why not? The lower quality compared to a camera could be compensated by other factors. Regarding the picture you linked above, this would fail because of the composition regardless of the quality. For a FP of such a subject, you need a clean background. Yann (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Yann, and thanks for the helpful reply! If I were to digitally alter the background to a different color, or to a transparent background, would that improve the image quality? I'm still personally skeptical if the image above could ever be an FP, but I want my contributions to Commons to be well-made if possible, and if one of these things could help, I would be happy to do it. Do you have a preference, or would it be better to just keep the image as-is? Thanks! (this is my last comment btw, I don't want to take up too much of your time 🙂) Johnson524 (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
There is certainly a preference among FPC regulars against altered backgrounds, so I certainly wouldn't recommend that if FP is the goal. Featured Pictures need technical quality and a "wow factor", which is subjective. An ordinary subject -- and one which the photographer has full control over, unlike a performance or a wild animal -- will struggle with that wow unless it's extraordinarily high technical quality, extraordinarily good composition, extraordinarily interesting setting, etc. Unfortunately, being taken with a smartphone, while not disqualifying, starts off at below average image quality (visible at full resolution). As for the technical photography side, I think the marble background is less of an issue than the tightly cropped bowl. It really needs some space around it. You can take a look at what photos of food have been featured in the past for an idea of what's expected: Category:Featured pictures of food. — Rhododendritestalk | 19:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
a) The lighting is good and attractive. You did well with that.
b) The composition is good. It's nice to see them from all different angles.
c) The marble background is IMO fine. No issue with a nice clean marble worksurface.
d) The crop is way too tight, let it breathe. This picture is an example of it done well IMO.
e) The image quality is okay but not great as you'd expect from a phone camera. But it's the pixel-level detail that's the problem too. The image is only eight megapixels which is pretty small for a 2023 FP of a pretty easily reproducible subject (i.e. one that isn't moving). If the quality at pixel level were like this at 20 megapixels it'd be fine but not for 8.
For all these reasons, it would be a weak oppose from me if nominated. But there's a lot of good things about this photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Proposed amendment to FPC rules: rule of the 5th day does not apply to nominations with ‘alternative’ images
Dear friends,
I was told that according to the established practice the rule of the 5th day is never applied to nominations containing at least one alternative image, even when one of the images already has 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. This exception makes sense when we consider that in the remaining part of the regular nomination time another alternative could get more pro votes and hence overtake the leading variant. At the first glance this may look like a rather theoretical idea; but e.g. this nomination shows clearly why the practice makes sense: both images had more than 10 votes and there was no way of knowing which version was going to win until the final day.
However this exception is not contained in our written FPC rules. IMHO it would be rewarding to add it to the official rules, in order to avoid awkward situations in the future. We have/had such an awkward situation right now. Out of ignorance of that exception to the rule of the 5th day I have closed this nomination because after 5 days one of the variants was clearly leading with 18 support votes and no oppose votes. This prompted the nominator, Charles, to open two new nominations, 1 and 2. But then I had to revert my closing of the first nomination, and so the nominator had three simultaneous nominations – something which is clearly not allowed, and so one of the new nominations had to be closed again. After that everything was “correct” again, but this confusion has caused much unncessary work, annoyance and additional confusion to the nominator (sorry, Charles!) and others. We should avoid such situations in the future, and the easiest way to do this is by adding the exception explicitly to our FPC rules.
Therefore I propose that in the section “Formal things”, subsection “Featured picture candidate policy”, under “General rules”, point 8: “Rules of the 5th day”, point 2, the text is amended as follows (new text marked by underlining):
2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) This does not apply to nominations containing at least one ‘Alternative’ image – because it is possible that another image can overtake the one in the lead during the last days, such nominations are never closed early.
