Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured picture candidates.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
candidate list

Featured media candidates[edit]

At this point in time, Commons:Featured sound candidates is clearly not gaining traction and pretty much never receives a quorum for anything. Commons:Featured video candidates is hanging by a thread, but it is at least somewhat active. I propose to combine them into a single process called Commons:Featured media candidates, for all media on Commons which are not images. I remember we were previously having trouble getting a quorum to delist images at FPC because they were stuck in their own little section at the bottom of the page, and after merging the process with the regular one in April 2013, the problem disappeared overnight. So I think that likewise, FSC can piggyback off of the relative success of FVC and share one nomination page. Thoughts? -- King of ♥ 00:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Good idea. We could even go one step further and turn FP into "Featured Photographs" (which it practically already is) and move non-photographic still images over there as well. I'm thinking about maps, charts, graphs, illustrations, ..., here. --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes it was what I did on Spanish Wikipedia with excellents results --Wilfredor (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I support El Grafo's suggestion. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense as well. The question is, what is a photograph? Do Commoner-produced reproductions of 2D art count? What about Commoner-produced reproductions of flat 3D objects like coins? What about Commoner-produced reproductions of fully 3D objects like sculptures? -- King of ♥ 15:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hello dear colleagues of the FPC pages. On a side note, you may have saw it or not, but this year the videos were not candidates at POTY. This comes from the fact that the script used to manage the POTY contest work with the FPCbot and, if I remember well but I may be wrong, specially with pages such as Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/May 2020. However last year the videos candidates have been moved to Commons:Featured video candidates, and of course with the corresponding new logs. But we, and by "we" I mean the POTY committee, have not notified the change of logs for the videos, and the POTY started without the videos, and we decided not to include the videos in the middle of the contest. I don't specially plan to be a committee member next year, and if you want that next years the videos be included in the contest, something will have to be done (fix the logs /or fix the script (complicated solution because nobody has jostled himself in recent years to make it work, excepted Zhuyifei1999 who is now retired) /or add the promoted videos manually to the relevant place when the next contest will be in preparation /or.... ). Otherwise the videos will not be included, that is up to you, no problem. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support combining sound and video, as I've suggested in the past. Oppose turning it into a catch-all for "everything other than photographs". The division should be made at [static images] vs. [non-static media]. So the latter would include audio and video as well as, for example, slide shows and animations. Anything that isn't a static image. FPC doesn't particularly struggle with non-photographic images, and our criteria here have more in common with a map, illustration, or painting than criteria for video would. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eatcha: Since implementing this proposal will necessitate some work on your part with respect to the bots, do you have any thoughts? -- King of ♥ 05:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    King of Hearts I don't support merging FVC with FSC. Commons lacks infrastructure for FSC (sounds), I regret working on FSC. FVC is doing fine. FVC has 10 actives users who are voting regularly and we have a minimum requirement of 5 support votes. The MP4 files will be supported in 2027 (all patents expired), this will result in more files getting uploaded on commons. // Eatcha (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Having just 12 active contributors and just needing 5 support votes means that the FV star cannot be compared with the FP star. FVC Should have the same rules as FPC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    Are you saying that there should not be a way for sounds to get featured? -- King of ♥ 14:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, but just for the sake of promoting some sounds to featured sound status we should not rename a video competitions. Merging these will force the users interested in videos to review sounds. It's not that I don't want sounds to get promoted but not by forcing fvc users to review sounds. // Eatcha (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
    Nobody is forced to review anything, those interested in only videos can ignore the sound nominations. So the only worry is whether video nominations would get lost in the clutter. I don't think they will, as the FVC/FSC pages just aren't that big; the FVC and FSC nomination lists combined don't even make up half the length of the FPC list. If FSC is unpopular because people are genuinely uninterested in sounds, then my proposal won't help. But if, as I suspect, FSC is unpopular because of the bandwagon effect (i.e. what's the point of reviewing, it won't pass anyways since nobody else will come, and as a result nobody nominates either), putting it in the same place as the FVC list will signal that we do care about sounds and other people are likely to come along. -- King of ♥ 17:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


I think the discussion phase has died down, so I will proceed to make a formal proposal:

Going forward, there will be two processes for promoting featured content on Commons:
  1. Featured picture candidates will be for all static two-dimensional images.
  2. Featured media candidates will be for all other types of media.

@A.Savin, Agnes Monkelbaan, ArildV, Aristeas, Basile Morin, Basotxerri, Charlesjsharp, Christian Ferrer, Cmao20, Colin: @Daniel Case, Der Wolf im Wald, DXR, Eatcha, El Grafo, Ermell, Famberhorst, Fischer.H, Frank Schulenburg, GerifalteDelSabana: @Iifar, Ikan Kekek, Jkadavoor, Johann Jaritz, Llez, Martin Falbisoner, Michielverbeek, Milseburg, PantheraLeo1359531, Paris 16: @Peulle, Pigsonthewing, Poco a poco, Podzemnik, Rhododendrites, Sonya7iv, T.Bednarz, The Cosmonaut, Tomer T, Trougnouf: @Tuxyso, Uoaei1, W.carter, Wilfredor, XRay: Your input is appreciated. Please read the discussion above for rationale and context before voting. King of ♥ 03:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Note: Because there is some disagreement on the proposed scope of FPC, we can have a refining poll afterwards if this passes, with options such as: a) photographs only; b) static 2D images (as proposed); or 3) static 2D images and animations. -- King of ♥ 14:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. -- King of ♥ 03:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had already taken my position at the top of the discussion --Wilfredor (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good idea, but IMO not necessary. --XRay talk 04:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe as "featured AV media candidates? Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is a good idea. But I think that featured audio and video should get their own categories. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Basotxerri (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as there are few featured non-photographic media creators, it makes sense to group them. I think it would make more sense to add non-photographic images to these media because photographers don't inherently have the skills to create and assess other types of images, but that might make things too complicated (do photographs of paintings that have to be published under public domain count? what about heavily retouched photographs that no longer attempt to reflect reality but constitute art nonetheless?) so I don't have much of an opinion on that issue. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment GIFs should be assimilated as "static images" here. Like in Google, making a research in the category images can lead to meet GIFs, sometimes animated (they're not in the same box than videos).
GIFs are usually very appreciated by voters, and frequently reach the first places in the POTY competitions. Moreover, they do not need any click, they're simply loaded automatically. We don't need any speaker to appreciate a GIF, and it's compatible with all the languages. The potential for illustration is huge, and thus widespread on Wikipedia. The discussion above was about merging FVC and FSC but the vote is slightly different, so it seems important to bring this particularity. -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, my intention is indeed primarily to merge all the non-FPC components together; I threw in a scope just to make it a rigorous proposal. But we can definitely look into refining the scope in a subsequent survey. -- King of ♥ 14:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Then we could split between Image file formats (JPEG, TIFF, GIF, BMP, PNG, etc.) and all other media formats (WEBM, MP3, WAV, OGG, FLAC, PDF, etc.) Any candidature with an extension type "image" should be accepted in FPC, all others in "Featured Media Candidatures". -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't approve of the lower hurdle for FV, though the page Commons:Featured video candidates makes so mention of how many votes you need. I am aware that the QI and VI stars only need one vote. Also, within the last year, the FV logo appears randomly when I click on good pictures on a category page. A programming error? It would be great if these issues should be sorted before implementing any changes. ̴̃Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: The lower hurdle was introduced because the participation was way too low to get enough votes. Afair, it's meant as a temporary life-support measure that should be reverted as soon as the project gains a "critical mass" of participants. --El Grafo (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand, but I've just looked at the four latest animal featured videos. The fox is good. Good EV, perfect for video. The singing bird is very ordinary - the camera moves. The dog sled is taken with poor light. It has a caption which I assume is allowed on FV. I don't know why. The herd video is really ordinary and is speeded up. If these are representative of the quality of videos we are promoting, we run the risk of ridicule from the non-Wiki World. ̴̴Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • MOTD is even more of a joke, being selected often with the input of just one person, without any guiding standards. Apparently Template:Motd/2020-05-15 managed to make it onto the main page without even an English caption. By streamlining featured media candidates, the hope is that it will grow to the point where we're promoting at least one media file per day, providing ample supply for MOTD. -- King of ♥ 16:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: I totally agree that current standards are way too low. That's at least in part because people haven't had the time to develop expertise yet. At FP, over time we have established a common vocabulary and agreed on some nice-to-haves, no-nos and deal breakers. Some of that (composition, lighting, …) has equivalents in the video world. Many other aspects (cuts, everything related to sound, …) are new to most of us. We still need to develop most of the standards there. And I'd argue that at this point in time, every well-founded oppose vote is an important step towards standards we can all agree on. So if you (or anybody else) have some time to spare, please don't hold back – vote and discuss. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 12:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Me too Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not sure if the idea "to make Featured sounds more popular" will really work by just placing sounds' nominations more prominently. --A.Savin 13:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    The thing that prompted me to suggest this was indeed the sad state of FSC, but the possibilities are limitless: if people decided to make slide shows featurable, then they could just amend the guidelines at FMC instead of creating a new process or trying to fit it into FPC, FVC, or FSC where it doesn't really belong. -- King of ♥ 14:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are two problems. One is that interest in videos and sounds is lower than at FPC. The other is that knowledge of videos and sounds is not as strong as in images.
