Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] VotingDiscussion

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

Could you please specify what is the purpose of these votes anyway? What we are going to acieve?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Question: - I fail to see the purpose of this poll. Are we deciding what the FP and FPC should be, aiming to re-write the guidelines, or what they actually are? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I indeed hope we'll find a consensus that will allow us to rewrite the guidelines. -- Jovan Cormac 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  - @Alves, maybe the purpose of the poll is to see you contributing, if not on FPC itself, then at least in that poll :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Info: A poll at this point is not useful, there has not been much discussion on the topic (lots of side issues and off topic stuff), there has been no where near enough time to collect ideas, let alone vote on them. I wish to build a consensus about this, not have a poll. We don't need to include/exclude any of these purposes unless they completely conflict with one another. Please don't bother voting on these ideas yet. --Tony Wills (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree; voting here will achieve little, if anything. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I try to think of this as a form of discussion. Of course we're not actually voting on anything; there hasn't been a proposal. -- Jovan Cormac 07:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Tony said it all. Lycaon (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i fully agree with Tony. But discussion with sub-points is good for me. No winners/loosers as result, but only ideas about each sub-point. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The remark by talk way. I was at a meeting of the Ukrainian Wikipedia writers. I also the writer in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias. I have created more than 30 new articles and hundred corrections. At a meeting even there were few administrators, not only writers. For them it has appeared a surprise that photos/illustrations can have awards or . They know only awards "The Good article" and "The Featured article". The award "Valued image" has caused the big surprise... It is not Ok. I try to correct it. We badly keep in touch with other Wiki-projects. How it is in your countries are? And now about FP status. We have begun a storm in a water glass? FP status is unknown outside Commons :((( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons is unknown outside Commons ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2 We live people instead of robots. And we never can clean emotional making of our voting. And it is good, in my opinion. Any robot will always reject work of art as the picture of the artist is less exact, than photo. Canvas and paints too noised, picture blurred. Absolutely narrow and exact rules can't be created. Even after that discussions we will emotionally vote and not just with mind only. This my opinion, friends. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1. For the enjoyment honor of the participants

Support, of course . It is emotionally positive -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong support, I find great pleasure in seeing pictures nominated by me (not necessarily taken by me) get promoted. Airwolf (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose Commons is too big and important a project to do FP for fun. I enjoy contributing to FPC very much, but I certainly don't want this to become our tagline. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I would say that some of the most important things in life are made for fun! That includes not only Art (which is obvious) but also Science ... and Love. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree with Alvesgaspar. Wikimedia is not the commercial project. If exclude moral pleasure, there will be only a boring routine and some uploaders leave this project. We also have possibility to award with Barnstars. It is not cost any money and it is absolutely not necessary for all Wiki-customers. However it is good stimulus for active participants. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    - I'm afraid both of you have misunderstood me. I'm not saying FP shouldn't be fun, quite the contrary. But I don't want "for fun" to be the "mission objective" of FP, and that is what we're looking for here, isn't it? -- Jovan Cormac 20:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
      - I think we should separate these into 2 categories, those objectives that are the actual 'Mission' of FP, and the 'Side Effects', or things that should happen if we're running FP correctly. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Enjoyment is an important part which draws attention to FPC and makes contributors stay. Probably most of us are here because we think it's fun. But then again, what is this vote really for. Maybe we should also vote about what this vote really stands for :) ? /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose nothing to do with fun, it's a serious project.--Avala (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- So what's our motivation, if not fun and satisfaction? Airwolf (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - You can have fun and satisfaction but defining FP as something made for "the enjoyment of the participants" could for an example lead to funny images becoming promoted.--Avala (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    - No, those are two different things. I for one would not be amused if "funny pictures" came up here. --Dschwen (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Possibly phrase for fun isn't correct, better to say for honor. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Jawohl! Mein Leben for featured pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Yes, strangely enough the word "honor" does have negative connotations nowadays. Saying "FP is designed to honor the contributions of ..." sounds OK to my ears, but "for honor" is a little 19th century. -- Jovan Cormac 14:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    - Either way, it shouldn't be voted as a rule or a postulate. Whether someone is participating in FP to have fun or do it for honor or something third is his personal business.--Avala (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Neutral would have opposed the original wording, neutral on this one. If Commons FPC becomes a good venue to build a photographer's reputation then there's nothing wrong with doing well by doing good. Durova (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This does not seem to be a good reason, even if it happens. I like that FP focuses on media from all sources with an acceptable license. I think Quality Images is the place to honor wikimedian uploaders. I see FP more about the images than the creators. --JalalV (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- There are far too many QIs for this to be any honour. Airwolf (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's an effect of FP, but not it's purpose. --S23678 (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As per others. --Ernie (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

strong support good stimulus for uploaders -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak support But this works both ways. If pictures with 0.5 Megapixels are kept as FPs, we are sending the message that low res pictures are Ok, when they really should be avoided like the plague. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Korall (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Airwolf (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Well if this gives more content that do not pass our voting it's no problem. Images can be very valuable even if they do not get promoted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support though it doesn't seem like a postulate, more like an an outcome.--Avala (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support important if only because I've seen featured picture candidacies which were very, very unsupportive of new providers of high-quality content drive such creators off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support per above comments. Durova (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral Again, I see Quality Images as a place to actively encourage higher quality uploads. However, the standard of FP does encourage the uploading of higher quality media as well. I just don't think it needs to be an explicit focus of FP. --JalalV (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a consequence of the FPC process, not a purpose in itself. --S23678 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This is putting the cart before the horse. Agree with S23678. Kaldari (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Support As per above... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Strong support It is my way for learn from others -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose There are hundreds of such forums on the web. We have better things to do than hosting yet another one. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is not a lesson as that. However after my first QI nominations quality of my photos became far better. Decline with comments have made it. And also remarks on small corrections are very useful. And nice images by other uploaders as example of good work -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support While not a goal in itself, sharing skills can in turn give us better content. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose sharing skills can be placed at a different place on commons, not in FP. I don't see any connection.--Avala (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral a useful side benefit, but not really a reason to have the program. Durova (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think this is a useful aim, just not for FP. What about an optional "feedback page" for people who want feedback before uploading to FP or QI? --JalalV (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Oppose It's a consequence of the FPC process, not a purpose in itself. --S23678 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I know of people who say “ Oppose Unidentified” without helping anyone. Diti the penguin — 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 4. An attractive entry point into Commons