Of course improvements to the exact wording of the amendment are welcome ;–). But IMHO we must add the exception to the rules. What do you think? Pinging @Charlesjsharp: because you have been affected by this problem (sorry!) and @W.carter, Basile Morin, Christian Ferrer, A.Savin, and Poco a poco: because you are some of our most experienced FP rules experts. (Of course everybody is welcome to the discussion! I just don’t want to disturb everybody by a ping.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
+2 There is also the fact that 'Alts' often are the result of propositions by voters, and since not all people visits FPC every day, there need to be ample time for voters to see the changes in the 'Alt'. Noms with 'Alts' are often messy, sometimes even hard to count in the end and must always be closed manually; this adding to the rules will remove some of the mess. The FPC rules are in need of some serious updating, there are probably more things that needs to be written or amended. (...and one just appeared in an edit conflict for me. ;-) ) --Cart(talk)19:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
+5. If a nomination has an alternative it is almost by definition a sufficiently ambiguous and debated case as to be considered an ‘ongoing conversation’, and therefore should be given the full nine days for the debate to play out. Cmao20 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for your approval! I propose we wait for three morefourteen days. I hope we will hear some more voices in that time. If no serious objections are raised in that time I will amend the rules with the proposed sentence. (IMHO threefourteen days are enough because the proposed amendment is not a real change of the rules, but just a supplement which settles a case of doubt and codifies the common practice.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(I forgot that for many people there are still holidays etc. Therefore it seems better to wait full two weeks. Changed from three to fourteen days. --Aristeas (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC))
Many thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion. About 14 days have passed since this proposal has been made; no objections have been raised and all contributors have commented in agreement. Therefore I will amend now the text of the FPC rules as proposed here. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposed correction to FPC rules: rule for “speedy declined” needs update
Dear friends,
there is another point in our FPC rules which needs to be updated in order to agree with the established practice. In the section “Formal things”, subsection “Featured picture candidate policy”, under “General rules”, point 8: “Rules of the 5th day”, point 1, we read:
1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
But in current practice our FPCBot speedy declines a nomination at the 5th day if it has got no or just a single support vote – regardless whether that support vote comes from the nominator or from another user. (Here is a recent example.)
This change can be explained easily. Originally, when the rule quoted above was written, it was assumed that every nominator would vote to support for their nomination, so there was de facto no difference in the meaning of the rule (if there was a single support vote, that was always the nominator’s one.) When FPCBot took over closing the nominations, it became hard for it to distinguish who the one support vote came from, and so the rule was interpreted as “if they have no or only a single support vote”. FP regulars adapted to that practice, and today the “speedy declined” rule is always applied in this way.
One could imagine to enforce the original wording of the rule. But after looking at the Wikitext of some nominations, with all possible variations, I guess that it would be quite hard to change FPCBot code so that it can distinguish the nominator’s support vote from a support by anybody else – and even then the code would sometimes fail, given the many possible variations of the wording. (E.g. imagine that the nominator originally abstained from voting and only voted somewhere later down in the text of the nomination.) So this is not a practical option. And it is also not necessary. If nominators want to enforce the original idea, they just need to vote in support of their own nominations. Then the single support mentioned by the rule is their own one, and any additional support vote by any other user would reliably prevent the speedy decline.
Therefore I propose that in the “General rules”, point 8: “Rules of the 5th day”, point 1, the text is changed as follows, to bring it in agreement with current practice and to avoid confusion and errors (deleted text, new text):
1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator) or just a single support vote.
Oh Wilfredor, you are an elite photographer and Commons contributor! :-) Aristeas just 'pinged' those who usually close nominations and do the behind-the-scenes work. That's all that was, nothing sinister. And as he wrote: Everybody is welcome to the discussion! --Cart(talk)23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It's ok, winters can be hard if you are not used to them. Here in Sweden we set a new cold record for us yesterday: -48,8 deg C. :-) --Cart(talk)01:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Wilfredor, as Cart already said, I just pinged some of the people who often close nominations and do similar work. In no way I wanted to discriminate against you (or anybody else). Thank you very much for your support! Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I know, I think I got carried away by emotions, the winters here make me feel that way, but I'm not blaming the winter, I should be more responsible. I'm sorry Wilfredor (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all for your approval! I propose we wait for three morefourteen days. I hope we will hear some more voices in that time. If no serious objections are raised in that time I will amend the rules with the proposed change. (IMHO threefourteen days are enough because the proposed amendment is not a real change of the rules, but just reconciles the wording of the rules with the established practice.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(I forgot that for many people there are still holidays etc. Therefore it seems better to wait full two weeks. Changed from three to fourteen days. --Aristeas (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC))
I support the change. It's certainly more in the spirit of the rules to make it one (or less) support after five days than to make all the exceptions possible and baffle the bot. If it only gets one support in five days, it's probably not passing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
(You could, honestly, probably justify a few more cases for speedy fail, but let's not muddle the waters. For example, I do think if you only have 2 supports day five, you're probably not passing (maybe you had a chance back when you only needed five supports to pass), but A. I don't think that's common; and B. it's not hurting anything to not speedyfail them, so let's just keep it simple and easy for a bot to handle.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm just a mathematician: <number of votes> ≤ 2 (less 2: <number of votes> < 2, equal 2: <number of votes> = 2). Or: maximum of 2 votes --XRay💬12:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the idea was to go with one (1) support vote, and it wouldn't matter if that support vote was from the nominator or someone else. Let's not get tangled up in mathematic language, and perhaps use an amended simple line:
I don't see why we should include mathematical symbols here when simple words will do. Most photographers are not mathematicians (or programmers), and the rules should be easy to understand for everyone. --Cart(talk)15:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I am definitely not a programmer - I still understand the symbols, but not everyone might. However I think adding them to the language (not replacing the words, but illustrating them) used might increase the number of people who will fully understand the issue. Kritzolina (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point, I don't know why I thought we were all programmers, possibly because of the complexity of editing in mediawiki (you need to know how the mediawiki and html code works). I'm going to try to explain it in a non-mathematical way, to get your opinion.:
Imagine there's a FPC. These are called "support votes" {{s}} (V). However, the vote of the person who nominated the picture is not included in this total.