  • The lack of interest means that in order for the processes to be successful, for at least a temporary period (and possibly indefinitely) the relative standards will be lower, both in relative quality and in voting requirements. This is already reflected in what gets promoted. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it's worth acknowledging.
  • More concerning, to me, is the lack of knowledge and, in turn, inconsistent promotion criteria. By that I mean there aren't as many people familiar with sophisticated video editing/production, and so I think people are largely trying to carry over knowledge from photography, combined with a more general critical eye. That's fine to a point, but when people give technical feedback at FPC, it's often in terms of concrete "you should've used a lower ISO" or "you've increased the 'clarity' setting too much in post-processing" or "to remove chromatic aberration, do X". Because we don't have many people familiar with high-level video editing, we don't see that sort of feedback as much, except insofar as lessons of framing, lighting, etc. carry over from photography. Beyond this, there are limitations just in compatibility. Someone trying to upload almost any common file format will be greeted with an error because we only accept ogv and webm -- formats which high-quality cameras just don't use. Video2commons is time-consuming and cumbersome (I uploaded a 2gb file a few days ago and it took almost 2 days to process). That's not an argument to allow more filetypes necessarily, but it speaks to the way Commons just isn't as friendly to people passionate about video as it is to people passionate about photography. These issues are even more significant when it comes to featured sounds. I don't think there's any strong agreement about promotion criteria apart from "the quality seems pretty good" and "I like it".
  • Combining all non-static media (whether a five-frame GIF, slideshow, animation, high-resolution video, sound effect, music, etc.) makes sense. There's already a lot of crossover. Confusingly, some of the few sounds that are being promoted are in fact videos (see Commons:Featured sounds/Music). As long as we acknowledge these issues, including that the output will not quite be to video/sound what FPC is to photography any time soon, this is sensible. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is a support of the proposal as written. Oppose the idea of a separate process that includes all videos other than videos that have a .gif extension. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While agreeing with the classification of GIFs with the rest of 2D media, as Basile Morin says. --GeXeS (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm OK with that, including moving GIFs to the new "Featured Media" section. Still think maps, illustrations, etc. should go there as well though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as animated GIFs, PNGs, WebPs, and SVGs remain in FPC. --pandakekok9 09:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Any format restricted to 256 colours has no place being featured in 2020. Featured process should be about selecting the finest media on Commons, and GIF is a format that should have died last millennium. It likely predates most people here being born, that's how ancient it is. I agree we generally have some ability to recognise good photographs and also good photos/scans/restorations of historical artworks. We generally are weak with illustrations and the other media formats. I don't feel Commons should persist with 'featuring' content that doesn't have a good body of users generating/reviewing. It isn't an easy problem to solve. But I would be happy to never have to suffer another animated GIF at FPC. :-) --Colin (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I would agree with you regarding GIF, if MediaWiki supports animations for APNG thumbnails... pandakekok9 12:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Animated GIF discussion[edit]

I'm surprised to see animated GIFs come up as an exception. Most animated GIFs out in the world these days (reddit, gifycat, etc.) are actually webms. That speaks to the negligible practical difference. In both cases, they're videos, but GIFs more often loop. In Wikipedia style terms, the difference is mainly in the length (greater/less than 5 seconds). My question is why would a 4 second moving image be subject to a different process than a 6 second moving image? If I convert a GIF to an identical webm, why should it be subject to a different process? Even if we say that starting automatically and looping are features solely of GIFs (they're not), do either of those properties make criteria for static images more applicable than criteria for video? As far as I can tell, the main argument for retaining GIFs is because people at FPC like them (and, presumably, don't want to participate in a separate process). If FPC retains animated GIFs, I'd withdraw my support for this and be in favor of folding all visual media back into FPC. FVC already struggles for participation, and if the bigger process is just going to retain the non-static formats it likes, FVC (or FMC) has little chance of success. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

WebM is an audiovisual media file format
MP3 is not an image file format
  • Contrary to WebM, GIF is an Image file format. Static GIFs are also very popular. To quote Wikipedia: GIf has come into widespread usage on the World Wide Web due to its wide support and portability between applications and operating systems. As long as we accept SVGs, PNGs, TIFFs, and all sorts of Image file formats in FP, we should also take GIFs, in my view.