Weak support -- not very valued for me -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Obviously, since that was my suggestion. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support I think this is the explanation to the "wow" criteria in the voting process. --Korall (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral A positive side effect. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral this is for the picture of the day.--Avala (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Add to that the number of projects that run the Commons POTD on their main page. Durova (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Weak oppose, that's for POTD. Airwolf (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I do see this as an aspect of FP, but certainly not the most important aspect. This is mainly the role of POTD, but FP feeds PD, and I think the display increases the quality of FP overall. --JalalV (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a consequence of the FPC process, not a purpose in itself. --S23678 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Strong support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Obviously, since that was my suggestion. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Korall (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong support - the most important, central, main point of the FP.--Avala (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose "Best" is so vaguely defined as to be meaningless, and I think this has far more important reasons than just being a showcase: Becoming a featured picture is a good way to get a high-quality image onto many, many wikipedias, wikisources, and so on, where it adds value. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Despite difficulties in defining what's best, it's worth doing. Especially as our total project size has become millions of files. Project mission: we are an image repository. Hundreds of other WMF projects reuse our files so it makes sense to set up processes that simplify that reuse. Durova (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong support This is the paramount, most important criteria for me when thinking about FP. --JalalV (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support I would just name it : "A selection of exceptional images on Commons", or "A selection of exceptional free images". An FP is an image considered to be exceptional among all Commons files, and FPC is the process by which exceptional images are nominated, peer reviewed and promoted. Every other suggestions presented here are consequences from that process, not purposes per say. --S23678 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Karel (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 6. Great historic value

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support I would not call it "great", but if the delistings as they are now will stop then in a few thousands years :) there will some value IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Insufficient by itself as a "definition" of FP. Historic images form an integral part of our library, but there's also more. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sounds more like VI to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose not if the image is of low quality. then it's only a photo of an event but not a featured photo. unless we are talking about the great historic value of the photo as such ie. first photo ever made?--Avala (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support as a major secondary consideration. A very historically valuable image, so long as it lacks significant problems (such as tiny resolution, etc), should, I think we'll agree, usually pass. I think without this secondary qualification, we're missing out a big aspect of FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment For a science an ancient copper coin far more nice, than a modern coin from fine 9999 gold. I am right? If it not FP award the new separate award for the images having a gerat historical value probably is necessary. Not FP, not VI, but HI? It is good problem solving for me. Images in worse quality are removed from FP category, but awarded in other category. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- So in your opinion, every historical image should get that "award"? It'll cease to be an award then. -- Jovan Cormac 13:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Not every, only with great historic value, but unhappy not well by quality -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Not necessarily as a sole factor, yet certainly worth considering. Durova (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I see this as a focus for VI. Unfortunately, I feel that VI has been a bit neglected and does not always highlight the most rare, historic, or educational images. However, I feel this is the domain of VI. Maybe VI can be better highlighted? --JalalV (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a sub-purpose, it's included by proposition number 5. --S23678 (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Most of these images are very low quality and should not be in this section. I suggest to create special section for historical images with no connection to FP. --Karel (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose – most historic pictures are valuable, but does that make them "Wikimedia's finest"? The requirements for a FP should not change just because it was taken a couple of decades ago. --Ernie (talk) 08:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Same as above: Insufficient by itself. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Same as above: new award (rare image?) needed. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Thinking this way, we could feature a lot of stuff that is very boring, like for example every single image taken with a device complicated enough to only be produced once or in a very small scale, such as telescopes in space, plots of all the data collected with the en:NMR/en:MRI devices with the stronges magnets and almost any picture made with a SEM. Of course some of these images can be very cool, but featuring everything just because its not easy to retake is not a very good idea. I dont mind featuring a small part of those works. But they must have some kind of other quality in order to be featured.--Korall (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose A bad image of something rare is still bad. I am also thinking such images are more suitable for VI than FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per my vote that FP should be "A selection of the very best pictures, as a showcase/portfolio for what we do". Rare doesn't make it the very best.--Avala (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support as an important secondary consideration. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Obviously, different standards would apply to a photograph of an ivory billed woodpecker than to a robin. Durova (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I see this as a focus for VI. Unfortunately, I feel that VI has been a bit neglected and does not always highlight the most rare, historic, or educational images. However, I feel this is the domain of VI. Maybe VI can be better highlighted? --JalalV (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a sub-purpose, it's included by proposition number 5. --S23678 (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 8. For education of our readers

Support There are some phenomenon, nature mysteries or even places that will be missed in Wikipedia, if a reader has never heard about them. If this reader will see an image of something that he's never known existed as picture of the day, for example, he can then find corresponding article on Wikipedia , read about the thing and learn something new, in other words, get educated. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose We are not Wikipedia. -- Jovan Cormac 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We aren't high quality beautiful images photo forum either. I do not see anything wrong, if somebody will get educated by looking over our FPs, if it is even by an accident.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Commons is not Wikipedia, but is sure is Wikimedia. Wikimedia foundation is certanly about providing knowledge and education. Featured pictures should be useful for wikimedia in someway, otherwise I do not think they belong on commons in the first place.--Korall (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Readers ? I might support "for education of our content uploaders", but general readers sounds too vague. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support per Korall. This might not be Wikipedia but I believe all FPs should have educational value.--Avala (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Art education is still education, and if it's neither educational nor artistic, why are we featuring it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support It really works -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia already has a Featured Pictures section. If EV is to be considered crucial, why don't we just feature the same pictures that are already featured there? It'll save us a lot of time. I don't see any point in doing the same work twice. -- Petritap (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Funnily enough, I suggested a new procedure to make just that possible a while ago, and close to everybody was against it. But if EV should really be such an important criterion for Commons FPs as well, why don't we just do it? -- Jovan Cormac 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - There are other differences besides EV between the two programs. Commons has higher technical standards, for example. So although this is an excellent illustration of the Galveston hurricane of 1900 it's unlikely to ever get featured on Commons unless a better scan becomes available. Durova (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Commons project mission is to serve as the image repository for all of the Wikimedia Foundation's other projects. Without prioritizing or deprecating any among them, the common factor is that these projects serve educational goals. Durova (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Commons does not solely exist for the wiki projects, but as a free repository for all to use, for whatever purpose. As commons grows, I can see it becoming a resource for anyone, or any projects (wiki or not) looking for open content. In my opinion, FP is a collection of the "best" and most attractive images, VI is a collection of the most educational and valuable for highlighting a concept (and VI should be promoted more and made more user-friendly IMHO), and Quality Images is a place to encourage higher quality and reward participation from the Wikimedia community itself. --JalalV (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a consequence of FP, not a purpose per say. --S23678 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Support Almost certainly the most important part of the project, in my opinion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Avala (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment Isn't that what VI is all about? --Korall (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- VI voting isn't so serious as FP voting. If they would change their format to look like the FP candidate page than maybe.--Avala (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Also, FPC points out only really high quality images, and this is, in some ways, more useful. People may check valued images when setting up articles, but FPs, particularly after their spot on POTD, tend to get added on far more wikis (and, frankly, VI needs a hell of a lot more translators before it'll really be useful outside of a few wikis). Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Neutral nearly redundant with other proposals listed above. Durova (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Conditional Support as long as image quality remains unaffected. I think this is an important point, but only coupled with high image quality. I still see VI as the main place for this as an objective by itself. --JalalV (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a consequence of FP, not a purpose per say. --S23678 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Important part of project. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A draft