Now, there's a decision that needs to be made about each nominated picture. This decision is whether the picture is quickly rejected or not. This is referred to as "Speedy Decline". ({{FPX}})
Here's how the decision is made, explained in a non-mathematical way:
If a picture receives 1 or fewer support votes (excluding the vote of the person who nominated it), it will be quickly rejected. This is called "Speedy Decline".
If a picture gets more than 1 support vote, it will not be quickly rejected. This means it stays in the competition for further consideration.
Wilfredor, do you realize that you are trying to explain this to a Commons Administrator, who probably knows more about FP, FPC and the Wiki code than you do, even if she is not a programmer. ;-) --Cart(talk)17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not a matter of what those of us who are already here are (surprisingly enough, there are still photographers in the world who are not on FPC), it's about being open (and not elitist) so that we can attract all sorts of people. I like it when Commons is inclusive, not exclusive. The rules should also be kept as short and concise as possible. What is it about "have one or no support votes" that is so hard to understand, you need a math formula to clarify it? --Cart(talk)16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort to explain things to me, Wilfredor. I do understand the symbols, as stated above, mostly from my school knowledge on mathematics. My point is that we need to make things as clear as possible in the presentation of the rules to all who want to come and join the FPC process. For those who are good with mathematics and/or programming, the symbols are a good way to do that. For others words will be clearer. So my suggestion ist to have both, this way we get the most people with a clear understanding. Kritzolina (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion. About 14 days have passed since this proposal has been made; no objections against the proposal have been raised and all contributors have commented in agreement. Of course we had some discussion about the best new wording for the rule. Most of that discussion explores mathematical notations for the new rule, but that part of the discussion did not lead to a consensus. However we have reached a broad consensus about the actual update for the rule. Therefore it seems most reasonable to use the simple new wording proposed by El Grafo (amended by a “have”): “Pictures are speedy declined if they have less than two support votes.” Therefore I will amend now the text of the FPC rules as proposed. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Oops, thanks for the notification. I was certainly confused by the date of modification of the file, also in the exif (September). Still it makes little difference, I agree -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
If you look closely, the moon has lower resolution than rest of the image (pixel texture is coarser). It's probably a DW and the original "Moon" image is not mentioned causing that the image isn't 100% acceptable from the point of view of the copyright,. — Draceanetalkcontrib.13:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
We have to keep an eye out for so-called corrections
just a note to make us all aware about a problem on Commons which I did not realize before, at least not to its full importance.
I just stumbled over this photograph by Raycer. It was uploaded in 2015, won local and global prizes in WLM 2015 and was promoted to FP status in 2016. Yes, it’s really a nice photo. But in August 2022 a user overwrote it with two “corrected” versions (now reverted; see the file history). The comment claims: “Cropped to golden ratio, adjusted levels slightly, and selectively sharpened a little. Please revert if unwelcome.”
The hint “Please revert if unwelcome.” was not noticed – the creator, Raycer, has not been active on Commons since 2020. And nobody else has inspected the new versions, because they look fine in the preview. If anybody had, the photo would certainly have been reverted to the original version immediately.
IMHO these substantial and certainly controversial changes are not covered by COM:OVERWRITE; the editor should have better uploaded their new version under a new filename. This applies all the more here because the original photo won WLM prizes and has FP status – in this case COM:OVERWRITE explicitly prohibits any substantial changes to the file.
But the most important problem is that these changes drastically deteriorate the image quality. The crop may be a nice idea, but the “adjusted levels slightly, and selectively sharpened” has IMHO almost ruined the photo. The original version features nice shades and nuances and looks very realistic. The edited version has worse colours, more noise, too high contrast, clipped highlights etc. and looks, when viewed in full size, rather vulgar, just as if the photo had been created with a cheap smartphone.
I hope that this is only due to the limited editing capabilities of the editing user. But I realized that this would also be a very refined kind of vandalism. If a user overwrites photos with edited versions, declared as “corrections”, which still look OK in the preview (so that nobody notices the changes immediately) but are terrible when we look at the details, this would allow that user to vandalize many photos without being noticed – and if the problem is ever observed, the user may just claim that they wanted to help, so they can avoid a ban. We all know that there are malicious and dogged vandals in the Wiki world – so we must take into account that one or another of them has already applied such tricks via one of their sockpuppets.