  • Converting a GIF into a WebM doesn't make much sense, but converting a (short) video into a GIF makes it easy to share afterwards. This format is as simple to include on any HTML page as a JPEG.
  • There are GIFs on reddit too. A GIF which is a WebM is just not a GIF: this is a video :-)
  • Concerning Wikipedia, there is a GIF above which lasts 42 seconds, and that is currently displayed on the page Fractal in English.
  • Since they are looping, there is no beginning and no end, contrary to a video. No sound, either. Like a picture, a GIF is immediately accessible, and when finished, starts again. You can stop looking at it when you want, not when the video decides for you (means is finished).
  • Traditionally, in FPC, animated GIFs have always been considered as images. There was one submitted a few days ago by Charles, the candidature was posted in FPC, not in FVC. In 2019, featured videos have exceptionally been excluded of POTY, however there is at least one GIF, sorted in the gallery Miscellaneous, among other static pictures. This is natural like that. -- Basile Morin (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Static GIFs are also very popular - right, and they should be included with the static media. Likewise, if we have a webm that has just one frame and no audio, it should be considered static. The main thing is the process/criteria used to evaluate, and thus the file extension means less than the media itself.
  • There are GIFs on reddit too. A GIF which is a WebM is just not a GIF: this is a video -- the subreddit you linked to displays webms. It's called gifs, just like /r/gifs, but displays webms (with the gifv extension, which is not a gif).
  • Since they are looping - they are traditionally looping, but not all gifs loop, not all browsers are set to display them as looping, and webms can loop, too (like in that subreddit).
  • Just to be clear, I love looping gifs, and am not proposing replacing them with Webms. The point is, they're animated and thus not static. There's nothing about them starting automatically or looping which would make them better suited to evaluation according to static media rather than non-static media. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, we have no featured static GIFs, and for good reason - PNG is almost always a superior format. -- King of ♥ 19:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
WebP is an image format employing both lossy and lossless compression.
  • We don't have yet featured static GIFs probably because we have so few candidatures in the gallery Non-photographic FPs (all formats included). However this is totally possible with Pixel art for example. Also, we cannot exclude the works of some graphic creators like Noma Bar or Malika Favre to be presented one day, and their works with only a few plain colors are very compatible with the GIF format. Note we also don't have yet WebP or CGM FPs, although these should be accepted like JPEGs or SVGs.
  • Concerning GIFs as WebM, please show us here on Commons a GIF that would be seen as a WebM. Give a link, so that we understand what we're talking about. From the link above (on reddit) I could download the files as GIF, not as WebM. After, what the websites pretend they host is their own responsibility, and what they allow to download depends on their policy. You can also find many websites that do not allow you to download their JPEGs (for example by blocking the right button of your mouse).
  • A browser not set to display animated GIFs? You can also find browsers set to display JPEGs in 256 colors, browsers that replace adds by big grey rectangles, etc. We can't control what the viewers are doing at home, we should explore general cases.
  • This is also a complete nonsense to create a static video to nominate it in FPC 😳, then arguing it's valid because the video is not animated? No, the selection by file format is far more standard and easy. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There are an awful lot of tangents here, but I'm still not seeing any argument at all why an animation, video, etc. that happens to have a .gif extension makes more sense to evaluate apart from all of the other videos/moving images. There's just no argument other than "I like it" and bizarre technicalities (e.g. that gif is an image format -- indeed it started that way, and as the Wikipedia article says, it was modified to include multiple frames "forming a video clip"). The division of the processes isn't because we need to separate file types. It's not because one set of criteria for one filetype doesn't work with another filetype; it's because different judgments are needed for different kinds of content. Sounds, videos, animations, etc. are different from static media. It's ok to say that FPC can handle all of it, but if we're going to spin out videos, it should be all videos, not just videos that happen to be contained in certain filetypes. This will be my last post in the thread, however, because I find myself confused at why this is controversial. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Spoke too soon. :) Just wanted to add that, in case any of these concerns are because people don't want to recategorize existing FPs that, I don't think that's part of this proposal. Existing FPs that are videos/GIFs won't lose their FP status. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Featured sounds logo square.svg Current promoted Featured Sound (source WebM format). Imagine the same nomination with a static image: this would be then a "static two-dimensional image", if we don't mind the specific file format. Valid for FPC or for FMC?
    Is this PDF a static image?
    Yes, this is controversial, but for good reason. Here at the right we have a featured sound with a static image (or almost). Perhaps there are 100% static already promoted (I did not dig that much). Valid for FPC?! Indeed, it fits to the category "all static two-dimensional images" (just a WebM file, with sound), with regards to the survey above. But the question at the beginning was to merge FVC and FSC into a category called FMC (Featured Media Candidatures). Idem with PDFs and all sorts of ambiguous formats that are not specifically "image". In the context, this is an important question, yes.
  • The universal support of GIFs is very appreciated, since it is supported by all browsers. -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Anything with image is, by definition, not a sound" too :-) This is a video, an audible image, or a picture with sounds encapsulated. Nevertheless, this WebM is a FS, not a featured video. And that's why identifying and enumerating the accepted file formats in FPC is essential in my opinion. Once this will be done, all other kinds of media will be simply oriented towards the other section. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think any image that moves should be considered as not merely an image, and therefore, I think that if things that are animated are supposed to be judged at FVC, animated GIFs probably should be considered there. Other than "because we haven't done it that way", what is the good reason not to restrict FPC to static images? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Three reasons : 1) Animated GIFs are not the same kind as videos. You don't click "start", "pause", "back", etc. You just follow the loop like an image. Google, Bing, Baidu, and probably all the web search engines classify differently videos and GIFs, while together GIFs with static images 2) We don"t know yet how FVC and FSC are going to be handled in the future with the POTY, while we know Gifs often get good grades in the pool among other images (by experience). There are many extensions like STL that could join a new FMC section, since you use your mouse pointer to manipulate these digital objects. They are not immediately accessible like JPGs or PNGs. But GIFs are among these formats "immediate for the eyes". 3) FPC means "Featured Picture Candidates" and GIF, as Wikipedia says in the first line, is a "bitmap image format". Image fits in the category "Picture" (better than video). -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FPC Bot[edit]

The bot that moves promotions into the designated gallery is not working. See this one Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Uploading and editing third party image[edit]

Do we have any policy on the ethics of uploading a third party's image and making changes to it for an FP nomination? I do not think that should be the role of Commons. Please see recent nom of yellow bug. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We could perform a derivated work and nominate it because the license allows it --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it. Some of our finest images, such as File:Polarlicht 2.jpg (POTY 2006 winner), came about this way. The original had horrible WB and noise, but was a great composition that could be saved without too much effort; in that case why not spend the effort? -- King of ♥ 13:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
You may like the improvements to File:Polarlicht 2.jpg (so do I), but the photographer may not and we might change the artistic intent, even by undertaking a crop or removing intentional grain. ̴̴Arbitrary third party edits could also encourage photographers to release images with more restrictive licences, exactly the opposite of Wiki's objectives. Another question - would an oppose vote against a third party edit be an acceptable oppose reason? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
People can oppose for any reason, or no reason at all. At FPC we don't have any fixed rules, only what people are willing to follow. So if 1/6 of voters will blanket oppose all images of a particular form, then that raises the promotion bar to 80% among voters who take a more nuanced approach. If that proportion increases to 1/3 of voters + 1, then it becomes a de facto prohibition at FPC even if it's not formally written in the rules. (When's the last time you saw a 5 MP cityscape get promoted?)