The Purpose and Mission of Commons:Featured Pictures

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

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

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

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

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

Why do we need this statement? And why "though not officially part of the mission" when this is the first time the mission is ever getting defined? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'd rather see real changes, i.e. clear rules. A mission statement is nice (and we definitely should have one), but a wording like "they fulfil, to a greater of lesser extent, the Featured Pictures criteria" is meaningless, and in practice is going to translate into business as usual. We don't have a lack of "project spirit" on FPC. What we do lack is common promotion criteria, and that has become a problem since the spectrum of personal criteria is too wide at this point. A statement that includes the words "to a greater or lesser extent" basically encourages this, when we should be doing the opposite: Unify criteria again with clear rules and standards, which must not be voluntary. -- Jovan Cormac 06:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you asked (above) for someone to define the 'common goal to work towards', which (unless I'm pretty far off the mark) is 'to seek out and promote images that are generally regarded by the participants to be the 'best' of Commons'. The rest of the objectives (which everyone is discussing above) are integral parts of Commons, but they will follow if we're achieving our first goal. And yes, I'd like to see real change as well, but everyone seems to have a different idea as to where it needs to happen and what needs to change. I was hoping something like what I wrote above would be a starting point, someething we could all agree on. Your 'common goal', as it were. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And as to why I said 'to a greater or lesser extent'? Well, not all pictures are equal, correct? Some are higher quality but not as aesthetic, others have nicer compositions while not being particularly valuable, and in others, their age and value excuses a lack of quality. Therefore all pictures that are promoted will fulfil the criteria, but to a greater or lesser extent. I do agree that we need to settle on concrete criteria, preferably separate sets each modern photography, historical pictures, artwork, illustrations and animations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely where I seem to disagree with the majority of users. I strongly believe that there should be certain minimum requirements for (photographic) Featured Pictures that are non-negotiable, most importantly the minimum resolution. I hope we can set up a system where any candidate (or any existing FP) that has less than the minimum resolution can simply be closed or delisted without the need to argue about potential "mitigating reasons" (those are weasel words) - because IMO, there are no mitigating reasons for a resolution that isn't even good enough for printing a postcard. -- Jovan Cormac 11:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that, as long as those non-negotiable requirements are worked out separately for each category - modern photography, historical pictures, artwork, illustrations and animations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But the minimum resolution should apply equally to photography, historical images and artwork. One must not forget that our "historical images" aren't really historical images - they're scans of historical images. The same applies to artworks. For that reason, we can expect state-of-the-art, high resolution reproductions even if the picture in question is 100 years old. -- Jovan Cormac 14:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment One problem with resolution is that seldom do we have access to the originals. Most historic collections are jealously guarded (and some of those guards try to claim copyright). We obviously should use the best reproduction available, but can't expect our reproductions of historical images to ever keep up with the latest technology. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We can if they are to be Featured. Obviously, not every reproduction on Commons will be of the best possible quality. But some are, and those are the ones that should be Featured. The others are nice and valuable as well, but simply not FP material. -- Jovan Cormac 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, if we do not have a better original than it should not be a FP, it might be suitable for VI instead. /Daniel78 (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think what the discussion shows so far is that, in a narrow sense, the purpose/goals of FP are not so obvious, and is not agreed upon at all. If we were to decide to tie it down to any one specific idea of what it is for, it would be a different project altogether. It would effectively be a take-over of the project to serve only one purpose. Rather than that, I can envisage having sub-projects that use FP material as feeder-stock. Eg the POTD project uses FP images as feed-stock and is broadcast via RSS and syndicated to other wikiprojects, it actually appears that it is the POTD project, rather than FP, that deals with some of the goals mentioned here. Even small changes to the POTD criteria, like specifying that it use recent FPs whenever possible (within the constraints of balance etc), would address some goals. That also brings to mind that our front page doesn't look much different from other 'pedia pages, but this project is rather different: Why haven't we got a more graphical page that shows what we are all about, our point of difference - media not lots of text. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Update to perceived purposes

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

[edit] FPC purposes/goals

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

[edit] FP purposes/goals

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

1) For the enjoyment/honor of the participants (User:Alvesgaspar, User:George Chernilevsky)

The project relies on the participation of volunteers. Assuming no one is beating them or paying them to participate they must receive some enjoyment/satisfaction/acknowledgement for their contribution. (User:Alvesgaspar, User:George Chernilevsky, User:Airwolf, User:Daniel78, User:Tony Wills)
Project is too important for this to be main goal (User:JovanCormac, User:Avala)
QI is to encourge image creators, FP is about images (User:JalalV)
Neutral. FP doesn't exist to encourage warm fuzzy feelings, but if it ultimately generates tangible real world benefits to the volunteers who contribute here, then that's fine. (User:Durova)

