Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Contents

[edit] No WoW

Is there any way to regulate this, because it is currently a pretty ridiculous reason to oppose. By regulating this I mean creating a new set of rules, which limit the use of this argument. Examples: Pictures taken at night or panoramas are enough wow. Any way, it's not my concern anymore, since I'am leaving Commons. I'm fed up with the fact that good pictures (not my own) keep being rejected or downgraded, while ugly pictures make it to FP-status. People of whom I never have seen one decent shot are opposing great pictures of others. Apparently having a picture with a great technical quality and EV is not the criterium for an FP anymore on commons. I will keep uploading pictures now and then to improve the quality of articles and be active on the English Wikipedia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Please don't leave FPC. At the beginning we get easily irritated with what we belive to be casual and superficial opinions, when not obviously destructive. But then we realize that we can influence other people, both the creators and the reviewers, with our carefull and constructive critics. Don't worry with ocasional floods of sub-standard nominations and critics. They come and go but more than a couple of interested and serious regulars will stay. as for the "wow" factor, that is just a conventional way to express our wonder for some pictures, when we can't precise why we like them so much -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey Massimo, thanks for expressing pretty much exactly what I feel about FPC lately! FPC essentially ridicules itself. Some voters just stick to the very narrow scheme they know. Well, whatever! Commons is so much more than FPC, so it would be nice if you stuck around for more than just an occasional upload now and then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I sometimes feel the same. At the same time, I can understand a "no wow" vote. It's now so easy to make technically good pictures that if we were taking only that in account, there would be many FP. An FP is meant to be the cream of the cream over here, so if you look at it, there's got to be a wow, somehow. What I feel most sad about is that because of complaints, I'm afraid to be honest, because I don't want to hurt other wikimedians (But when things go really too far, I say what I want to !). FPC is open, this has its good ...and its bad. For most parts, I much agree with Alvesgaspar. By the way, I hope I'm not one of those who discouraged you. I know I haven't yet supported any of your pictures. Benh (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided to return to commons. After thinking about it..quitting only makes it worse in the sense that you can't influence things. And besides, I can learn a lot from other people on this site. I'm here for the fun of things and I'm not letting anyone else take that away. So, I'm back. Btw Ben, no, you are one of the finest people on wikimedia, so don't be afraid you hurt me. People not supporting my images wasn't the reason to leave. Thank you for your comments! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You did the right thing! Now, we may start training you to take care of FPC closing some day ;-). Let me introduce to you some of our best creators (this is a short personal choice, a larger list is in here and here:
  • Welcome to COM:FPC ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I know them all to well. Before I joined Wikipedia, I used it like everyone else. I always admired there pictures (Dillif's mostly). You forgot to put yourself in the list ;-). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Nargh, stop being nice to me when I'm angry! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • too much compliments... I had to unlace my now tight shoes ;) Massimo, I bet you'll be in Alvesgaspar's next short personal choice ;) Benh (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The rule of the 5th day

My question is about voting after the 5th day.
Example: I want to delist a fp. There is no delist-vote after the fifth day. Is it still allowed to vote on the sixth as long as the voting isn't closed?
thx for answeres --D-Kuru (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The voting will be implicitly closed on the sixth day even if no message is written by the closer, meaning that the votes after the fifht day won't count. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raising the bar