TL; DR:
Now and then we all should have a look at the “File history” of photos by other users, too, especially of photos by inactive, retired and deceased contributors, and look out for such destructive “corrections”. It’s a horrible idea that vandals could besmirch the hertiage of some of our deceased contributors by uploading ruined versions over their photos. Nobody would want this for their own photos, so we must cooperate to avoid that for other users, too. Please help to detect such cases and to revert them. --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
If I may express my opinion on this: Honestly, this is a permanent problem, and an annoying one at that. Some people think it's enough if the original image is in the file history. That's not the case. People who find the link outside the Wikimedia Commons world should also find the image with the link. In my opinion, it is unreasonable to first search the file history for any changes or even completely overwritten images. The link must point to the original photo (also due to the license). And I don't want to leave it unmentioned: The handling of the license is far too careless in some places. The croptool is not the only problem. From my point of view as a photographer, it is unacceptable if an image that identifies me as the author has been altered by a third party. The often-mentioned wiki and the changeability by third parties ends at the cohesion of photo, license and author. As the author, I release exactly the image under the named license. Images such as maps should be explicitly marked with a template that allows them to be overwritten. This is also useful for Wikipedia articles. All other images should only be able to be overwritten by the author or a person with special authorization (such as when moving files). --XRay💬11:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Good points above. On FPC, users are often very aware of not altering photos that have been awarded in some way, that is not the case with the rest of Commons. One way to deal with this, would be that an image that has been promoted to FP or won say 1-3 place in a major Wiki Loves competition, should automatically be protected the same way that images are when they appear on places like the en-wiki main page. The protection could be for anyone except admins and the author. A message could be added to the protection about making new versions if people feel compelled to do so. With all the new editing programs and AIs that pop up now, I think this problem will only escalate. --Cart(talk)11:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks to Aristeas for addressing this obvious problem. Thanks also to XRay and especially Cart for this very good idea. I would be in favor of protecting featured media/pictures and awarded images from well-known contests so that only the author and admin can edit them. In my experience, the rule that only a derivative of a photo may be created is often unknowingly or knowingly disregarded. Therefore, it would be a good idea to discuss a consensus on this matter and to ask for a corresponding change at the village pump or another designated place. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Once, an individual made some 'marvelous' corrections to my Featured Picture (FP). Subsequently, he nominated my original work to deletion because a duplicate, leaving only his 'enhanced' versions, and credited themselves as the author. I only realized this years later, I reported the situation. Wilfredor (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Outrageous to read Wilfredor's story, but no surprising. Unfortunately. Having been in some cleanup crews through the years, there is also the problem that often when someone is making a new version of an image, cropped/enhanced/whatever, they just copy all the info on the file page including the FP categories and sometimes even the assessment. Most of the times this is done out of ignorance, thinking that derivatives of an FP are also automatically FPs too. This is quite hard to keep track of, and right now this is kept in check only with the help of a program that Aristeas has written to help him keep the galleries tidy. (Many thanks!!) No idea how this would otherwise be done with so many FPs to monitor. --Cart(talk)22:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there any way to protect the FP so that it cannot be altered by anyone? I think that not even the author should alter a FP since it was chosen by the community Wilfredor (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the author should be able to overwrite their own image, since there are things that doesn't affect the image as such that you might want to correct. I often realize that I have missed something vital in the exif (or made spelling mistakes in it), or there are info that you come across later that needs to be added to it. To correct such things, you need to upload a "new" version of the image. Granted, for use on the WikiProject, it's enough to add missing info to the file page, but I like to keep as much info as possible in the exif since images are often used outside Wiki. --Cart(talk)21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
This is possible through an abuse filter like we did for the general overwriting limitation. But we should ask at COM:VP/P if someone disagrees before implementing this. GPSLeo (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I often appreciate when someone adds a translation in a language I don't master, but a new upload is another matter. It would be great to have a button to switch on /off for yes /no overwriting is allowed /forbidden.
I also consider that a chosen crop is a full part of the creation, and usually don't like my name associated to derivative weird composition (example).
Still Wikimedia Commons comes with advantages and drawbacks. It's not like a personal website you totally control, or a book you publish to remain unchanged through the years. There are critical situations when a painting coming from an official museum is overwritten with the support of admins and FP regulars to promote fancy versions.
