Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

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)

I generally agree with Colin. I detect a facebookization of FPC as a place where images can collect "likes" and, as soon as having collected enough, get featured. Some reviewers appear to do their judgement from another viewpoint than I prefer, not asking themselves, "do I think this image is among our very best" but just supporting any image they'll find "nice". I said so here and – despite Hubertl accusing me of only wanting to erect a temporary monument for my hugely exaggerated opinion of myself – I mean it.

Sometimes, on reading some of those careless supports, I think we should alter the rules of being entitled to vote on FPC radically into "only users who have 3 own nominations got featured are entitled to vote for other’s nominations on FPC" to keep standards up. The demand for 50 edits is too easily achieved. --Kreuzschnabel 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologise: It was my unlimited opinion of myself, not hugely exaggerated. --Kreuzschnabel 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to say though, requiring a participant to have 3 FPs of their own in order to vote on other images could be counterproductive. For one thing, there are likely some good, honest, critical voters who simply aren't active photographers themselves (although obviously it helps to be aware of photography and its technical limitations through experience). And Wikipedia/Commons already has accusations of being full of cliques or a cabals. I think we should try to make it as inclusive as possible (while still maintaining standards). I just wish we could be more critical, with debates about the merits of each nomination. I would much rather see opposes than silence. The issue is that not everyone's ego can handle opposes, particularly blunt opposes, and so we tiptoe around and tend to avoid voting if we think we might upset someone. Diliff (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn’t say they necessarily have to have taken these 3 images, I was talking of nominations. Having been a nominator 3 times through all the process before might wake a sense for what’s expected here. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well nomination is typically accompanied by a support vote and we also need nominators to wisely review what they are about to nominate (whether their own work or others). There are some nominators who collect gold stars for nominations of others' work, and that is also easily gamed by supplying a stream of QI entries and withdrawing (in order to replace) when it looks like one isn't going to make it. We'll always have some newbies, whether taking, nominating or reviewing, and newbie mistakes are fairly easily handled if they are a small minority. But a few users don't seem to be learning and persist in nominating sub-standard work that they really should by now be filtering out for themselves. -- Colin (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've commented before that we have a persistent group of reviewers who essentially never oppose and a slightly larger group that would never be bold enough to oppose first. These groups are essentially free-riding on those who actually do the opposing. The problem is that if those groups grow then every nomination that isn't obviously dreadful will gather enough such "Like!" votes and pass. The forum only works when enough reviewers/nominators (a) take the process seriously enough to do their research and (b) have the balls to oppose even if it doesn't win them friends when they come to nominate their own work.
At present, it is easy to game FP: just keep nominating QI images and a third of them will pass through insufficient critical review. In fact, if you make a personal habit of nominating barely-even-QI then people will be so relieved when you actually nominate a good-QI that you'll get a rebound reaction of support. In contrast, if you are the kind of nominator who only nominates high-quality work, then this is expected of all your nominations and the slightest flaw will be mercilessly picked upon. We need more people to critically restrict their nominations and to actively oppose. -- Colin (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a valid point. Hell, I'm by no stretch of imagination among the best photographers here, but I reckon I could get 10-15 additional images I have uploaded here through FP at the current standards. But I choose not to nominate them, because I personally don't feel that they are truly great and that they are not making the FPC galleries better. I think it is unfortunate if people stuff FPC and get exactly the effect you describe. To a degree, they are creating this stupid situation in which not the nominator of the mediocre image but the opposer is the "bad guy". You are right that harmony-seeking people (including me) are then likely not to oppose as much as they should. But also have to rely on the good sense of people understanding what is good (or at least what is interesting enough to discuss openly) --DXR (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In the recent POTY contest I needed a lot of time to look through almost a thousand candidates, and thought that maybe it would be useful to limit the number of FPs in some way. Could such a limit also make voters more careful about which images they support or oppose? A limit of for example 40-50 FP:s each month would is still be enoguh for 30 POTD featured on the main page each month. /Ö 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's asking for gaming the rules just as much or even more... I really don't think there is a chance to solve problems by regulating this way (imagine one oppose delaying a promotion by one day, making it 41st or whatever, antics and stuff following). Some months yield more good images, some not, etc. We just need to be more serious and responsible about what we nominate and what we support. --DXR (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of FP isn't (IMO) to supply pictures for the main page or entrants for POTY. I view POTY as a popularity content where 90% of reviewers will just look at the thumbnails. I have no problem with having too many FPs in a year for POTY to be viable -- that would be a nice problem to have -- as long as they are all great images. -- Colin (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej.jpg[edit]