  • With the arrival of new and talented photographers, the quantity and quality of our FP's increased dramatically in the last year, or so. That is true in most of the categories: nature, macro, views, people, etc. Also, we have now a significantly larger number of knowledgeable users participating in the evaluation. Maybe it is the time to review our standards and adjust to the new reality, so that we can better stick to the original goal of FPC and only the best (“la crème de la crème”, the cream of the cream) can pass. I went through my own FP’s (all from the last two years) and realized that a significant fraction of them (about 20%) were promoted with a number of votes close to the minimum. Well, that is no longer challenging for me… I don’t believe we can improve our level of exigency just by convincing the reviewers to be more selective. But we can certainly raise the bar by increasing the minimum number of support votes needed for promotion. What about 7 or 9, instead of 5? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the bar has actually been lowered from a couple of years ago, and that's helped with more participation. --Dori - Talk 12:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to raise the bar a little, as Joaquim suggests. We have more contributors now than when the limit of 5 was first set up. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that. We can always re-lower if we run out of pics for the main-page... --Dschwen (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more variety besides modern digital photography represented. I'm very glad we have a strong core of people contributing their own work in that area, yet it worries me that a broader range of feature-worthy material gets shut out or shunted to VI. Durova (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • What kind of images are you talkimg about? Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think raising the bar is a good idea as COM:QI and to a lesser extent COM:VI have provided a level recognition for the better images. That FP needs to keep its standards as a clear step above those. Gnangarra 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support raising the bar for featuring pictures. But I think the increasing number of low quality nominations (as discussed below) is becoming a much more significant problem. Chmehl (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think requiring more vote is a good idea. Another way to raise the bar is to push people to oppose when they feel like so, and not to blame this. A "no wow" is a valid reason to oppose. I am sometimes afraid to oppose and I wonder if other people think like I do, and this is silly. Benh (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand Benh's concern, though I'm not afraid of opposing myself ;-). Still I agree that the pool of assessors is much larger now than 3-4 years ago and requiring more votes is not a bad thing. Lycaon (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the raise of the bar I'm only a bit concerned with those pictures that, despite their obvious value and FP quality, are not fancy enough to draw the attention of most reviewers (this one, for example). Maybe we could make it a bit more complicated (I'm not convinced myself, yet): keep 5 (or 6) as a minimum but force the ratio support/oppose to be tougher at the beginning. For example (read # support:max # opposes): 5:0, 6:1, 7:2, 8:3, 9:4, 10:5, ..., n:n/2. Does it make sense? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't feel qualified to judge the quality of some sort of images. I have a feeling others might think the same, so it's more that there aren't enough reviewers for those types of images. You can't fault the FPC process for that. --Dori - Talk 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I do not have any strong opinions on exactly how to raise that bar, I have an opinion of where that bar should be; In my opinion that bar should be placed such that we promoted, on average, a little more than one image per day. Just enough to feed into COM:POTD. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We have now a generous surplus of FP's (more than 100, I guess). Less than a half of my promoted pictures were chosen as POTD and I suppose this is more or less the same with the other authors. I wouldn't oppose a tougher number, something a little below a FP per day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO we should be more strict with who votes for the images. Many images are promoted simply because they look astounding at thumbnail sizes and the newbies don't bother to check the full size image. Perhaps we could create a category of users who are credible and only they have the ability to vote. Other users may build their credibility by reviewing images at VIC or QIC or by submitting good images? Muhammad
  • I do feel something has to change. In my opinion the bar may be raised. A way to raise the bar is by changing the rules in a manner, that every opposing vote now requires three supporting to even things out. Also a problem I would love to see disappear is that some pictures don't get a lot of votes. One way of fixing this is by making it obligated that if you want to vote, you must vote twice (on different images of course and whether you support or oppose doesn't matter) if you catch my drift. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm, a 3:1 support to oppose ratio. That would make it even harder to balance out some uninformed-moron opposes by sane-people support votes ;-). Seriously, I'd find it pretty discouraging when a handful of.. ..let's say less experienced voters can so easily destroy a nomination. --Dschwen (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as voters are not required to justify their vote (both support and oppose) and don't face the risk of having their vote discounted for evidently unqualified justifications calibrating the support/oppose ratio won't do anything to stop the culture of mediocrity that permeates FPC on Commons. There is no benefit right now for anyone to make an effort to research a candidate picture and there is no cost to just looking at the thumbnail and declaring it a 'wow' or 'no wow' picture. For instance, this picture, which is up for POTD, sailed through FPC apparently without anyone noticing the obvious flaws in the picture (downsampled, tilted, median-filtered, poorly cropped, blurry). If you're trying to raise the bar on images being promoted to FP, raise the bar on participating in the discussion. Also, if you're concerned about too many mediocre pictures nominated, make QI or VI a prerequisite for a FPC nomination. trialsanderrors (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Raising a different bar