It happens sometimes, fortunately not too often. Parasites make mistake, while other people seem committed to respecting the original work and keen to highlight the source upload -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we should bring this discussion to the village pump, to get a broader consensus, as it seems we have no dissenting voices here. Kritzolina (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment In the extand that promotion of files, especially here at FPC, is the promotion of one, and only one, specific version of one file, maybe that an upload protection (once the file promoted of course) could be relevant, see Commons:Protection policy#Upload protection. But I agree with Kritzolina a broader consensus may be needed. Christian Ferrer(talk)16:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I had a look in this user's edit history and found similar non-beneficial changes made to this image which I have reverted. There are a couple more but in those cases it is a bit more debatable whether the change is an actual improvement, someone can take a look at them if they wish. I don't think the user has any intention to vandalise, they only made six edits of this kind in a short span of time to images of the same building and probably thought they were genuinely helping. But I think it would definitely be good to 'lock' promoted FPs and QIs so that bad and destructive edits cannot be made to them. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
There can be advantages to letting the original uploader edit them, at least when it comes to restorations. Sometimes I notice something fairly minor but that my perfectionism won't let me ignore, like a dust spot my eyes had glazed over, or a minor issue at the edge of the crop (edges of old works can be a little damaged, so sometimes you miss that they were less |‾| and more )‾( and so the middle has a little bit of the background visible of black pixels, or the like. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Overwriting Wiki competition winners
I'm just curious as to where we draw the line about what images can be changed after they have won a wiki competition. Is it only global winners, or is it only competitions where the photo gets an assessment template attached to the file page? Lately, we have had two FPCs, 1 and 2, from the winning image set in the Estonia Wiki Science Competition 2023. Both images have been altered and overwritten during the FPC process. I thought the consensus so far, was that such alterations should be done as separate files on winning files. --Cart(talk)22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
There are no indications on the file pages that these images have won anything. The template {{Wiki Science Competition 2017}} is automatically added to all uploads for all countries, even those that failed and currently unused like File:Must sõstar.jpg for example. COM:OW only mentions "Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture, Commons Quality Image, or similar status on another Wikimedia project. Such files are marked with {{Assessments}}" for the "Exceptions to the minor changes rule" -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The competition is still in its closing state, since not all the participating countries have submitted their winners. It usually takes some time before the templates come up on the file pages. In WLM it took about a month after some winners were announced until the organizers got around to place the winner-templates on the files. Probably same thing here, and that creates the problem. If you look at the page for Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2023/Winners/Estonia, you will find the two images mentioned above, as part of the winning set nomination (scroll down a bit). So they are winners, and they have been overwritten. The nominator Kruusamägi might have mentioned in the nom that the images were winners, especially since he is also coordinator for the competition. --Cart(talk)07:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Those two images indeed participated in the Estonian science photo competition and are part of the winning set, but in there the jury made the decision a month ago and that doesn't affect anything. Nor are the changes that substantial. As for the international part, then this hasn't yet started, as we are waiting for information on the finalists from half of the countries. And in there, rules are not prohibiting making updates on the information or images. Now if they would won WSC, then indeed there would be templates informing about that and they should no longer be overwritten. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Kruusamägi for the comment. I was wondering since there is the "Exceptions to the minor changes rule" about overwriting, mentioned by Basile above, as well as the previous discussion here about the maybe protecting FPs and competition winners automatically to preserve such images as they were when they were promoted. The discussion about protecting files should be moved to the Village Pump, but it's good to have a more clear idea about the proposal for that. --Cart(talk)12:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
That is a delicate topic for sure. I've also had problems in the past when some images have been overwritten where separate versions should have been set up instead. For instance, if something is selected as FP, then I fully agree it should not be overwritten. One example where this was done. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
And in here we have image set, where the specific look of individual images is not that important, so that is why I'm very relaxed on those files here. Like we in the jury decided, that thous files are good as a set, but they where originally not even nominated as such. So there is lot more flexibility is this specific case here. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Yann, I think it has something to do with the fact that the image has already been promoted in the English language Wikipedia. For some reason the bot has a problem processing the pages correctly. I remember a discussion about this in one of the previous FPC discussions. Unfortunately I couldn't find the post in a hurry. This just as a small hint. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that’s it. Whenever the description page already contains an {{Assessments}} template, e.g. because the image is already featured on some Wikipedia, FPCBot “forgets” to add the necessary additional featured=1 parameter to it. There is code in the bot which should handle that case, but obviously it does not work as it should. --10:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristeas (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This team really doesn't understand the goal of the FPC section, which aims to promote the best images of Commons, not to support exclusively the Brazilian friends. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm Brazilian and I would just like to confirm that I never did canvacing, if I reported in the telegram group when an image was featured (not during the nomination or before nominating), perhaps that generated interest in FPC. Wilfredor (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This discussion does not imply FP regulars (like Wilfredor, who appears to be a regular of Brazilian nationality), but the users who episodically come just to support the pictures of their fellow compatriots. Please do not participate at all if it's only to vote in favor of the nominations coming from your own country. You may lack objectivity and false the result -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I strongly recommend using another conotation other than Brazilian users since it can be misinterpreted as something xenobo Wilfredor (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that I wrote "the Brazilian friends" above. Patriotism? I don't know what motivates these votes but I'm sure of something: it does not help Brazil to artificially promote average pictures of this country. Still I changed "Brazilian group" into "Brazilian pictures" (batch of images from Brazil). But the fact is it happens with Brazilian images involving participants of the same country (not Brazilian images with Italian voters, for example). -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
something similar happend with Arionstar and me, however, I always try not to do that thing of voting because someone asks me to, I always say that the most important thing is the quality of the photo. Wilfredor (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, I particularly I don't know how Joalpe found out about my nomination, and I didn't even know this Telegram group existed. Wilfredor and I are frequent users at FPC and it is well known that he is my inspiration here. ★09:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
As ArionStar just said, we never communicated about this image. I am not on Telegram. I am an active Wikimedian from Brazil, who have a special interest in our monuments, and I keep my favorite pics on my watchlist, as I am prolific contributor to WLM. The persecution that has sparked this thread is xenophobic and is based on an assumption of bad faith whose only impact is to make this community space unwelcoming and toxic. What a shame. --Joalpe (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
If you could avoid inventing "xenophobic persecution" and simply recognize that you are never here to pay attention to the various candidates of the FPC page, except when they come from Brazil, this would be a more credible finding. We are all open to diversity and interested in what makes a FP, based on technical and aesthetic aspects. While you seem to visit this section just to send a {{Pro}} because the country is yours. You have been warned already, and several users shared the same feeling about this behavior. Now you chose to ignore these recommendations, so don't be surprised that your personal participation is unwelcome to several of us. It would be fine if you would show good will with a real intention to improve. Apparently you are unable to open your bubble. Then please, don't waste our time. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Mate. There have been --let me guess-- dozens of proposals coming from Brazilians, about Brazil, that connect to Brazil on FPC in the last years, and I was never involved in any of them. I participated TWICE in the last years, and no surprise they are both about Brazilian monuments, a topic that as I said I watch closely. There is no plot and no conspiracy here, except to those that want to find one, normally because they bear prejudice and previous misconceptions. As I also said, what a shame!
For your information, ArionStar withdraws about 50% of their nominations here, so this one is not an exception, and not a weird thing either, taking into account the opposition rate. Predictable failure.
This section aims to promote the best images on Wikimedia Commons, not to produce as many FPs from Brazil as possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that I am aiming to "produce as many FPs from Brazil as possible"? I have voted twice in several years on FPC, and just now from what I see there are at least four images from Brazil, and I have voted in one of them. The claim that has been made is absurd.
Is there any evidence of canvassing? Out of my last 2,000 uploads on Commons ~95% have been monuments from Brazil, then no mystery this is a topic I am interested in. An image I watch was selected for FP, then I took a closer look at it, and decided it met FP criteria and decided to vote for it as I also think it portrays well the reality of a specific monument I know. I don't do Telegram. I am not in touch with the image proponent. I have not voted in 99% of their submissions. The claim that has been made is absurd.
What I see evidence of here is editorial misconduct. The basic, foundational principle of this section --as any section-- is to assume good faith. The thread that has been launched here is xenophobic --as it generalizes a supposed Brazilian modus operandi-- and incites hounding. I am not a regular contributor to FPC, which by no means is an indicator that I shouldn't be joining this space whenever I feel I have something to say, and I will definitely not request permission to join a community space just because I identify as a Brazilian. Joalpe (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to reframe this. As with the previous incident with Rodrigo, there has been no evidence (unless I missed something) of canvassing, apart from a voting pattern. This is the first vote by Joalpe in almost three years, and in this case the photographer isn't even Brazilian (at least I'm fairly sure Mike Peel is not). It it the subject and the nominator that's Brazilian. If there is a nefarious Brazilian canvassing cabal, where has Joalpe been for all of ArionStar's other nominations (including self-nominations)? I find Joalpe's explanation convincing here and before: that he knows these people for the same reason he knows these files -- involvement with GLAM activities. If I understand correctly, it's less that Joalpe wants to support a friend and more that by being involved with lots of photographic activities in Brazil, he watches a lot of files uploaded through those processes and likes to see them promoted.
This should be a conversation about the extent to which someone's involvement in GLAM activities gives them a COI with regard to FPC. I'm involved with Wikimedia NYC. Pretend I'm not otherwise involved with FPC but understand the process. If I see that a photo is nominated that was uploaded during one of the photo contests I ran, or which was uploaded by the Wikimedian in Residence at the Met Museum, and if I believe that photo meets the FPC criteria, should I vote? I think it's a hard question. It's similar to any kind of question that involves someone voting here who isn't already "one of us" or someone voting because of a niche interest rather than broad interest in photography.