2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej.jpg

We have hundreds and hundreds of QI stained glass windows, and many more that are worthy of at badge. Can someone please explain how FP is not broken, when an obvious QI like this is both nominated and on its way to getting an FP badge. See Category:Stained glass windows and press the "Good pictures" button for examples. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"This has been nominated and I like, what else?" Do we need to update the FP criteria to specifically mention that "I like" is insufficient reason to support? Or an edit-notice to remind voters than this is not Flickr? -- Colin (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe it would help to translate Commons:Image guidelines into more languages. I was a bit surprised to see that even the German translation is still mainly English. Can someone set this up for the new fancy translation tools? --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the Commons:Image guidelines is dire, like most guidelines and policy on Commons it is fairly incompetently written. All the decent writers hang out at Wikipedia and Commons has people who know how to upload images or press buttons on their cameras. :-) So I wouldn't waste any effort translating that. The problems here aren't fundamental issues of photographic judgement. The basic "is this among the finest image on Commons" is not being respected. The above image is fine and meets the image guidelines. It's a QI. But it is a long way from being among our finest, unless that term means nothing. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On criticism[edit]

Can we be clear here that if you vote on FP then your vote is open to criticism. The defense of "it's my opinion; please respect that" is childish, naive and misses the point. This is a forum, a community, where we collectively judge images as among the finest. If you want to "Like" images and have that opinion "respected" then do so with the Favourites gadget or leave a comment or post something to the photographer's user page. FP will simply deteriorate to something worthless if we continue to uncritically accept "Like" votes. It isn't a simple popularity contest. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a step back, Colin. You are trying to play God again. The support votes have always been the "like" votes. And it will be so in the future. You have made too many ridiculous statements recently about the FP nomination and voting.. I think you should take a break. -- 15:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If our IP coward wants to comment on users at FP he can log in like the rest of us. IP edits to forum pages on Commons serve no purpose other than to highlight the inadequacy of the poster. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please assume good faith people occasionally forget to log in Colin.—Kelvinsong talk 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Em, good faith people don't edit war. Kelvin, this is an IP troll who pops up occasionally to take pot shots. IPs can't vote and their opinions on those who do vote are irrelevant. If this isn't our nasty coward, then log in and we can have a grown-up conversation about voting. Otherwise, this is just someone flinging shit. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
IPs are not people. They change and can be shared (if my limited knowlege about the internet is correct). To call an IP a troll is like calling a particular post office a troll, and insults people unfairly who may not be to blame for previous offenses. This reflects more on you than it does on whoever left that comment. && even so that IP has only been used to leave two contributions so i hardly say this is a recurring problem for you—Kelvinsong talk 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't permit IPs to vote, but we there is no rule of banning them from commenting. If you count IP comments as irrelevant, than just ignore them, this is your personal decision. But please don't try to impose this opinion to the community. It seems to me like you are fond of some open words, so you should be also able to take open replies and criticism. This is how grown-ups handle it. In this particular case the IP didn't post anything offending, so you should not just revert it. Frankly, I would even agree in the bigger part of the statement. --LC-de (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvinsong, you don't have all the facts. I am pretty certain this is the same IP troll who turns up here to fling shit from time to time. Yes the numbers change, but the language doesn't. It's childish and cowardly. I'll take criticism from someone big enough face me, not from numbers. And if I see another Commons user citing "there is no rule" as a justification for making this place unpleasant.... It's shitty behaviour and has no place on this forum. Now, meanwhile some folk at FPC are interested in doing serious reviewing: there are plenty other photo sharing sites for folk who want to "like" each other's photos. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i'm now logged in. Better? An IP address can probably tell more about me than a user name. I just wanted to say that your statement is ridiculous. And what you say is not just your opinion. I have noticed before that you often put yourself above the others. You often try to influence the "collective judging". I have no doubt that if the decision "featured or not" was made by you solely the selection of FP would be much better. Better for you but not for everybody. Your comments, votes and arguments are nothing more than "like" or "dislike". Keep that in mind. You are not better than others. We are all equal here. If I have the necessary number of edits, I can vote. And if you attempt to derogate my vote, my opinion, my "like" then you're the troll here. You had problems with WLM results, you say POTY is a popularity contest, you say other users are superficial. I think you should take a break.--Donninigeorgia (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I think Colin has a valid point though. Your vote might be valued the same as anyone else's, but if you don't take the criteria seriously, you are not helping the project. That is what I think Colin takes issue with - the promotion of sub-par images as a result of people supporting almost any image regardless of whether it legitimately stands up to a comparison with its contemporary FPs on a given subject or category, and subsequently taking offence when someone points that out. Pointing out that you're not taking the criteria seriously is not trolling, and Commons has never been (or if it was, it should not have been) simply a popularity competition. A set of criteria does exist, and "I like it" has never been a valid reason to support. This may not have been rigorously enforced in the past, but it doesn't mean the criteria weren't there. Diliff (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to evaluating a photograph, that is a piece of art or a creative effort at least, there are no and can't be any criteria. Yes there can be some kind of guidelines and as Colin mentioned earlier, you can't take these guidelines very seriously. So over time everyone has worked out it's owe criteria. I don't like your criteria and you don't like