  • Something that hasn't been discussed, but what about adding another condition that there must not be another FP of the same subject? Or rather if there is you have to nominate both and only the one with the most votes stays. One thing that frankly concerns me with this raising the kind of bar as mentioned in the proposals is that we're going to be selecting among a smaller group of photographers, who to their credit, are pretty good. That smaller group of photographers may prefer certains subjects to others. And we'll miss other subjects from photographers who are either not that good or don't have good enough (read expensive) gear. Another way of raising the bar, would be to limit the number of FPs to a category each week. I'd like to see some more diversity of images that become FPs, and not necessarily higher resolution or just different angles of the same subjects over and over. --Dori - Talk 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Dori on this suggestion. Pictures from Africa are very rare, and with very few people with any decent cameras and gear, getting technically good pictures is difficult as it is, and raising the bar wil only make it impossible. Muhammad 11:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I live in Europe, but 10 out of my 24 FP's (42%) are from Africa and 81 out of my 223 QI's (36%). ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That's exactly my point. Africans do not have the gear and cameras to take such pictures, hence tourists who visit the continent are the only ones whose pictures are featured. Now if we want diversity as all of you clearly mention, then some kind of bias should be kept towards these rare images. To illustrate my point; A typical Tanzanian for instance, earns less than $400 a year. With the prices of SLRs $600onwards and the price of good lenses more than the price of the camera, do we really expect technically perfect images? Muhammad 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Dori's proposal. How the limitation of promotions in a certain category would benefict pictures of other categories? I also would like to see more diversity, but the only correct ways that I see of getting it is to attract new creators or to convince the existing ones to shift their interests and skills (not easy, for sure). I'm strongly against the introduction of any kind of bias into the system: by media, subject, region, nationality of the creator... or sex. Yes, I know that this was not explicitly proposed by any user until now and hope it won't be. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're interested in getting FPs, and certain slots fill up more quickly than others, you might have an incentive to get some pictures in the other categories. Additionally people who don't normally get FPs, but have more chances to get pictures in the "lonesome" categories might also have an incentive to give it a try. The real problem would be coming up with the categories. P.S. There already is a bias, try getting an FP through with a cheap point and shoot. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd have to be a really good photographer or be in a pretty interesting place and/or interesting time. P.P.S. I'm guilty of this bias too, I've become addicted to MP. --Dori - Talk 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have some sympathy for how the criteria we have now leads to less diversity in the subjects as compared to the ideal situation - also concerning what kind of photos we see from which parts of the world. On the other hand, I think it will be very hard to administer such a system, and inevitably it will lead to lower quality pictures being featured. I think we should avoid that by all means and really insist that FPs are for the one in a thousand or less images of outstanding quality. It is our show room of eye-catching motives shown on the main page and to catch attention to the projects. Last year I would have supported this view as we had not alternatives for those contributors making valuable contributions of more diverse and perhaps less eye-catching material with compact cameras and mobile phones. However, I think COM:VI fills in that gap pretty well now. With its criterion on only one VI per scope the contributors are motivated to come up with something new we have not seen before. In this manner users with a smaller budget can still get some credit for contributing with gap-fillers content-wise. If we were to attract more users from, say, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, we should perhaps make a bigger effort in localizing the FP pages to more different native languages, and make the forum more helpful and forthcoming towards non-English speakers. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree it would be pretty complex and maybe unmanageable. I just wish we had more participation from exactly the regions you mentioned. I don't think VI will do it though as it doesn't have anywhere near the same exposure as FPs (many Wikipedias feature the POTD on their front page). Perhaps if we made POTD be a rotation among FP, QI, VI (any other one I'm leaving out?) it might be somewhat better. That's somewhat off-topic for this discussion though. --Dori - Talk 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some statistics

Here are some statistics on the distribution of promoted pictures among classes of "number of support votes", for the period Jan 2007-Apr 2008 (after April, it takes much more work to get the numbers). They might help us in choosing the best way to raise the bar. The first graph shows numbers of FP per class/per month; the second, the percentage of promoted pictures in each class, for the whole period. For example, if we decide to promote only with 7 or more suppot votes, than we may expect an average decrease of 16% in the number of promoted pictures. I'll let you digest these numbers for some time before making a specific proposal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Your statistics had me thinking. Some categories like flowers, get many good FPCs, hus the bar in this case need be raised. But other categories like underwater pictures or pictures from remote areas , do not get many FPCs and even then the quality is not always great due to technical limitations. For such a case then, the criteria needs to be maintained. Muhammad 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I thing, that the change of number needed positive votes is not only matter of people making images (their number and quality of photoes is going up without any doubt), but it depends also on number of wikipedists, who regulary visit voting page and who are active here. And in this case I am not so sure. I think, that going back into last 6 - 8 months, we could find only group of let say 40 - 50 people (maybe this is too much), who give regulary votes to presented images. So that, if we increase number of necessary + votes, the percentage of elected images will decrease (as shown on Alvesgaspar diagram). It is question, I we want change to this direction? From my point of view, the incerase to 7 needed votes is good step. But further incerease will led to substantial decrease of number of FP and this I do not find beeing useful. --Karelj (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal A (# votes)

Here are some alternatives to help raising the FPC bar. Please notice that the expected reductions in the monthly number of promotions are rough estimates, based on the statistics above.

[edit] - Option 0 (5 support votes)

Like it is now. A FP candidate is promoted with 5 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1.

  •  Oppose - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Non-photographic media have difficulty getting enough votes in FPC - not support votes, just votes in general, and to up standards will only increase this systemic bias. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that is a problem, but think the best way to deal with that is to define some rules which sets out what we should be looking for when we vote on such an image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It is just not true that such a problem exists! Please check my comment below. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong that there isn't a problem. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Adam. Non-photographic media, historical images, encyclopedic images with little wow, all get very few votes. If an exception is made then I may change my vote. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Because I believe opposing is another way to "raise the bar", at no change. Benh (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dori - Talk 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral --Simonizer (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 
  •  Oppose -- Laitche (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support People like me really need some FP's --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] - Option 1 (7 support votes)

A FP candidate is promoted with 7 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1. A reduction of about 16% in the monthly number of promotions is expected.

  •  Neutral  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, unless an exception is made as stated above. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Benh (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Changed my mind on this one, see #Raising_a_different_bar. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support --Simonizer (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there are some categories with a small interested party, so this could be fatal. Plus preventing monopolism. --Richard Bartz (talk)
  •  Support -- Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Pretty good, but new people may need a lower bar. --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] - Option 2 (9 support votes)

A FP candidate is promoted with 9 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1. A reduction of about 30% in the monthly number of promotions is expected.

  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as I stated above. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Benh (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Dori - Talk 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nine looks like too much --che 12:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Neutral --Simonizer (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Opposethere are some categories with a small interested party, so this could be fatal. Plus preventing monopolism. --Richard Bartz (talk)
  •  Oppose -- Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too much. --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal B (Voting periods)

I believe the present voting periods of 9 (normal period) and 5 days (no support votes), as well as the 48 hour FPX grace periodFPX is already 24 hours --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC) are too long. My proposal is to decrease all to 7 (like in WP:FPC), 4 and 24 hours, respectively. This will help to keep the page cleaner of the already decided nominations, so that the reviewers attention can be focused on the other pictures.

  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Chmehl (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (unless proposal A fails). -- Lycaon (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Prefer proposal A, but would support this if A fails. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm fine with current voting periods Benh (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd be for decreasing just the "no support votes" time. --Dori - Talk 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Would support a decrease of the "Rule of the 5th day" --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't 4 days and 24 hours 5 days? --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose there are times when people don't vote for a pic. at least 3 days straight -SuperJew (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • I think only one of above two proposals (A or B) should be implemented, not both. They are synergetic. Together that would mean more votes required in less time. BTW, FPX has been set to 24hrs already some time ago. Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Not both at the same time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Of these, only two would pass under the 7 rule, and one under the 9 rule. Several of these even have opposes simply because they are engravings. Do we really want to exclude the major form of 19th-century illustration from featured pictures because a type of image we have lots of, photographs, is getting plenty of votes? All this would do is increase the pre-existing systemic bias, and, if those numbers are typical (and, in my experience, they are), cut out important subjects from FP based on the random chance of whether they could get enough attention. Carl Nebel, one of the masters of the lithographic medium, got five supports, and one oppose that thought it was a funny-looking painting.
  • In short, any moves to increase number of votes needed or decrease the time would only cause certain classes of media to become very hard to get promoted, even if they were unopposed, because evaluaters tend to ignore media they don't understand. Worse, some actively oppose work that isn't common here: The Trial by Jury has opposes because it's "Only copy of some old illustration. No value as a photo." Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If voters don't deem such images featurable, then where is the problem? If people don't like the monochrome stuff (I don't, I admit), then why should it be forced upon them? That's not discrimination, IMO, but choice. Engravings, e.g., are not excluded by rule but by voter's preference. So? Lycaon (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lycaon and don't understand why engravings should be positively discriminated, in the case a higher bar is approved, or obstruct the initiative of making the promotions harder. Engravings, together with reproductions of paintings, illustrations, maps and animations, represent a small percentage of all nominated pictures, and that should be naturally reflected in the number of promotions (which is not now, by the way). On the other hand I believe that a thougher system would cause a feedback reaction from regular reviewers in the sense of being more attentive to potential promotions of less popular candidates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's systemic bias, and is basically saying that people with interests outside of the standard Featured Picture fare should go away. Such bias is self-reinforcing: If engravings aren't getting promoted, people who know and like engravings will no longer watch FPC, and such media will become unfeaturable. If such media become unfeaturable, why should I or others continue spending the large amounts of money and time it takes to get such historic items? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stating that the system will be biased against that particular type of pictures is a wild extrapolation, not supported by numbers. The data are available, please go through them and prove it. I will be convinced if the ratio of promotions for those pictures, in the case options B or C are to be approved, is found to be significantly smaller than the overall ratio of promotions. Let me refresh our memories again: the present ratio of promotions of non-photographic media is over 50%, much larger than the overall ratio of promotions (23%). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but there are dozens of different types of non-photographic media, from Lady of Hats anatomical illustrations to historic mass media such as engravings and lithographs. It is the historic mass media that I'm most concerned about. Your complaint appears to be that because some other, completely unrelated non-photographic media is doing well, and might continue to do so even if we raise the number of votes - an assertion you put forth without evidence - that we can presume all types of non-photographic media will be fine. I provided evidence that engravings and lithographs would find it difficult to be promoted under the proposed schemes. You came back and complained that they are currently getting promoted - yes, and that's a state I would like to maintain. In any case, increasing the number of necessary votes seems more likely to just increase the role of random chance - that is, how many people happen to decide to review that week - in FPCs, without actually raising the bar, as the percentage of support votes required remains identical. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results