Let's please stop making this about "Brazilians" and, unless you have evidence of canvassing, Basile unstrike Joalpe's vote unless there's consensus to do so. — Rhododendritestalk | 14:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Rhododendrites. If you are involved in competitions and other Wiki-activities you see a lot of photos, and occasionally you come across some that are really good. If you think they are good enough for FPC, why shouldn't you nominate them or vote for them if you see them nominated by someone else? The whole idea with special photo events is to bring out great photos by photographers that aren't already part of the 'old guard' at FPC. No one objected to Kruusamägi's nominations (or votes) of photos from Wiki Loves Science or when I nominated photos from the Swedish WLE/WLM. I also think the use of the word "canvassing" is taken to some extremes here. Canvassing is when loads of unknown voters pour in after a post on some social forum, not when two or three photographers interested in the same project like the same photos. The discussion seems petty to me. --Cart(talk)15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
There are dozens of FP candidatures from so many countries. I don't think our mission is to look for - and vote for - the pictures from home countries -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Very few people have "missions" here. Most users just do what they like on this project that relies on volunteers. On many parts of the Wiki project, it is encouraged to start with things that you know something about, and that is usually your home town or the country you live in. From there, you can expand to other areas if you like. If you live in an area, you probably know what subjects are significant, should be highlighted or stands out, better than someone living in another part of the world. --Cart(talk)17:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Comment I did not check every thing about that story. It's just a general comment, at first view the most numerous participants in FPC are from Germany and USA, if we start to search evidences of canvassing when more than 2 users from those countries vote in FPC in the same nomination, that's the begining of the end. IMO we should avoid to talk about potential "canvassing" unless clear, obvious and indisputable evidences. And to be precise the fact to come voting very rarely and only for photos of your country or from your "friends" is not at all an evidence of canvassing, but at worst an evidence of "stupidity" in case where the image is not a "good" image. Not surprised to see the usernames (two regulars, including one administrator) of the non-Brazilian who participed to this, so the good news is that stupidity is not unique to Brazil. Christian Ferrer(talk)15:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree about the "evidence of stupidity". Or inexperience? Better to be interested in the FP project first, instead of staying focuses on your own private garden -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
No, it is not better. People should be allowed to have a special interest on Commons in whatever area they chose/like to work on. --Cart(talk)16:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Saying that personal preference for images from a specific location, such as one's own country of residence, should be grounds for restriction in FPC is not only unfounded, but also reveals a worrying underlying bias. It is completely natural and human to gravitate toward what is familiar, inspires us, or connects us emotionally. This inclination is not only limited to aesthetics or patriotism, but is also rooted in a deeper understanding of culture. Taking my personal case, I am Brazilian and have an affinity for images of Brazil, this preference should not be interpreted as unfair bias or insularity, but as a reflection of my personal experience, my love for its culture and my desire to share the beauty of its country with the world. The act of voting or promoting images of your country of origin on international platforms should be seen as an act of representation and celebration of cultural diversity, not as a reason for exclusion or discrimination. This complaint has a passive-aggressive tone and is indicative of xenophobic or racist attitudes. This attitude is not only counterproductive for this section, but also discourages the participation of communities and cultures already underrepresented in FPC. Instead of judging or limiting voting preferences based on geographic or user background, we should strive to be more inclusive, honestly I'm tired of seeing European builds constantly being singled out. The solution does not lie in restricting freedom of expression or criticizing users' personal preferences. I would sincerely like to hear an apology that is not only valid, but necessary, when the criticism is baseless and perpetuates stereotypes or prejudices. Wilfredor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi again,
first of all, this is not against Brazil, but about the questionnable behavior of some users in this group. To avoid any misinterpretation, it is useful to point out that I am personally open to Brazil like to other countries. Very good friends of mine live there, I have traveled in Brazil for several weeks, supported many Brazilian FPs, and even created and uploaded content related to Brazil. So this is clearly not a matter a preference.
Unfortunately, this morning I have fixed 2 more cases of canvassed votes in the same group.
Note that these [No]invalid votes got unnoticed until I found them. There might be more. The problem is tracking down these cheats is time-consuming.
Look at this timelapse:
2 minutes later (18:09) this brand new account casts an invalid vote (per the official guidelines, less than 50 edits) to artificially force the success.
4 minutes later (18:13) another vote for the Brazilian colleague(s), immediately following Joalpe (what a strange coincidence). Inacceptable too, according to the rules.
In some cases, the colleague's support was vital for the promotion of the nomination. Example Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg (only 7 supports, the acceptable limit). It would have failed without the help of Joalpe. The content is not about spectacular monuments of Brazil, it is just a geometrical abstract object nominated by a Brazilian friend. This unfair situation is what I want to avoid in the future.
