Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

POTY started[edit]

Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2017 has started. There is already a query at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2017/Help about one missing image that was manually promoted. I wonder if there are any more? Cart, do you know what went wrong with that image? -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Colin, the Bot was unable to process this correctly since it was nominated as a set, but dllu erroneously closed the nomination with a template designed for one image with an "Alt=" parameter. Because of that the name of the closing (the name of a single file) didn't correspond with the name of the nomination (what the set was called) and the bot could not match them. The number of photos in a set has nothing to do with this. If you close a set nom as a set, the Bot will take care of all the files and place them correctly in the right categories. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting Period ends[edit]

I came across this Featured Pictures after I saw Picture of Year competition. I want to nominate a picture of mine and it shows voting period ends. Can someone help me.—IM3847 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I'm not really sure what you mean, but you can read about how you make a nomination in the page COM:FPC. When you create a nomination page, it will have a line at the top as to when the voting period for that particular nomination ends. It is perfectly normal, no need to worry. You have to make the nomination yourself so that it will get your signature and time stamp, but I can keep an eye on what you are doing and step in and correct things if necessary. --Cart (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've nominated a couple of images for FI and one for QI, was that the correct way?--IM3847 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Everything is correctly done and in working order. You are allowed to support your own nominations at FPC if you whish. Face-wink.svg Good luck! --Cart (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there a historical reason that a nomination is not automatically taken to be support? Does anybody nominate a photo for FP that they don't want to succeed? Storkk (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
To your last question yes, alternative requested versions that the author doesn't care much about. Alternatively an author may simply not vote for (some of) their own work because they think it's not on the same level as their favorite pictures. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
In the second case, why would the author nominate it? Storkk (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting protocol[edit]


Make the QI process a prerequisite?[edit]

I think it may be beneficial to make the QI promotion a prerequisite when it's applicable (ie the work of a commoner), probably until a threshold is met (eg 5 quality images or 1 featured one).

I feel that a lot of Wikimedians come to FPC after seeing it in various places and don't even know that we have a QI process in place and the technical requirements that come with it.

The standards and requirements are not the same between Commons:Image_guidelines and what the average photographer has in mind. We recently witnessed this when Shizhao nominated 5 photo challenge winners which I believe were all declined ( [1] ), and we currently have three pictures up for nomination by Patriccck and NMaia which are unanimously opposed.

FPs typically have at least the same requirements as QIs, the result is a lot of negative reviews which discourages the photographer who shows off something beautiful they are proud of that doesn't meet our -often just software- requirements, it misdirected reviewers' effort who would have come here to express strong feelings about something they found amazing, and the average quality of FPC is brought down.

I think it would make sense to apply this requirement to voting also for the same reasons.

This has been discussed previously on Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_14#Make_QI_a_requirement?_Where_is_the_wow? and the idea seemed to have support but it didn't go anywhere.

--Trougnouf (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, though keeping in mind that on relatively rare occasions, a photo may fail at QIC and pass at FPC because the photo has so much wow, even though it's technically not fantastic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
You have to bear in mind that nobody reads instructions. We're probably getting more newbie nominations here than normal because of POTY running. I have a problem recommending anyone new to go via QI as that's just a guarantee your photo will be pixel peeped rather than judged as an image. The two panning photos (File:What a flight !.jpg and File:Southern ground hornbill 2015 11 26 8461b.jpg) are pretty good and certainly usable in small size. And the File:HeuhütteZillertal.jpg photo is a great composition/scene let down by the compact-camera when examined closely, but also would be usable for small size. What would be very discouraging is for a photographer to see dull dull dull photos being promoted at QI because they have no obvious technical flaws, yet interesting, exciting, vivid, eye catching photos like these being declined because they aren't perfect at 100%. I really wish QI was "good enough quality to be useful" rather than FP without any wow. And since the feedback at QI is terse and usually one person, it isn't a good learning ground IMO, unless you are the sort of person who can handle such. Better perhaps, for a nominator to examine the existing FP categories for their image, and honestly judge if it is at a similar standard. So I think we'll always just have to handle such nominations, and I'd rather not put arbitrary hurdles in peoples way. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
The relatively rare occasion when a photo may fail at QIC and pass at FPC is why I thought it would be more appropriate to use a low barrier of entry threshold (s.a. 5 QI) then remove the restriction altogether, to get the photographer used to what we expect without making it much of a burden. I do think that the QI process / feedbacks are excellent for learning, getting such feedback and having to figure out what's wrong with other people's photo on there has greatly improved my technical skills and I'm always recommending it to photographers looking to improve their skills (and a solution to a lack of reviewers on there isn't to move the submissions on here). The sample size for that is just me though. And indeed this whole proposal doesn't help much if nominators don't read the rules / guidelines / look at the associated category in the first place. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
FP is the only part of Commons that is "advertised" outside the site and as POTD on the main page, that's why the newbies come here. And like Colin said, people don't read the instructions. Most newbies (hopefully, if the voters are kind that day) learn about QIC when their FPC nom gets turned down. As has been brought up in discussions at QIC, we first need to make people more aware that QI exists. Both as a stepping stone towards FP and as a good source for article photos. Even users from different Wikipedias don't know about it since there is no equivalent to QI on WP, only FP. --Cart (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I have several FPs that I'm quite sure of they would fail at QIC. At QIC it should be forbidden to pixel-peep into images more than 6MP. And I already said once a few months ago: judging a QI for technical perfectness only could be done by a bot. But to keep real people watching over the images I am pro Colin's proposal. --Granada (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree that images should be reviewed at a set resolution (I use 200% of monitor which comes out to 6.9 MP after the Firefox real-estate) so as to not disadvantage higher MP cameras and encourage photographers to downsample, I don't know if this is mentioned anywhere (though Commons:Image guidelines does say (boldly) that images should not be downsampled). As far as a bot I would be all over it if a bot could recognize quality on natural images (to train a model on how to improve pictures) --Trougnouf (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