2) To act as a stimulus for creators and uploaders of high quality media (User:Alvesgaspar)

FP stimulates competition to produce better images (eg improvement in Macro images) (User:Alvesgaspar, User:George Chernilevsky, User:Mbz1, User:Korall, User:Airwolf, User:Avala, User:Adam Cuerden, User:Durova, User:Tony Wills)
Retaining poor FPs encourages people to submitt poor images (User:JovanCormac) Is this what you meant? - Basically, yes. At least it shows that quality and resolution isn't very important with FP, when it actually is. -- Jovan Cormac 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Does not need to be focus of FP (User:JalalV)

3) As a feeder for POTD and FP pages as an attractive entry point into Commons (User:JovanCormac)

Important. Reason for having "wow" criteria. (User:JovanCormac, User:Korall)
Not of prime importance (User:George Chernilevsky, User:Daniel78, User:Adam Cuerden)
Function of front page/POTD (User:Avala, User:Tony Wills, User:Durova, User:Airwolf, User:JalalV)

4) To point out useful pictures on a wide variety of subjects to Wikipedias, Wikisources, and the like. (User:Adam Cuerden)

Most important purpose (User:Adam Cuerden, User:Avala)
Important but not at expense of quality (User:JalalV)
Purpose of VI (User:Korall, User:JalalV)
Encompased by other goals (User:Durova)

5) A selection of XXXX that Commons has to offer today, as a showcase/portfolio for what we do. Where XXXX includes:

5a) the very best images. (User:JovanCormac)

Very important purpose (User:JovanCormac, User:George Chernilevsky, User:Korall, User:Avala, User:Durova, User:JalalV)
A goal (User:Tony Wills)
Not as important #4 (User:Adam Cuerden)

5b) images of the greatest historic value. A selection of the very old images (old photos and ancient scanned document, that cannot be retaken in better quality) (User:George Chernilevsky)

Important goal (User:George Chernilevsky)
A goal (User:Mbz1, User:JovanCormac, User:Avala, User:Adam Cuerden, User:Durova, User:Tony Wills)
Insufficient by itself (User:JovanCormac, User:Avala, User:Adam Cuerden, User:Durova)
VI or other award goal (User:Daniel78, User:JalalV)

5c) images of ultra-rare subjects. Images that cannot be retaken easy (Example: great politic or sport situations, photos of extinct animals in XIX-XX century, unique astronomy situations, etc...) (User:George Chernilevsky)

A goal (User:George Chernilevsky, User:Adam Cuerden, User:Durova, User:Tony Wills)
Insufficient by itself (User:JovanCormac, User:Korall, User:Adam Cuerden)
VI or other award goal (User:Daniel78, User:JalalV)
Conflicts with (5a) (User:Avala)

5d) images of highest educational value. For the education of our readers (User:Mbz1)

A goal (User:Mbz1, User:Korall, User:Avala, User:Adam Cuerden, User:George Chernilevsky, User:Durova, User:Tony Wills)
Too vague (User:Daniel78)
Goal for other project (User:JovanCormac, User:Petritap, User:JalalV)

[edit] What next

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

quality
historic significance
rare event/rare subject
high educational value
(and perhaps others not listed here).

Not-withstanding current descriptions, on the FP page and FP templates, Commons FP has never been just about the 'some of the finest' images on Commons. It has always been about highlighting our images of high value. This was originally described on the FP page as 'particularly valuable'[1] and that description has remained in the FPC page as "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" to this day. It appears to me that without referring to that original theme that we still collectively think that this is our goal, but people give different weightings to the different aspects when they consider value.

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

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

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

There are now more images promoted to FP than are needed for POTD - POTD is therefore inherently selective from our pool - use #3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tony, thank you for that valuable overview of what we have discussed so far. Here's a little more input:

The Wisdom of Crowds: A very nice point, problem is: We have no "crowds" here. The number of people actively contributing on FPC is ridiculously small when compared to the number of active Commons or Wikipedia users, and represents not the Wikiusers in general but a selection of people with very specific interests. "The Wisdom of Crowds" works only when the crowd is comprised of people with many different backgrounds and interests, which isn't the case on FPC (most FPC regulars - unsurprisingly - have a strong interest in photography, while the "crowds" on Wikipedia seem to be science-heavy).
Image quality: While I agree that of course FP has many facets, I strongly believe that image quality should be the "common denominator". An interesting idea would be to say that a picture can be Featured when its quality is good enough for use as a full-page image in a reputable print magazine. This covers scans of historical images (provided they are well-done and of sufficient resolution), and puts an easily calculable general lower limit on resolution:
--- CALCULATION Standard magazine format is A4 A4's longer side is 11.7 inches long (en:Paper_size) Minimum resolution for magazine-quality printing is 300 ppi ([2]) => The longer side of the picture needs to be at least (11.7 inch * 300 pixels/inch) = 3510 pixels long Assuming a portrait-format photo with an aspect ratio of 4:3, this puts the shorter side at 2632 pixels, for a resolution of (3510 pixels * 2632 pixels) = 9.2 Megapixels!!! --- CALCULATION END
That's right folks, more than 9 Mpx is needed for an image that is to be used (full page) in a magazine. Now, one could argue whether full page printing should in fact be the standard, but what this calculation clearly shows is that there is precious little that one can do with a 2 Mpx photo besides viewing it on a computer monitor. I really believe we should offer more than that with our Featured Pictures. -- Jovan Cormac 10:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you're wondering, only 458 out of our 2112 photographic FPs currently have 9 Megapixels or more (21.6%). -- Jovan Cormac 10:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort to improve quality, but my point in asking what is the purpose of FP is the exact point here. Why does resolution suitable for a full colour A4 print magazine have anything to do with FP? Do you recognise that you have specified an arbitrary specification that is not linked to any goal. If we have a goal to select images for the print media, specifically full page, A4, full colour glossy magazines, then we can look at what the technical requirements actually are. But I assume that A4 magazine pages are just an example, but why not an example of poster sized images or bill-board sized images? I can accept that for any particular image we want the highest resolution available (we also want the sharpest, best DOF etc etc), I can never see that 'resolution' is such a strong arbiter of quality that it trumps all else. My (long winded ;-) previous posts are trying to suggest that if we have a project that really needs a particular resolution for technical reasons then set up a system to select that subset. An obvious existing example is the computer-{{Wallpaper}}, {{WideCommonsWallpaper}} templates that tell us that FP image has a suitable aspect ratio and resolution for computer desktop-wallpaper. The criteria for applying this tag change with the technology of computer screens, so as we get larger and wider screens, FPs can be added to and removed from this pool. Similarly we can have a project that tags images as suitable for A4 glossy magazine printing, or wall-posters, or 10m wide bill-boards.
I haven't challenged whether 300dpi is the actual requirement for printing because I really don't know. I had a trawl through the web and it is certainly a figure often quoted for printing. One of the most comprehensive sites I came across is cambridgeincolour.com who have a nice little calculator. I appears from there that it all comes down to reading distance. So for poster applications, observed from say 1m (3ft) away 2Mpixels is good for a 19" high poster. A magazine cover 27.5cm (11") tall is one of the most demanding applications: looking at it from normal reading distances of say 25 to 30cm (about 1 foot) you would want 11Mpixels (this is assuming a reader with 20/20 vision). Whereas if your aim is high quality 6"x4" prints then 2.9Mpixels is good (say 2100x1400 resolution).
If printing images did actually have anything to do with FP, surely we should be judging printouts of the images. Doesn't the colour-space used, type of sharpening, type of down-sampling, image contrast, and image dynamic range all effect the perceived quality of prints differently to perceived quality of on screen displays?
My contention is that most Wikimedia projects use our images on web-pages, if that is our main audience we don't need to be driven by possible external uses when deciding what is a great image. (Personally I have never printed out any of my digital photographs, let alone anything obtained from Commons). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My standpoint is very simple: High image quality should be a condition sine qua non for a picture to become Featured, not simply another aspect that weighs in when judging FPs. By any stretch of the imagination, an image cannot be called "one of the best on Commons" when there are pictures of the same type (historical, photographic, scans, illustrations) that have better image quality. Image quality consists of resolution, sharpness, DOF and the likes. What the standards of image quality are can easily be seen from the standards of digital imaging equipment, and with those, 8 Mpx are entry-level now. Anything below is as inacceptable for a picture wanting to be called "one of the best" as a black-and-white picture would be when taken today. -- Jovan Cormac 15:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a bit more complicated that: obviously the quality is important, but it is not the only aspect to be taken into consideration. IMO the value is also very important. And I don't compare the quality of pictures from professional protographers and governement agencies (i.e. NASA, US military, etc.) with these of amateurs Wikimedians. Yann (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But resolution is *not* a simple measure of quality anyway. High quality only needs resolution high enough for the purpose we are selecting images for. More pixels don't make any difference once you have sufficient (which you seem to agree with). We disagree on what is sufficient for our goals.
The comment about black and white pictures is odd. Some people still use black and white film because of its different qualities (ironically low grain, high resolution is one of them). Why don't you think one could ever be an FP? If you like high resolution you could try digitizing 1m x 3m (3ft x 9ft) negatives - [3], [4] :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently taken B&W FPs File:Compact Fluorescent-bw.jpg, File:Human shields greeted crossing border into Iraq.jpg, File:Porticoguardiagrele.jpg, File:Potsdam Park bw amk.jpg, File:Tree hadrian's wall.jpg --Tony Wills (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you seem to be confusing B&W-Photography with desaturated digital shots (which your examples are). --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the two seperate posts are on slightly different bents. The first point is that there are serious reasons for B&W photography (esp on film), the second point was regarding the suggestion that non-historical B&W photographs would never be regarded as FPs today (That most digital cameras don't have a true monochrome mode, and these are derived from desaturated colour imaging perhaps even more emphasises that B&W has its place). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have opposed desaturated images several times, and will continue to oppose any picture that is desaturated (i.e. "black-and-white lookalike"), for one simple reason: Anyone can desaturate with a single click in Photoshop, but a picture cannot be resaturated. More is more on FP for me. -- Jovan Cormac 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, a good crop full size image will appear of better quality than a much higher resolution but resized image to most FP users (you know, those people looking at the website). Another irony, free web content is killing print media, and we should judge our best content by how it would appear in print media?? Jovan, I'm curious, you bring up the MP count of most cameras today, have you ever cropped an image to make the composition better? Maybe you're a true photographer and can get it right from the camera, but I have a feeling most FP's have been cropped. Did you by chance look at what percent of those FPs would be above 9MP if they weren't cropped? --Dori - Talk 03:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a photographer at all. I'm a mathematician who hasn't taken 10 photos in his entire life. Still, I have a pretty clear idea of what I'm looking for in a good photograph, and this idea stems from what I am used to in professional publications. One thing I've never seen in a professionally published photo is bad image quality. In fact, superior image quality appears to be the #1 defining criterion of professional photography. Therefore, I believe it should be the #1 criterion for us as well, since all Wikimedia projects strive towards professionalism. -- Jovan Cormac 14:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Now we have a new goal stated - To select the best/most valued images suitable for publication as full sized pages in glossy A4 magazines. That will certainly cut down our FP collection to a manageable size. And all the other purposes/goals can be achieved by some other project. Or how about, assuming that all such wondrous pictures are a subset of what FP now selects (unless they are totally boring, or badly composed), we just tag FPs that meet that requirement with something like "This featured picture is suitable for printed publications of A4 size".
I think your lack of photographic experience is allowing you assume things that are not true. Professional photographers spend thousands on professional gear so they can produce those sort of photographs. If they could spend $100 on a 12Mpixel camera and achieve 'professional' results, they would. Few of the acknowledged contributors to Commons have more than "semi-professional" gear. Usually they have upgraded their equipment as funds allow. So generally they work hard to get around the limitations of what they have (eg people like Dschwen stitch multiple images together to produce fine detailed photographs - I don't know that 'professionals' would bother with such a time consuming process (eg if even one of those multiple shots is marginal then there is not much you can do about it when back at the computer (eg see QI nom for File:Mathematik Göttingen.jpg)) they just buy suitable gear for the job. But this sort of technique (and others like focus stacking) have severe limitations - eg neither are useful for non static objects. All that is to say we are not going to get photographs on a wide range of subjects, from diverse parts of the world, at really high resolution, from part time photographers using semi-pro (or lesser) equipment. If we are happy for FP to represent only that subset of the range of Commons that is either from commercial photographers that donate their work (of course most people can only be professional photographers if they are taking photos for someone else, so their work concentrates on things like product shots, promotional shots, and celebrity shots); governmental agencies (eg Nasa); historical archives; the few contributors who can afford expensive equipment; or of only static subjects; then so be it.
I would also point out that apart from perhaps publications that are primarily about the images (eg "coffee table" magazines and photo industry/hobby publications), most published photographs are only going to be 1/4 to 1/2 of the page. Allowing for the white space surrounding them that is 2.7 to 5 Mpixel at 350ppi.
If FP is to be our front to the world and it mis-represents what we have, are people going to be impressed anyway? They would be greeted by a bright shiny high-tech shop window, but when they come in will quickly see all the donated goods of varying quality. They won't find what they expect and will go away disappointed. FP needs to represent good examples of what we have, we are featuring our wares, not publishing a magazine. The important thing is to improve the quality of our stock of images, not mis-represent what it is. Three of the goals talk about the contributors to FP, I think these aspects play an important part in improving our stock of images. Many contributors have spent hundreds or even thousands of dollars (or roubles etc) upgrading their equipment, and thousands of hours improving their skills. A process in which few can ever hope to participate will not encourage them much. Even acknowledged photographers such as User:Fir0002 used a semi-pro, now 5 year old, camera. I suggest that the reason many of his images were only 2Mpixel is not just from an idea of keeping the best for commercial use, but that simply after cropping and down-sampling (to improve apparent sharpness and wow), that is all there was (I may be shot down on this point by experts ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had cause to delve into dpi issues a while back. I found this interesting...

The easy solution (rather than trying to educate them about real digital photo resolution) is to simply change the DPI of your image to whatever they want and send it along to them.. If nothing else it amused me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The article you mention is about DPI, not PPI. DPI really matters very little, while PPI matters a whole lot (which is why I talked about PPI in my previous post). The difference is explained in detail in [5]. -- Jovan Cormac 07:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You do seem to be under the illusion that everything is about you & your comments Jovan.

There is considerable discussion here about print quality. It is possible that I am the only one here who 2 months ago had not realised that this is largely a printers illusion or I may not. I found the page to be of interest. I hope others may feel the same.

However the broader point is that to have a fixation on any specific numbers for anything seems to run contrary to my understanding of what FP (& indeed Commons) is about. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Author withdraw

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

No way. This looks like the start of another slippery slope. Something is released under CC, it can be used for any purpose, period. I can take a CC picture and use it for war propaganda, in a porn movie, on a poster for the Nazi Party of America, and for many more unpleasant purposes. And, of course, I can also take a CC picture, upload it on Commons and nominate it wherever I choose. I don't even have to tell the author, much less request permission, and there is nothing the author can do about it. This is what CC is about. CC is one of the pillars of Commons, and it would be terrible to somehow introduce more author rights on Commons than the license requires. If an author doesn't like that, he or she is welcome to release under a different license. In fact, any complaining from the author about any use of a CC-licensed work (as has been done here) shows complete ignorance of the idea behind CC. And we really shouldn't cater to ignorants.
I do agree, though, that withdrawing shouldn't be possible for the nominator, either. What harm is done by letting a nomination run until the end of the voting period? -- Jovan Cormac 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes way! We are not here to make contributors feel miserable. It is a matter of courtesy to respect their wishes. This is no slippery slope and does not set any precedent. Extensive wikilawyering is completely inappropriate here. --Dschwen (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What's next, image authors being allowed to decide if their pictures can be used in "controversial" Wikipedia articles or not? Do you honestly not see how dangerous such a move is? -- Jovan Cormac 06:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jovan, I believe you are mistaken. If a nominator has the right to withdraw the image, the image's creator should have the smae right. If anybody could FPX the nomination, surely nothing bad will happen, if the author wihtdraws it.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with S23678, Dschwen and Mbz1 here. Of course the author cannot legally demand that his work is not being used for any purpose, but in my opinion it is a matter of courtesy and of respect to follow his wish in particular if all that you need to give up for it is a possible (in this case extremely unlikely) FP status.

By not respecting the authorship anymore once it has been released under CC you will achieve only one thing: Just discouraging people from releasing more of their work. Great job of keeping up the CC idea! -- H005

17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should show courtesy to the contributors, I see no point in beeing über strict about the licensing here. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
- Über strict? What the hell??? Say I'm an image author, releasing under CC, but I feel offended if my images are used in any Wikipedia articles related to sexuality. Will you honor that wish in order to not "discourage" me? I sure hope not. Let's not even start with that nonsense! -- Jovan Cormac 07:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  - FPC is a "meta"-page. There is a clear difference between that and usage in an article. FPC is in part a project for the contributors. Why should we pervert the motivational character into making people feel uncomfortable? --Dschwen (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment If the author doesn't think that their piece is worthy of being FP, and you can't convince them to the contrary (and of course, if no one else thinks the picture is up to scratch) then I can't see a problem with honouring that request. The same thing happened to me here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition

I propose to replace General Rule Number 6 from this :

Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

to this :

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

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

Support --S23678 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Dschwen (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Support /Daniel78 (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Yes, it is a matter of courtesy and courtesy should not be imposed by rule. Is it a tautology to remember that pictures uploaded and licenced in Commons no longer belong to their creators? If an author doesn't feel comfortable with a nomination all he has to do is to convince the nominator to withdraw. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the author has released it to the public domain, they still 'own' the image. They are the only person who can issue new licenses for their work. They still own the "copyright", they have asserted their right as the owner by issuing a license for everyone to use it under particular conditions. They certainly have the moral 'right' to ask it not be used in certain ways, but they have no way to enforce that request. As you say, the request would be honoured as a courtesy to the author. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support, definitely –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Durova (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Support - Not to mention, some authors do not like flood of opposes on their images nominated by a different user. Zoo Fari 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am mainly concerned with "external" users, such as Flickr people, who just barge in and disturb our processes that don't concern them the least (as was the case with one of the nominations that prompted this thread). -- Jovan Cormac 06:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't quite seem to be going with the wiki spirit - anybody can participate, there are not second class users from 'out there'! :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose and objection to procedure This proposal calls for a rule that gives image authors more rights than the license they chose themselves requires. That is so obviously contrary to Wikimedia's spirit that it would be preposterous to even attempt to decide it here. This is at least a matter for the Village pump, and probably for Meta or even the Foundation itself. What's next, giving image authors the right do decide which Wikipedia articles their images can be used on? -- Jovan Cormac 06:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - Per arguments above. MadGeographer (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Support as per my arguments above. -- H005 17:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Petritap (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support I don't think that any author of content would agree with the "doesn't concern them" comment. Commons wants to encourage CC-BY-SA content, not discourage it. Negative interactions with the project are not going to help that cause. The author of the example posted has stopped sharing those photos on flickr. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Support This is not giving authors any additional legal rights. Evaluations or competitions can still be done on those images by any other project that wants to. We are just saying that we as a project will not run such an evaluation of their image against their wishes. There are plenty of things that we are allowed under CC-by-SA that we do not do. 99of9 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- Really? I wasn't aware of that. Could you give an example for your last point? -- Jovan Cormac 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  - We as a project do not sell printed images commercially, though we could according to the licence. Our users may well do this, but our project does not. 99of9 (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    - That is not a good example, since it is about something we don't do (for the simple reason that it's not the project's focus), while the proposal asks for an active limitation of what the license permits. -- Jovan Cormac 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Au contraire, this is a perfectly fine example. Just because the license gives us some rights does not mean that we have to exercise them all. We are not weakening the free license, we are just choosing not to take full "advantage" of it just to humiliate and anger our valued contributors. --Dschwen (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Semantics and weak reasoning, Daniel, and you know it! Just because the license gives you certain rights it means that you may exercise them any time you want. No need to be a lawyer to understand this. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        That is entirely besides the point. Yes, you may exercise them any time you want, but what I am saying is: We should not want to exercise them if it makes people sad :'-(. Jovan wants to take that freedom - the choice to be nice to people - from us. Well, ok, take it with a grain of salt ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        I beg to differ - if an author believes that there is a possible use of his/her image that might hurt his/her feelings, he or she is very stupid indeed to release it under a license that permits any use! Complaining afterwards about a use when they themselves chose to license the image for any use seems quite ridiculous. -- Jovan Cormac 10:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        I agree with you both. The author has made a mistake to release it under conditions that leave them vulnerable to hurt. They request that we stop. Now the question is: Is leaving the nomination up sufficiently important to continue to hurt them? I say no. Another project may decide to, but I don't think Commons should. --99of9 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        Uhm, we probably don't want to call this a mistake. After all without these mistakes there would be no Commons. So, yes, releasing an image under a free license as a donation is sacrifice, a sacrifice we should be grateful for to all our contributors. Do we want to make the sacrifice more painful than it has to be? I say no. --Dschwen (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        I'm not calling every donation or sacrifice a mistake. But for those who feel that criticism is too heavy to bear, they should probably have guarded themselves better. 99of9 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        
        What does licensing have to do with criticism anyway? Uploading an image to Flickr as -NC wouldn't stop me getting criticism from random people, the only way to avoid that is to not share the image in the first place. It does prevent me receiving criticism from here, but that's a different question.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Support Unquestionably. Reviewing the above I see no reason at all to irritate people by sticking rigidly to some rule. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Support what ever the result of this the author(copyright holder) has moral rights even under a free license so if the person so chooses then an image can be withdrawn Gnan garra 05:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support If the creator of a freely licensed image doesn't want criticism, why should they be forced to accept it? Refusing to honour a request to withdraw is potentially harmful to the project, as it could drive away a contributor or make that person switch to non-free licensing to avoid this place. Actively encouraging ([6], [7]) photographers to switch to non-free licensing, merely so that they can avoid criticism here, is outright harmful to the goals of the Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Results : 17 support, 3 opposes --> proposition adopted --S23678 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Proposition

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

Nominators can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

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

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

Support -- Jovan Cormac 06:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As long as a reviewer has the right to FPX nomination, both the nominator and the creator should have the right to withdraw it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Support - On the light of Commons' general rules, I really can't see any other legitimate solution because the author has exactly the same rights over his pictures as any other user. Suppose now that a picture is nominated for delisting. According to the same principle, the author should have the power to withdraw the nomination, which is ridiculous. The FPX argument is also a falacy, as the template can be removed by any user. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