"Arbitrary third party edits could also encourage photographers to release images with more restrictive licences, exactly the opposite of Wiki's objectives" - this argument feels like the argument of those who wanted to keep GFDL-1.2. "Yes, you can technically print it on a postcard, but only if you print out 6 pages of text to go alongside it." Here: "Yes, you can technically modify it, but it is discouraged." No, the point of a wiki is to encourage sharing and adapting works, so long as COM:OVERWRITE is abided by. If we're losing the works of people who did not genuinely consent to unlimited modification, then I don't view that as a huge loss. We should celebrate works which are truly free, and when they are truly free we should take advantage of those freedoms. -- King of ♥ 15:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Anyone can modify and reupload any of our images for any purpose, as long as the terms of the license are followed (and we don't allow files where modification isn't permitted). I think we want to respect photographers whenever possible, but the ultimate goal is high quality images. So we certainly wouldn't want to overwrite someone's upload with our own edits, and it's good practice to see if the photographer would make the edits themselves (assuming they're a Commons user and active), but as a last resort uploading a separate image and providing attribution seems like a [potential] good thing. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, you could tell just I preffer the original version because ... --Wilfredor (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
COM:OVERWRITE is also very relevant, where someone uploads a new revision rather than a separate file. A significant change should also be documented in the author field per CC licence terms. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Colin, COM:OVERWRITE tells me everyone I want to know. Thread can finish now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Something didn't work properly[edit]

In my nomination, something didn't work properly. Maybe is about that Set before the file name while the filling out the form or because I used a form to nominate 6 files. Is the first time I do it, can someone fix this please on the candidates list? Thank you --Camelia (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Cart (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
@W.carter: Thank you, but is not quite what I needed. I also important to have 6 distinct pictures as candidates, and not a block as is now. I didn't fill out 6 forms, one for any of the 6 pictures, but a single form, adding the 6 photos inside the wikitext. --Camelia (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Camelia: You made set nomination and this is what they look like on FPC. If you want to nominate the photos seperately, you will have to withdraw this nomination and start over using normal single photo nominations. However, you can't nominate all six photos as individual nominations at once since you are only allowed to have two active nominations. So you have to nominate the photos by and by as the nomination periods end. Please read the instructions on COM:FPC more carefully. If you want to withdraw, you do that by placing the {{Withdraw}} template on the nom and sign. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, here is explained that Set, sorry. Thank you, I made some midnight confusion, as I started to see how to candidate an image as the Picture of the day (and Featured Picture is the first step) :-D. --Camelia (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @King of Hearts, Charlesjsharp, Tomer T, Rhododendrites, Persia, Phoebe: I see from the comments, that choosing a set (for me was basically, less one, a set of portraits, but I was wrong) instead of 6 individual nominations was not a great idea. I can do it now, interrupting the previous process or wait for the natural end of the term? Thank you for the response --Camelia (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You can use {{Withdraw}}. -- King of ♥ 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers and illustrators[edit]

I've been reading the guidelines and trying to apply them to nominations like File:Fernando Sor.jpg, File:The Capture of the Forts at Taku.jpg, File:Golden Pheasants by John Henry Hintermeister.jpg. The way the guidelines read, FP is not designed to promote this sort of image. The guidelines refer to "photographers who choose to use open content licenses and donate their work to the Wikimedia Commons" or "highly skilled illustrators who choose to use open content licenses, using Wikimedia Commons to donate their work to the world". How should we address this anomaly? Or have I missed something? Do they belong here? I don't think so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Taking a picture of a painting also requires effort and dedication and I personally ask for museum permission and then I use a tripod to be able to do this work while respecting the original colors. In this case, I am not the author of the painting, however, I chose the correct angle and a developing process. the same could be applied for architectures where we are not the authors of these constructions, we are simply observers. Nature or urban photos (the latter not very numerous in the FPC) are styles in which we are entirely the authors of the composition and not a derivation of an original work such as a painting or a construction. A photo of a majestic painting does not require much effort like a photo of a majestic construction, this will be highlighted equally due to the wow factor. We could perhaps limit FPC and exclude photos of paintings or derivatives but we would be discouraging people who specialize in this type of painting, in restorations. Finally, I understand your point and I agree to a certain point, that's why there are different categories in FP because each one has its own particularity. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I was not talking about photogrpaphers who photograph paintings Wilfredor. Naturally there is skill there. I'm talking about images which are just taken off the internet and uploaded with no added value, or perhaps restoration which not covered by "photographers" or "illustrators". Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Charlesjsharp Oh ok, I underestand now what you are talking about. --Wilfredor (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