We can't accept that this group manifests itself just when the nomination is in difficulty and needs additional supports.
It is a reminder to leave harmful attitude out of the FP project (unwarranted supports or creation of fake accounts). Now we are not the police. I think everyone is responsible for their own action. We could investigate to detail more, but I propose we close this debate quickly to avoid wasting more time, because most of the watchers of this page are respectable FP regulars. Best regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
This still is not a proof of canvassing. Those things might look a bit fishy, but they also could have perfectly normal explanations. Like Joalpe doing a session on commons for others and explaining the FP process to them as part of a normal onboarding, using the image they voted for - and others getting excited about it and voting without checking the rules. Leave it be, it really sounds like a personal vendetta of yours. Kritzolina (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah, could have a very normal explanation. Or an other very logical one, too. Hmm. "Conspiracy", lol. Why not blindness? In any case, maintenance was Done. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
These situations happened in 2016 and 2019, and if there was any canvassing, I never knew about it (I just supported the Joalpe and RTA's work). My main issue was that I wasn't an expert user at the time, I just nominated bad photos (and I consequently suffered a block for that); however, today I have 3 FPs taken by myself (without any type of canvassing). I don't understand what connection I have with Joalpe today (or in the past) that you'all are accusing me of; I'll continue nominating Brazilian photos (or others from any country) whether you'all want/like it or not and I hope there is no type of censorship. Thanks… ★15:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Indeed at this time you nominated 16 weak candidates at the queue and it was difficult for us to review. Fortunately, your rate of success has increased, though it is still relatively low objectively.
Whatever the statistics, pictures of Brazil are always more than welcome as long as they are of good quality (cf. FP criteria) and fairly evaluated.
It seems also highly improbable that several users of the same group look after the same picture(s) on their "watchlist". Do we often see that at FPC? I don't think so.
Because, as written above, it is "more likely a canvassing case" in my opinion. By "more likely" I mean "more probably, more chances that it is". -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
But unless you have firm solid proof (that is, a rebuttal to Kritzolina's comment), making frivolous accusations is not a good look on you. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
At least I have a firm, solid proof that Kritzolina's accusation of "vendetta" is totally wacky. Joalpe and me never interacted in the past. So how could I have resentment against someone I've never spoken to before?
There are clear evidences of issues with this voting pool in my opinion. But I'm not going to spend my life on tracking all minor details of this business. Done enough already.
I agree with SHB2000 and others above. There is no proof of canvassing. I think you should post an apology for false accusation. Yann (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not false in my opinion. But I totally respect the doubtful party. As simple as that.
🥇1st place: Photographer:Prasan Shrestha, nominator: UnpetitproleX.
🥉3rd place: Photographer:NASA & co, nominator: Habitator terrae.
.jpg)
Support votes (or 7 
Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days." The qualification confuses me, as I don't understand if they include the nominator's vote or not. Can someone elaborate? Thanks. TheBigBookOfNaturalScience (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose all three nominations for several reasons:
current
proposition
seems to confirm this – despite its more complex shape the icon is recognizable even at 20px. So I am fine with this proposal. Now please more voices … --Aristeas (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Featured media has this rather nice little logo, so we could probably deviate more from the original with reasons (but should make sure {{Assessments}} covers whatever logo is used).
,_mar_Rojo,_Egipto,_2023-04-15,_DD_61.jpg)
_female_in_flight.jpg)
_Gokarna_3.jpg)
_02.jpg)
.jpg)
,_full_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_resting.jpg){kind=link}
_looking_at_viewer_in_the_sun_in_Luang_Prabang_Laos.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=824192136){kind=link}
Done Created the Category:Featured pictures of habitats. Agree also to keep the organisation "simple" (as it was before in my opinion) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Comment I share many of your ideas about the FPC assessment process and its vices. This has driven me, in the past, to start more than a couple of discussions here. Yes, I also agree that the promotion criteria adopted by many (if not most) reviewers are too loose, sometimes running the risk of transforming this forum into a “like” kind of social media. I tried to convince the community that the default sate of any nomination here is “not promoted” and should only change in the presence of something exceptional. This was my view 11 years ago: [[5]]. But my attempts were not successful, and maybe that is the main reason why FPC is no longer a challenge to me. More and more I believe that justifying a support vote is more important than justifying an oppose one. I also share the position of the other editors that there is no reason for you to leave. We need some kind of a revolution here and someone with a fresh mind to start it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
._Funchal,_Madeira.jpg){kind=link}
Question Can you explain a bit more why you think this would be a good idea? --Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Daintree_2.jpg){kind=link}
_Daintree.jpg){kind=link}
_fawn_morph_Esk_Valley.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
invalid votes got unnoticed until I found them. There might be more. The problem is tracking down these cheats is time-consuming.
Look at this timelapse:
