Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Alternative image nominations[edit]

There are two nominations in the current candidate list (this and this) that have had alternatives added by someone other than the nominator. This does not always go down well (though I don't want to discuss the specifics of these two images). I have also had a nomination (this) where an alternative was added by someone other than me. And I've probably done it to others myself in the past. Often it is a good-faith addition but occasionally the reviewer is trying to make some point that may not be welcome. Sometimes, especially late additions, can considerably complicate the voting and wreck a nomination. Other times, the spilt in the vote makes it less likely a nomination succeeds.

The nominator made their choice when creating the candidate page. Therefore, I'd like to propose that the FP candidate belongs to the nominator and out of politeness they should be asked before anyone else adds an alternative to the candidacy. An exception might be made for the creator of the image (if different to the nominator). -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposal. There is never a need for unsolicited or unapproved nominator alternatives. They can always be handled better when pre-coordinated with the author/nominator. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd support this too. I've not been angered by unsolicited alternatives in the past, but I do agree that they should be at the discretion of the nominator. I did recently have the situation where additional alternatives made my nomination more complicated than necessary, because I wanted to add my own alternative too, and the nomination became a bit diluted with too many different alternatives, which I think tends to discourage voters as they can be confused or overwhelmed by the choices and often insignificant differences. Any suggestions for alternatives should go through the nominator out of courtesy, so they can decide how they want to handle it. Diliff (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Diliff, as someone who has had some of their images nominated by others, how do you feel about whether the creator might offer an alt themselves, or whether they should ask the nominator first also? -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that creator can withdraw a nom at any time even if it was nominated by someone else. Jee 09:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's kind of a cutting off the nose to spite the face result. If the creator liked their own version of the image but disliked the alternative offered, I think the best result would be to have the alternative withdrawn, not to have the entire nomination withdrawn. Diliff (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You missed my point. What I said is nominator always can withdraw his work if he don't want it be featured. As an ex. closer, I witnessed it. One nom withdrawn at the edge of promotion. Due to some strange reasons, some authors don't want their works here. :) Jee 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, I get the point now but I don't think it was clear at the time - your comment was in response to a discussion about creators not appreciating alternative images, so I took it to mean that the creator could withdraw the nomination because of the alternative, rather than because they didn't like the nomination itself. Diliff (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I feel less strongly about that situation because I suppose if I haven't nominated it, I haven't got the same emotional investment in it. I think as a general rule though, there should be respect for the creative choices of the photographer, and trust that they have created the image as it is for a reason. Of course that also doesn't mean that the photographer cannot make a mistake - we all do - but I'd prefer for people to ask before nominating an alternative regardless of who has nominated the original. Here's a rule of thumb that I would apply, and which I think may be appropriate: "If the adjustment is minor enough that it would be better to upload over the top of the original and is unlikely to upset the photographer (such as dust spot removal, minor perspective adjustment, etc) then go ahead and be bold (but out of courtesy, advise the nomination and the author that you've done so in order to give them the opportunity to revert if it isn't welcome). If the change is significant enough for the creative expression of the image to be altered (white balance, crop, major perspective adjustment, etc), seek permission from the author first." In the case of someone else nominating my images, one question remains: Should the original author or the nominator be asked permission to allow an alternative (or both)? Diliff (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Though even minor adjustments can be detrimental to overall image quality - making changes to a JPG is never ideal and some image editors chuck away important EXIF information as well as the loss of quality inherent in the decompress/recompress step. I think most of us are best placed to fix dust spots and CA and the like using the source raw in Lightroom, etc. The image may already have perspective/rotation changes so making further changes to the JPG will only soften further compared with the original. I know we lose some control due to the licence freedoms, but in terms of everyone getting along with each other, it is polite I think to ask the creator first on any proposed change. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
+1 -- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree. Imo we shouldn't be too strict on the creator, but third-party alternative nominations can lead to irritation and confrontation even when done in good faith. Just upload your alt and discuss it on the user's talk page before making steps on your own. --DXR (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --The_Photographer (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is only a "own made problem". What is difference between a new nomination (this is still allowed for us all) or as an alt version? Both is for me the same. The author can simply withdraw his (alt) work ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Because when they are both in one nomination, they compete for votes. There is a significant chance that neither option will achieve the required number of votes, not because of a lack of a support but because of a dilution of support among multiple options. That's just one side of the argument though. The other is that it's a bit inconsiderate to hijack someone's nomination with your own vision of what the image should look like instead. I think if you are not the original photographer but you feel strongly that an alternative should be considered, you should ask the permission of the original photographer first out of courtesy. You might have the legal right to create and use a derivative, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should drop it into someone else's nomination. Diliff (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Technically Alchemist-hp is correct per this #6. Note that all works except PD are covered by this tricky rule. If "Original author" don't like any alternatives made by others here, he can enforce it by simple adding a {{withdrawn}} on it, still keeping his original alive. :) Jee 08:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a question of legality/correctness though, it's simply about trying to create an environment at FPC that is respectful to nominators and the photographers. Diliff (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that I didn't oppose this proposal or it's spirit; just said it is already possible without amending the rule. We are not like this earlier. So what we're missing is not lack of rules; but good sportsman spirit. :) Jee 09:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
True, I agree with you that too many rules is not really a good thing. We don't even have to make it a hard rule, perhaps all that is needed is to agree that it can be disrespectful to nominators and should be discouraged. Colin made a good point though, that even trivially small edits to an image can have a negative effect on image quality, and it is always best to make the edit from the original file (ideally RAW), rather than the image on Commons. For that reason, even if you believe an edit is required, it is best for the author to do it themself. Some authors are not technically proficient at image editing and someone else may need to do it for them, but it's best to discuss it first before presenting it as an official alternative IMO. I've seen first hand that alternatives in a nomination confuse people and can lead to less votes and a less obvious result, which can be frustrating for a nominator who neither wanted or requested an alternative edit. The example you linked to shows it can work, but that doesn't mean it is the best way to handle it. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Our "main" Commons rules:

{{self|cc-zero}} {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}

I can't read anywhere: "please inform/ask the author at first ..."! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, half the problems on Commons are the inability by some to understand there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. And the response to being asked to do something by the community is to demand evidence of a policy that requires it. Are we grown ups here, or teenagers? Is Don't be a dick not enough advice to counter this attitude we can do what we like provided it isn't against some rule? The issue of adding alternates to someone else's nomination is one of respect: respect for the person who took the trouble to select the image and offer that for review as one of our finest works. And the issue of modifying someone's image (our images still belong to us, merely licensed) is also one of respect: respect to the person who's technical and artistic talent created that work. Alchemist-hp points out that the nominator could use the "withdraw" option to eliminate an unwelcome alternate. Doing so would likely be interpreted as hostility. The point of this proposal is that if we act like polite ladies and gentlemen who respect each other, then things are more likely to remain mellow. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only reiterate what Colin has just said, and point out that we're not talking about the legal requirements of licences, we're talking about the guidelines of FPC. How you could confuse the two is beyond me. Diliff (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Colin and Diliff above. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While we're discussing alternatives, can someone point me where the rules for them are listed? I can't find them. I'm sure we had a discussion a while back that alternatives should typically be a re-processing of the same image, or at most another image from the same photo shoot, and not merely another image of the same subject. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. It's a matter of respect to leave the nominations in it's original way. Variations should be started as a separate nomination. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, this "Variations should be started as a separate nomination." is full acceptable for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the earlier (many) discussions on what restriction should be placed on what's allowed as an alternative. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus, with some wanting a very restricted "same raw file" approach and others happy for another frame on the same shoot or for images where one wouldn't naturally want both to become featured. So we can leave that aspect for another rainy day. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On another note: Is there any rule for tiebreaking alternatives if it is not totally obvious? Is it supports (#s) or net supports (#s - #o)? Also what happens if there is even a draw on these measures, say (8s - 1o) vs (7s - 0o). Should the nominator be allowed to choose their preferred image or do we have any established rule? --DXR (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know as I don't close but I would hope they use their brains rather than just a calculator. If there is doubt it might require chasing up those who voted on the original nom but not the alt to see if the preference can be determined with more votes. And if totally evenly split, then I suppose the nominator is as good a chooser as any -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Another question: how about a nomination and its alt-version that isn't from the original author or an author that no longer works for Commons? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Standard's slipping again & double standards[edit]