FPC etiquette regarding overwiting[edit]

How are things usually done at FPC regarding a non-author editing the file under consideration? If I am able to ameliorate the CA for a file under consideration at FPC, and there is little prospect of the uploader fixing it themselves before the nomination runs out (they seem to have appeared, uploaded and nommed the file, and disappeared), is overwriting the file a done thing? Does this change if the CA was the stated reason that I declined to support, and can I then immediately support? Does the answer change if I know of no way to fix the CA on a JPG without slightly degrading the edge colors (I'm using 4 separate filters to try to do this in the least worst way possible, but still)? FWIW I would have no problem with COM:OVERWRITE in this case, my question is only regarding FPC etiquette itself. Storkk (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does vary a bit. You want to avoid upsetting the author/nominator and also disrupting the nom if there are already votes or some reviewers might not think your fix helped. Most times a suggestion is made and we expect the author to fix it (and this depends on knowing a bit about the abilities of the author). You are right that just uploading over the top of someone's nominated image is considered rude. Sometimes people here will post a link to a dropbox version with the changes they think help, and perhaps notes about what they did. In the nomination for File:Dassault-Dornier Alpha Jets - Duxford Air Festival 2018 - 2.jpg, The Photographer thought it was a bit noisy in the sky and uploaded a fix and then immediately self-reverted himself. I decided his fix was better than I could do myself so reverted it back. Sometimes people will upload a fix but leave a comment that the nominator is welcome to revert it if they don't like it. You could do any of these and ask fellow reviewers/nominator to judge if it is better. Have you tried leaving the nominator a message on their talk, or emailing them?
Another option is to consider whether the issue you found is really worth fixing. Are you referring to File:Stercoraire iceland.jpg? That's a 43MP image and if you are examining it on a 100dpi monitor then it is 2 metres wide and 1.3 metres tall. So I hope you stand back a bit before judging if you still see the CA. One technique some try is to look at a downsized version such as 6 MP (which is good enough to print A4 high quality) and see if it is still a problem. I'm a bit confused that that image is 43MP when the camera is only 24MP and there's no evidence it was stitched. Downsized to 24MP it looks a whole lot better, so perhaps that's the size it should be.
If an image requires a fair bit of rework, then sometimes it is re-nominated after the fix. If the nomination has been around a week then uploading a fixed version might not attract enough attention (even if you ping existing reviewers). And if there are other problems with the image, then your fix may not be enough to make people reconsider.
What software are you using to fix the image? You want to be careful to preserve the EXIF and embedded colour profile, and some software and some settings will lose that. -- Colin (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Colin. I think I'll take the safest route and upload it either as a separate file if the nomination succeeds, or overwrite if it fails. While the question was of course motivated by a specific example, my question was about the procedures here, not that example specifically. I'll abstain on File:Stercoraire iceland.jpg where I see CA especially on the grasses on the right of the eggs, even at 1,280 × 853 pixels, though perhaps that's just because I know it's there. It's quite strong in the 6MP version you linked... I understand that different voters will have different requirements for supporting, and can certainly understand those who don't find that amount of CA disturbing (or indeed <1° camera tilts, or small stitching errors, slight jpeg artifacts...), even if I don't agree with them. Storkk (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Enwiki's Featured Pictures process[edit]

Enwiki's FPC process is pretty inactive. For anyone interested in it, I've opened a thread on VPI there to talk about what to do with it: en:Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Enwiki's Featured Pictures process. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)