@Alves, you have missed one important rule: "FPX template can be removed by any user, but the nominator". That's why the nominator, who usually is the creator, should have some rights too. Besides I am really not sure what a big deal. No nominator will withdraw the passing image. On the other hand, if the image is not passing and an image creator got enough of opposes, why not to let him to withdraw? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Rules and voting seems to be a great pass-time :-). It is not as though FP is a fundamental part of wikimedia and the whole thing will crumble around our ears if some image does not become featured. I agree with many points made on both sides - people can't demand to remove the nomination, but on the other hand it is a courtesy to the nominator/author to have a nomination withdrawn on request. Just treat {{withdraw}} as a humble request by the user (nominator or author) to remove the image from consideration. As noted above people seldom (never?) withdraw something that is obviously going to pass. The {{withdraw}} is like the {{fpx}} in that both are essentially to avoid long drawn out voting on images unlikely to pass. {{withdraw}} is also often used when a problem/fault with the image becomes apparent, and the nominator/author wishes to have time to fix the problem, then resubmit later. In short the {{withdraw}} function just keeps FPC moving along smoothly and saves wasting peoples time.
If it should ever happen that an author wants to remove an image which is obviously about to become featured, then we ought to find out what the problem is, and perhaps suggest that the author puts in a deletion request for their image - if the decision is to keep (we can not be persuaded to delete the image on the basis of licensing problems or as a courtesy to the author) and the community wants to feature it then so be it (a deletion request normally stops an FP nomination in its tracks anyway, maybe authors should be encouraged to use that rather than attempt a {{withdraw}} as they obviously don't understand the license.) --Tony Wills (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Can't see a problem with withdrawals. -- H005 17:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose As I support the proposal above. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose If you really don't like a nominator withdrawing an image, just nominate it yourself afterward. 99of9 (talk) 02:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- You have a point there... -- Jovan Cormac 07:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutral there are moral rights of the author which are applicable even under a free license such that we can be compelled to comply with the request irregardless of the process rules. Gnan garra 05:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support While their certainly are instances under which it would be necessary to withdraw a nomination, "under any time" simply allows too much. For example, there have been a number of instances (for which I could provide links and diffs, if I had the time) where the withdrawal of a nomination was simply made by a user with hurt feelings (in response to criticism, etc.). The current rule is not very reasonable, imo. Unless it is necessary to withdraw a nomination (i.e. licensing reasons), it shouldn't be withdrawn, since then, as 99of9 said, another user could simply renominate it afterwards, which would make the original withdrawal redundant. Anrie (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
- Out of interest are you (or anyone else) aware of any "hurt feelings" withdrawals where the withdrawing nominator is not the author of the image? I don't think anyone here would actually re-nominate an image which is withdrawn as a result of hurt feelings, simply because if it hurts someones feelings its almost certainly a failing FPC anyway, making a renomination a waste of time...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  - See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asiatic-lion.jpg for a "hurt feelings" withdrawal by the author which actually had good chances to get promoted to FP. -- Jovan Cormac 10:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    - Huh?! Guys, what is going on here? Since when are hurt feelings something irrelevant?! We are all humans here, and most of us are doing this for fun. We should make this experience as pleasant as possible. --Dschwen (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      - Thank you for your comment, Daniel!--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, obviously. I'm not to fond of instruction creep and all for common sense, but sadly wikilawyering seems to make it necessary to have clear rules. --Dschwen (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Results : 3 support, 6 opposes --> proposition rejected --S23678 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Features

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Remove "no downsampling" requirement from the guidelines (proposition)

I believe those two should be illuminated from the guidelines:

Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.

My reasoning are:

It is impossible to enforce (in case of cropped images and panoramas). What the purpose in keeping the rule that cannot be enforced?
That statement "Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file" does not apply to all images. For example that fogbow of mine File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg will not suffer and/or benefit neither from downsampling nor from full resolution.
Some readers (rather many) are not able to view big resolution images because of slow connection.
If the rule is enforced somehow, (and I do not believe it could be enforced) FP could, and probably will loose many rare, high EV images.
This rule will never be fair. Even now between current nominations while some of the images are getting opposed for downsampling, the others are not, just the opposite.

Would the inability to convict every criminal be reason to abandon the laws entirely? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

My last argument (#5) was not about criminals (like me, who downsample images :) ), it was about the judges, who should always be fair and balanced :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

But not as in fair and balanced, but really fair and balanced ;). Yeah. That would be great. Still, having the rule is more benefical for commons than removing it. IMO. --Dschwen (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Question: . What do you mean by illuminate? Set on fire? Burn down? Remove? ;-) Or enlighten, make more clear? Let's make it more clear, I propose the following sentence to replace the points above: Downsampling is dumb. Don't do it! Full stop. ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my English :). I meant removing the guideline. I see you have a different opinion :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess you meant "eliminated". :-) -- H005

22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose As stated below --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose per S23678's points. Plus it is a mystery to me why people keep repeating that downsampling improves the picture quality. It doesn't, plain and simple. --Dschwen (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I think we need an easier way for low bandwidth consumers to view images. Preferably a bunch of different resolution links from the summary page of each image. I'd also be open to reviewing each image at some kind of standard resolution. But apart from these issues, I don't see any reason for downsampling since it may well prevent some applications of the work. --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as per SS23678 -- H005 22:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Arguments

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

"Impossible to enforce. It's very easy to enforce, just by asking people to upload an original, untouched version of their image. Crop and downsampling would be easy to detect. I did it for my last nomination.
"Full resolution does not have benefits to all images". Where's the limit? Until where should we downsample, if the goal is only to illustrate a phenomenon. Let's not play with "how small is not too small" and simply ask for full resolution versions (especially since it's already available straight out of the camera!)
"Some readers have slow internet connexion". These readers can use the wiki to view downsampled versions. Too simple.
"We may loose rare images". As these are just guidelines, we can do exceptions if there's strong mitigating reason. But for images downsampled directly from the nominator to artificially raise quality, it should not be accepted. --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very sure that you cannot force people to upload originals. Please remember that while I, for example, downsample some of my images to hide quality issues :(, others downsample them because they are selling high resolution ones. If we are to force them to upload originals, they will simply leave Commons. Besides uploading the originals will create lots of extra work, and would take lots of extra space.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately we cannot force anyone to upload anything here. We can only make commons a high-quality high-profile site by encouraging the contribution of high-quality content. Keep in mind that this page is about FPs. It has nothing to do with what is uploaded or not, but with rewarding what is uploaded. People can upload what they want, but we should reward those that contribute the highest quality material. And downsampled images are not the highest quality material. --Dschwen (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Not force people, but strongly suggest would probably incline a majority towards doing it. As for extra work, outside the download time, it barely takes 2 minutes to upload a different version of a file. As for extra space, server space is well used if it's fulfilling Commons goals. Aiming for better FP is well used server space. Finally, for people selling pictures... this is very personal, but I'm participating in Common because I think giving my pictures to such a cause is more fulfilling than making money with them. I think you can either have money, or recognition by peers on Commons... but requesting the standards to be lowered to have the 2 at the same time.. I personally don't like. "Tu peut pas avoir le beurre et l'argent du beurre" --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You forgot about panorama shots. And what about uploads from Flickr and other sources like US Goverement for example. Would you ask them for originals too? Let be reasonable! Anyway why don't you open the voting for your proposition to ask the people to upload the originals, and let us see how that voting will go :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aiming at making it mandatory, and I don't think a vote in favour of that would pass. But downsampling can be verified by asking the author to upload an original frame if we think there was a downsample, making it possible to enforce. For images from outside commons, I think we should raise our standards and accept downsampled versions only with strong mitigating reasons. --S23678 (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dschwen and Mbz1 make very good points. Durova (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines clarification

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

Depends...who are you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oups But does it really matters who I am? --S23678 (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] temporary bot downtime

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