After a period of fairly good reviewing, I'm seeing standards slipping again. There have arisen several relatively new reviewers who support any and most random images. Along with this are an increasing number of nominators who constantly hit FP with 2 nominations of images where even the most basic "is this among our finest" checks have not been carried out. But the serious reviewers are not compensating with opposes. Perhaps you looked at this awful FP candidate and saw that Colin and Benh had opposed so thought that's killed it. Well it hasn't because it is currently a majority in favour, and if uncritical support keeps dripping onto it during its nomination and only two more supports arrive then we have an FP. This is an image that crops off the vital part of the statue (Jesus hand in blessing). An image so posterised it is practically a gif. A portrait so badly lit, it would be met with derision if of a living human.

Letting this sort of not-even-a-QI image become FP is insulting to those who work hard to take serious portraits (human or stone), or take care over lighting, who employ advanced techniques to capture fine detail or dynamic range, or even take care that the image doesn't chop off anything vital. It is also insulting to the reviewers who spend the time to check similar works, to ensure the subject is well presented, to consider both artistic and technical qualities. Don't assume someone else will oppose or that one or two opposes are enough.

If I had nominated that FPC it would have been trashed with glee. If Diliff had nominated it people would wonder if he'd lost his mind. Every time you give a great image a hard time over some minor technical flaw, remember how much more then it hurts to see dire images pass because of apathy. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I remember: not distorted and barell distorted ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A small amount of distortion (barrel, vertical) or tilt looks like a mistake and can mislead the viewer. A large amount becomes a different kind of image. I actually didn't mind your oppose on that fisheye because that's an extreme kind of image not everyone can accept. Whereas low-key, high-key, b&w, etc are bog standard professional photographic styles. I'd much rather we disagreed and discussed interesting and challenging photos, than let weak and boring photos pass because of people thinking they are on Facebook and going "Like". -- Colin (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Colin here. There is a big difference between barrel distortion and fisheye projection. Barrel distortion is the unfortunate side effect of the lens' imperfect rectlinear projection, whereas fisheye is a completely different projection - a deliberate choice if you use a fisheye lens. But whether it is acceptable or not, I think, depends on the situation and the image. As Colin says, if you don't think fisheye is a suitable projection for the scene then it's fine to oppose for these compositional reasons. I must say, I think the barrel distortion is just one of many problems with the nomination linked. It probably wouldn't be a reason (IMO) to oppose the image if it was the only fault but when combined with other issues, I don't see the oppose as unreasonable. Diliff (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys keep cool :-) because we have a POTY 2014 winner with " ... There's useless space in the top left. ...". It's not the end of the world  ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Alchemist-hp, I don't know what the purpose of you once again comparing two images with similar features where in one it is acceptable or even desirable and in the other it is a flaw easily fixed by a different arrangement of the subject. If you are being serious, then it makes you look ignorant. If you are trying to be a comedian, I suggest you don't give up the day job. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, my voting has the same value how yours and sorry, but your opinion is not the only one here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone's opinion may have the same value as one vote is all we get. That doesn't mean that some expressed opinions are the result of more care, or more experience or better judgement than others. Do you find, in your general experience of life, that everyone has the same good judgement? I think not. Has nobody you know ever done something careless or foolish? Or have you never met anyone who you regard as wise? You seem to think that criticizing poor judgement is somehow a social mistake on the par of some kind of **ism, and shouldn't be done. This PF candidate has multiple flaws that most of us (even you) can see and should point out. By not voting, the FP community permits the inferior work to get promoted along with quality work. The end result is a gold star that is worthless and no longer worth aim for or reviewing for. Quite why a few editors supported it is beyond me if they aren't just playing games. Perhaps they should spend more time at QI where they can see a multitude of non-wow barely competent images. He's cropped Jesus' hand off for crying out loud. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)