Voting closed. No clear consensus was reached which means that things will be held exactly as before, concerning the number of votes and periods. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Still too many mediocre nominations

  • I am still concerned at the very high level of nominations that stand very little chance of success. That must - at the very least - be discouraging for the nominators, who no doubt think that their images are some of the best available on Commons. Sadly, many have to be disabused, and go away never to be seen again. We disuss this issue regularly without much of a conclusion, and of course we already have the photography critiques project that was supposed to help with this. Perhaps the FP rules are not clear enough, or perhaps they are too diffuse/spread across too many pages. How about a review & re-write of the FP rules? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We can surely try that, and I'm willing to help, but it won't solve the problem. How many of us read the instructions of an appliance before trying it (maybe you do, Michael...)? Anyway, I don't believe that the system causes significant losses of talented photographers for Commons. Another thing we might also discuss is the aspect of the FPX template. Maybe it should be more discrete. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think instructions help that much. They're way too long. I doubt anyone reads them before posting for the first time. I think moving the judgement criteria to a separate page and just leaving a sample gallery of FPs from the most nominated categories would help. --Dori - Talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is actually a really good idea! I also second the part about instructions. Nobody reads them, seriously ;-). A small gallery captioned Only nominate your picture if you think it is at least this good! should do the trick. If not, tough luck, you cannot say we didn't warn the nominators. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that might help, along with a gallery of nominations that narrowly failed, with reasons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I like that idea. A few featured pictures directly on the page where you create the nomination should make the users think about whether their nomination has a chance or not. Chmehl (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I doubt it would work because one of the problems is that nominators has to go beyond thumbnail size to see what is good or bad. Many of the images that are rejected look fairly good in thumbnail size. It is only when seen in larger size that its real merits are revealed. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Concerning the guidelines, could they not be condensed into the guidelines in a nutshell, with a very few punchline statements and then translated into the major languages of users here. The nutshell guidelines should of course refer to the more elaborate guidelines. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I like this idea. I also think we should add this reminder above the editing box when nominating a picture. I'll give it a try tonight if I have time and see what you think of it. Benh (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • what if there was a requirement for a seconder before the nomination is active. Gnangarra 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't like that, it would encourage cliques and sockpuppets, besides that's what the 5 day rule is for. Although, it might be better as rule of the 3rd day or something. --Dori - Talk 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In reality will it, COM:QI is single editor promotion if there was to be such abuse it would already be happening. I think its a case of assuming good faith in the actions of editors, sockpuppet abuse will be obvious and deliberate cabal noms will be apparent fairly quickly. The current system can be similarly gamed already. In the end images that arent up to scratch wont get any further then a nomination. Gnangarra 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not concerned about gaming the system either. One idea could be to have an image/picture peer review pages for images in general, see w:WP:PPR for the analogue of this at Wikipedia, English. It could be a requirement that FPCs go through this channel first for filtering. The users reviewing at PPR could then also look into if an image could be a candidate for QIC and VIC. That might give a more positive overall experience for new nominators learning our system. I have seen several FPCs where nominators leave the forum in frustration not being aware that images would be very suitable candidates for VI, for instance. In case we wanted a PPR I think the Photography critiques page should be merged with this and nominators should still be left a possibility to just have their images reviewed/critiqued there, irrespective of whether they are interested at actually nominating their images. The PPR process should be light-weight as VI or QI. The opinion of a single user can be enough to gate nominators through to FPC, but the opinion of that singlke users can still be contested as is the case at consensual review at QIC and dicussed/most valued reviews at VI. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd make the FPX template less intrusive. Over on en, it's just speedy close followed by a reason. To contest, you need a good reason. We only get on average a 2-3% involuntary speedy closure rate, usually due to the nominator failing to read WIAFP. MER-C 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • One thing that worries me: The FPX template often seems a little rude to the uploader when it's not just "too small". When using it because of technical flaws, can I remind everyone to be just a little bit nicer in their let down? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with MER-C on the FPX template being too agressive. Like I said above, it should be graphically more discrete. Maybe we could remove that triangular icon and make the lettering smaller. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I made the FPX template a bit more discrete. Maybe someone can come out with a new design -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Feature matrix comparison between FP, QI and VI

I was wondering if a feature matrix/comparison table between FP, QI and VI could be helpful for inexperienced user to see what they are up against when nominating at FPC and better understand what the other options are? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a matrix would be handy, but the rationale behind it should be clear from the start. I don't like the idea of a hierarchical 'featuring' system where FP is perceived as better than QI and QI better than VI. These valuing procedures are parallel rather than sequential in nature. And that should be stressed. Lycaon (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Add Featured sounds and videos

In order to better recognise those aspects of commons that Wikipedia can do very well, but other encyclopedias cannot, I propose the following:

  • Two new classes of featured content are created: Sounds and video
  • While these will have separate archives, to have the nominations run in a different place will cut off those communities from the main commons community
  • Hence, the nominations will be held on this page, which should be renamed to "Featured media candidates".