There is COM:MOR by the way, which only has one person in it. But for me the purpose of FP is to represent the best of free content available on Commons, not just to celebrate the work of community members. -- King of ♥ 18:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not in the guidelines, that's taken from COM:MOP and COM:MOI. Old PD art is perfectly compliant with the FP guidelines, but would not qualify the uploader or original artist for an entry in MOI. -- King of ♥ 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I do have to point out that I spent a good three to four hours restoring your second image in that list. Also, we have a huge section about this on COM:FPC:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolors, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: [etc for more examples]

I do think some of the guidelines there haven't reflected actual practice in some time - we don't generally provide information on historical context on the nomination page like suggested, but I think those were written about 5-10 years ago. Probably by me. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes Adam Cuerden, your many restorations are top notch and perfect Wikipedia FPs. We may need COM:MOR mentioned alongside the other two for Commons. Your current nom would fail (unusually) to satisfy any of the four things to be featurable. But it’s the ‘upload and add no value’ FP nom. that I’m really questioning. What's the point of it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Aye. I think that I got too excited about finally finding a Boxer Rebellion illustration. They're rare, and, well.... but I suppose I'm getting off-topic. I can see three possibilities: First off, if we see FPC/FP/POTD as a way of advertising a high-quality images to various-language Wikipedias, it serves a purpose to have all good images there. Secondly, it may have an educational purpose in and of itself, for instance, if we get to see a painting by an artist we didn't know, we get a little more educated here. Thirdly, it might be good for setting a benchmark. That's not so necessary with photographic works - our featured pictures of nature and architecture easily match commercially available images, and we can deservedly be proud of that, but there are subjects we're weak on at present. For example, we're very low on illustrators, and it may help us have benchmarks if we allow off-wiki uploads. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by the "taken off the internet with no value added" part. We have lots of FPs that the uploader added no value to (images from Flickr, NASA, etc.). Old images of paintings likewise someone had to take a picture or scan it in order for it to exist. It does strike a chord with me in that I don't think such images should qualify for POTY... — Rhododendrites talk |  18:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I struggle to see the benefit to Commons of promoting third party uploads from Flickr or NASA purely for the purpose of an FP nomination. To go on another Wiki like Wikipedia, that's different. The suggestion that they be excluded from POTY does acknowledge that they are 2nd class FPs. FP and POTY should be for Commoners. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Well, what is the purpose of FPC? If it's to share good content amongst Wikimedia communities, then you're wrong, but if it's to celebrate community work, you're right. I think that defining our goal(s) is the fundamental issue we need to decide first. And, of course, there is secondary ways Wikimedianx can be useful. We used to have people negotiating release of screenshots from video games, and we might well consider that valuable enough to allow at FPC, even if we don't allow it in POTY. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
That might be a good compromise: only images with significant contributions by Commoners (i.e. natural persons who have a Wikimedia Commons account) are permitted at POTY. Of course, we'll need to define what "significant contributions" mean... -- King of ♥ 19:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support King of Hearts proposition --Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Black hole
  • Please lets not vote. Are we discussing what can be an FP or additional restrictions on what can be a POTY? If just the latter, this is not the correct forum to discuss that. Many who have worked hard on running POTY over the years are not FP-level photographers/illustrators, so I suspect that trying to restrict that to only celebrating our work would be rudely rejected. You need to open that question, if you want to ask it, to our curator users, not just our creative ones. Wrt FP, I think we should be reviewing the image, not the person. Commons is a media repository, not a photographic club. We only have three mechanisms for assessing the quality of our media (VP, FP, QI) and from an image-users's POV, QI significantly weakened by the Commoner-only restriction. Let's not weaken FP by making it just a club to pat ourselves on the backs. IMO the black hole image is one of the more significant scientific images in our lifetimes, and it is wonderful that we can share it freely on Commons. FP and POTY should celebrate that. -- Colin (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)