What do you think? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, if noone objects, I'll start writing up standards for sounds, and try and create a parallel process that will share this voting area. It may very well be that people simply aren't aware of this suggestion, so I'll try and do it in as minimally disruptive of a way as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've listened to your FSC (Featured Sound Candidate) and I have no idea on how to evaluate audio medias. First, I think you should arrive with a series of guidelines about speakers calibration, what's good and what's not good in an audio sample, compression standards, etc. As well, I think it might be a lot more difficult to judge on the "wow" aspect of a sound because, IMO, we evaluate sounds in a lot more subjective manner than we evaluate images. For example, a song at top of the charts will probably annoy a greater percentage of a population than a strong image (well known/well difused/generally appreciated image). As well, other than historic audio samples, I doubt about what other kind of input will there be. FPC community is very small, still, I think there are amateurs photographers several orders of magnitude more than sound recording enthusiasts (not said in a sarcastic way, I know no other terms). Of course, I'll be happy if you get me wrong, since it can only be an added value to Commons, but I doubt about the long term success of a high standard evaluation process. --S23678 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with S23678 and think it is nearly impossible to objectively evaluate sound files here. What should be the criteria: the artistic value of the piece? The quality of the interpretation? Or the quality of the sound (or of the restauration)? Only the last one seems adequate to me. However, I can't see how a Commons user could assess the quality of an audio file just be listening to it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems almost ridiculously defeatist: It's basically saying we shouldn't even try, because there might be problems. Evaluating pictures is subjective as well, a quick scan of FPC will find lots of subjectively-based evaluation. That doesn't make FPC invalid, and nor should it make FSC. Featured picturesd now has a group of experienced photographers able to evaluate the images. I'm sure featred sounds, if given a chance and prioritised, could gather a simailar community of audiophiles and singers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My thoughts are : Recording quality is a lot more difficult to judge, the sound piece judging is extremely subjective (a lot more than pictures IMO), the pool of "sound enthusiasts" is probably a lot smaller than "image enthusiasts" to judge sounds AND to create and upload new files. Finally, I think it may result in a sub-standard voting process. Prove me wrong, but don't accuse me of being defeatist. You asked for our opinion, and here it is. --S23678 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Several of the benefits of the evaluation process - such as attracting more people to contribute sounds to Wikipedia - exist independently to the quality of the review, so it's worth doing it regardless of any worries about the quality of the review. Featured pictures, for instance, has proven very effective at attracting high-aquality photographers to Wikipedia, and this attraction also brings in the expertise needed to increase standards. We have a choice here: We can either recognise sounds as something commons should try and do, or we can say that people who do work wwith sounds should not be recognised and appreciated, and thus drive people who might want to do so off after short periods of contribution.
The pool of expertise exists, everty town in Britain and, I believe, America has at least some form of music-related amateur society, whether Gilbert and Sullivan, choruses, musicals, operatic societies, and so on. Universities are likely to have all of those. There will be a certain amount of subjectiveness, but we're not generally going to be asking people to make judgement on original compositions here, we'll be asking them to judge recordings of pre-existing material, such as nature sounds, opera, very early musicals, or important speeches. The argument that it cannot be judged is equivalent to saying that we cannot evaluate paintings on FP because the quality of paintings is subjective - but ignorign that thew paintings being proposed are by da Vinci, Picasso, and Matisse. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That was not my intention to be defeatist, please forgive me if it sounded that way. I'm a music lover myself and also like to listen to the old recordings of Caruso and Gigli singing verist arias. The problem is we'll probably have to forget about the excellence of the piece, the quality of the interpretation and, in the case of old recordings, even the quality of the sound (which is obviously poor), to concentrate on the restoration job. I don't think that is possible for the rest of us even if we have access to the original sound file. We just don't have the knowledge and, in most cases, the computer's sound system won't be good enough. The analogy with FPC was pushed too far. In the case of images, and considering the large majority of cases, we are evaluating original works in all of their visual components including the aesthetical, technical, encyclopaedic, etc.. Only when reviewing reproductions of paintings and other non-original images we face the problem of trying to forget about their intrinsic artistic value and assess the merits of the reproduction itself. With historical sound files it would be much more difficult and I doubt that any of us (I nmean the regulars here) have the ability to make a proper evaluation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Video --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Sound and Video. Hard to judge sounds, but same goes for pictures. I don't know pictures better than sounds, and still review them. It's as easy to find noise, or artefacts in sounds than it is in pictures. Also we learn from others, and the process will only get better in the future. On the other hand, I agree there are certainly more photographers than musicians. Also, I guess it will take more time to review sounds and video, and this may discourage people (including me). Benh (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally I think sounds are much harder to judge compared to images. For images you can easily point out an area of an image circle it/shade it/crop it to indicate a problem. Sure you can cut a sound file or point out the exact time it happens, but it's harder to be exact. And it's very easy to compare two or more images with each other because you can look at them at the same time, while that do not work at all for sounds. I am not saying we can not rate sounds just that it is very different and at least to me much harder. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let's first agree on how to evaluate and judge photographs. Video and sound should each have their own (parallel) valuation schemes, not mixed with images. It won't work. Lycaon (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support The mission of Commons is to be a repository not only for still video but also for sound and video files. There is no reason at all why one featured status should be limited to one. The people who judge photographs and graphics may or may not participate in the judging of sound and motion video, but other people do, and Commons should extend to them the right to promote sound and video to featured status. Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And since the opening statement of this topic referred to encyclopedias, I just want to comment that Commons is not an encyclopedia. Its mission is to support all Wikimedia projects, not just the encyclopedias. Fg2 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Downsampling

The downsampling issue has arisen again as many times before. Can we make the guidelines clearer and actually say something about downsampling one way or the other ? /Daniel78 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a rule against downsampling would be hard to enforce, particularly since there is such a wide variety of different image sizes available on modern cameras. I would suggest that, in the interests of ensuring high quality images we increase the minimum resolution, for photographs, to 5 megapixels (ie 2,592 × 1,944) since almost all cameras can now take photos in this size. It would limit the damage of downsampling as well. R-T-C Tim (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Modern photographs only, please. Historical photographs probably cannot be gotten larger than they are, nor, due to grain, would it be necessarly useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's rather evident I should think. Resolution requirements concern digital imagery. Lycaon (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is also a secondary effect here, A 21MP camera downsampled to 6 mpix would look a lot better than say a 6 MP native resolution camera principally because of bayer interpolation. Just because the image is 6mp in size it doesn't mean there is actually 6 mp of information in the image. It might discourage contributers with lower end equipment. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the votes against downsampling. You can't really tell that something has been downsampled, and even when it's evident I don't think it's a good reason. The rules should be changed if the community agrees (I personally think 2MP is fine). --Dori - Talk 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Any change of the rules towards a higher resolution requirement would require a careful analysis of the feature rate for images, you wouldn't want to set 5mpix as a minimum, then not promote enough candidates per week to satisify POTD in the long term. In my case if the rules were changed I just wouldn't nominate the images period (baring the occasional panorama I take, but they are still downsampled). Disallowing downsampling would be difficult to enforce, and would prevent many very good images from being promoted (look at the resolution of the pictures of the year last year!) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Another issue about disallowing downsampling is that it could actually encourage people to lie about it as it is hard to prove whether an image has actually been downsampled or not. I am leaning towards having something along the lines "downsampling is allowed but not encouraged" in the guidelines. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think downsampling should be forbidden. I often make large panoramas stitched from very many images. The quality of each image is rather mediocre as I just have a compact camera, but when combined and I do some moderate downsampling I get an adequate per pixel level information content, an image with a manageable file size of around 10-15 Mpixels. Yes, in principle I loose information in the process, but in practise the information loss is very small as outweighed by better per pixel information content and quality, decreased bandwidth requirements and more manageable image resolutions. I think this practise should be accepted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. So should we change the guidelines, should we vote for it ? /Daniel78 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing FP

Hi,

this delist candidate should be kept, but since there is consensus on edit for replacing original, I propose to just do it that way.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:AcueductoSegovia04.JPG

what do you think ? Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to care :( I'll just replace it. Benh (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Je propose de la nominer comme FP, comme mentionné lors de mon vote. Après tout, il n'y a eu que 3 supports pour la remplacer. --S23678 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Done Benh (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Recycle

I'm really rather uncomfortable with the idea that a nomination with, say, 4 supports and no opposes should be closed as unpromoted. Certain types of images need techncial expertise to judge, and the current rules penalise these types of images.

How about instead, images with less than five votes, but with an otherwise consensus of support, get cycled back to the top, to gve them another 9 days to get more consensus? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  •  Support What about creating another list, permanently at the top, separated from Nominations list and Delist list, to get maximum exposure? I support only if the nomination has no opposing vote after the first round 4 support votes and no oppose as per Alvesgaspar, below. --S23678 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Agree with the idea but only for the specific case of 4 support votes and no opposes. Even in that case, the refreshment could only be used once. Otherwise we run the risk of having the page crowded with old nominations people don't care about. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support Recycle or die --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this is good idea. but not 9 days, maybe 5. Benh (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support good idea. Mfield (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: This idea seems to gain consensus. As I'm trying to rephrase the FPC instructions, I could insert a paragraph on this too. OK ? not OK ? Benh (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replace candidates

Hi,

I'd like to add a new section to the FPC page. In addition to Featured Picture Candidates and Featured Picture Delisting Candidates, we'd see Featured Picture Replace Candidates (or anything which sounds better in english).

This is to give chance to pictures which:

  • are old, but good enough to remain FP
  • which could be improved
  • whom improved edit would likely fail to get promoted to FP status.

I'd like us to avoid cases such as this one. The old one wasn't delisted, but the new one will likely not be promoted despite being clearly better.

What do you think ? Thanks. Benh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a new section is needed, but maybe we should change the rules (guidelines) to make clear that when a picture is proposed as a replacement for an existing FP, if the nomination passes, the old FP is delisted. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a new section is the clearest possible form, and the easiest to manage. But as people don't seem to be much interested, I'm now trying to integrate this to FPC process (as part of my instructions rephrasing attempt). When I have something I can show, I'll poll contributors. Benh (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing FPC instructions

Hi, after issues raised above, I started to write new instructions for FPC page. I wish this could lead to address the following :

  • shorter instructions, so people won't be scared to read them all,
  • adding new replace section,
  • rephrase that litigious part on downsampling and picture size.

I'm thinking about moving adding nomination forms to a dedicated subpage. This needn't clutter the FPC page. This dedicated page would provide plenty of room for warning users on potentially mediocre nominations.

I'm also thinking about changing the order of candidates, and copy the German FPC page, with the older nominations on top of the stack rather than opposite. I think this is better, as older noms need more visibility.

You may notice a missing template. I'm currently drawing new icon for creating a "replacing template", but if someone draws one in the meantime...

I'm going to be away for 2 days, so I think I could share this with you and start to get feedback : User:Benh/sandbox.

Thanks for your help. Benh (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the same as the Commons:Image guidelines page ? Benh (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good initiative :) , this is really needed. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like Commons:Image guidelines ? Regards Ben Aveling 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I keep working on this... very slowly sorry, and will keep you informed of any significant update. You can still have a look at my sandbox if you're curious to see how it's going. Benh (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't know how to make it fit properly

Sorry guys, I don't know how to make my image fit properly. Anyone can help? Georgez (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gustave Doré's Divine Comedy

I'm going to be uploading about a hundred Doré illustrations in the next week, taking us through his entire work on the Divine Comedy. I'd like to nominate these. However, a set of 75 (Inferno) seems a little excessive. Is there any good way for this to be done? Obviously, some are better than others, but I think there is also value to a complete set, particularly as hitherto we had very little high-resolution Doré.

One possibility may be the complete set as VI, selections for FP. Would anyone care to help choose some illustrations for the set? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-photographic media

I thinkw e need to drop the number of votes needed for these. Far fewer people are willing to reviw them, and this leads to incredibly frustrating situations where, say, an engraving gets four supports and an unexplained oppose, and then gets marked as not featured. This is very common for engravings and similar historic media, but unheard of in photographs, which pretty much always succeed or fail on consensus, not lack of a certain number of votes.

We're in a self-reinforcing cycle of Nominating engravings and other historic media is very frustrating -> New people capable of finding and evaluating historic media are chased off by the frustration and lack of recognition -> Not many people know about historic media, so either don't vote, or, worse, oppose simply because it's not a photograph -> Nominating engravings and other historic media is very frustrating...

If we are going to be a major media repository, this is a problem that affects the type of content we will get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think every oppose comment should at least be explained. Especially if it's the person's own work, or something they spent hours over scanning, touching-up etc, it can be quite rude to bluntly put Oppose without any explanation. How do you turn this on (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This issue was already discussed (see above). I confirm my opposition to any form of positive discrimination of non-photographic media and cite my comments made above: Stating that the system will be biased against that particular type of pictures is a wild extrapolation, not supported by numbers. The data are available, please go through them and prove it. I will be convinced if the ratio of promotions for those pictures, in the case options B or C are to be approved, is found to be significantly smaller than the overall ratio of promotions. Let me refresh our memories again: the present ratio of promotions of non-photographic media is over 50%, much larger than the overall ratio of promotions (23%). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, because you are throwing in mmodern SVG illustrations - the most common type of non-photographic media proposed here, because everyone who nominates anything else is chased off - in with historical ones. The rates for historical imagery is AWFUL. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Per above. Quote: "If voters don't deem such images featurable, then where is the problem? If people don't like the monochrome stuff (I don't, I admit), then why should it be forced upon them? That's not discrimination, IMO, but choice. Engravings, e.g., are not excluded by rule but by voter's preference. So?" Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, I would not like special treatment for a certain type of images. I guess some of them might benefit from the recycle idea above which is ok to me as it is valid for all images. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates"
Personal tools