mine. Nothing new under the sky. No matter how sophisticated your reasons are, in the end it's all about the "like". --Donninigeorgia (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for logging in. The thing is, we aren't evaluating a photograph to decide if we like it. We're judging to see if it (a) meets various technical and artistic criteria (shared with QI), (b) is among the finest on Commons and (c) has some wow. We aren't robots and this isn't a maths problem so we will disagree and that's fine. But judging "among the finest on Commons" is actually one of the easiest bits yet most commonly neglected. Reviewers need to make a little effort -- visit the FP page and look at similar FPs, or go to the picture's category and have a look at the FP/QI. But comparing it against its peers is really really easy and requires no great photographic skill or artistic ability. But people aren't doing it. The above stained-glass window is no better than many hundreds of QI images. It doesn't take an experienced eye to see that. Of course there will be images that are much closer calls. My frustration, and reason for posting above, is that on cases that are clearly obvious calls, we need people to make an effort to oppose. Not assume someone else will do it. Some reviewers even have admitted to judging solely on the FPC image without even looking at an enlarged version. That's really not playing fair. Anyone who fails to do those things is not helping Commons and not really being respectful to those photographers who make big efforts to make great images. It's about being prepared to take this seriously and make an effort. On Flickr / Facebook, no effort is required at all. Click the little icon to "fav" and move on.
As for thinking FP would be better if I was the only reviewer. Hmm, I think you're extrapolating your misunderstanding. I learn lots from FP in the criticism my images receive and in the alternate votes and disagreements about my reviews too. Over the years I hope I have become a better photographer and reviewer. But I've long way to go still. It is because I value that interaction personally that I absolutely oppose this mindset that votes/opinions must be "respected" or treated as "equal" to the point where it is considered rude to disagree. What utter nonsense. Such baby-care of precious opinions belongs perhaps in infant school but we're grown-ups here.
And wrt popularity contest. Well that's a perfectly legitimate way of running a review/competition/assessment. You not may be aware I started Commons:Photo challenge where .... the voting is a popularity contest. And no "oppose" votes allowed. And no discussion. And no criticism. All votes equal. And in addition to point-votes, you can even add little love-heart "like" comments. It's a completely different kind of assessment deliberately designed to be positive and encouraging to photographers to try new things without seeming like utter failures if it isn't pixel-perfect featured material. Does that line up with your opinion of me as some kind of judging God? I happen to think FP is a different kind of review, one that doesn't work as a popularity contest. Our rules for 7 supports and 2/3 majority simply fail if (a) we have lots of reviewers and (b) hardly anyone opposes. If FP was changed to be a popularity contest, it would need dozens of reviewers and would then lack the critical feedback many of us value. And our rule for "finest" absolutely needs more than just "like!". -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
All votes ultimately boil down to whether or not the reviewer “likes” the image, some just seem more objective than others :) . But either way, you have written a very long paragraph Colin, and I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. FPC should be among the finest, voters must always look at full size versions (I am actually horrified to find that people are judging on thumbnails, like that doesn’t happen here??), and most importantly, FPC is not a popularity contest à la Instagram. Now I’m probs getting a bit off topic, but I do recall a good while back we had a rather bitter argument over whether or not it was acceptable to reject SVG works because of “wow”. Wow is by definition how many “likes” an image would recieve, so I wonder if you are truly trying to improve FPC review or if you are simply trying to make it harder to pass because that’s an easier reform to implement. I’ve been on a sort of FPC break since then, but I might return to it if it were a bit more clear exactly what is being sought.
&& I must again direct attention to the Commons:SVG guidelines proposal which might keep more Euro symbols and linear gradients from sneaking into the FP category, in line with your standards-raising—Kelvinsong talk 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvin, 'wow' is not, by definition, how many likes an image would receive or how many people vote for it in a nomination. I think it is more about how much an image impresses you; that je ne sais quoi for want of a better English phrase. Because of its inherent subjectivity, nobody is trying to prescribe what exactly constitutes wow, but I think most of us would agree that it should be more than merely liking an image, and that we should also consider the image(s) amongst its peers and be realistic about how great the image really is. For example, you might be inclined to 'like' all photos of cute kittens, but of course it doesn't mean that every photo of a cute kitten truly wows you. In any case, wow is only one aspect of what makes a solid Featured Picture. That's the whole point really. 'Likes' and 'wow' should not be enough for an image to be featured. More robust critiques are required for the project to really feature the best images. You seem to agree with that statement, but at the same time you're more than happy for strive for mediocrity if you accept that all votes are simply 'likes'. Do you not see the conflict here? Diliff (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But isn’t that exactly what you’re saying? That “wow” is the quality that impresses you enough to stop scrolling and double tap. Also kittens might not necessarily be “wow”, but “wow” means very different things to very different people. I can’t help but think of “diversity gap” or whatever they’re calling it now. The photographer crowd here is very into natural scenery and buildings (that personally I don’t see what the big deal about is), but might be unimpressed by a technically decent images of say an Elie Saab dress. && I know people who would be stopped in their tracks by the “wow” from that dress. PS nobody is saying “wow” should be the only factor but it seems to be the one critera that attracts a disproportionate amount of drama—Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I really have to take issue with your claim "All votes ultimately boil down to whether or not the reviewer “likes” the image" and that "Wow is by definition how many “likes” an image would recieve". There's some seriously wrong thinking going on if you think that, thinking that belongs on other photo websites. Both ideas simply lead to support votes for "nice" images and given that FPC is fairly well attended by reviewers, that makes it rather easy for "nice" to reach 7 supports. And some reviewers just don't want to face the hassle of opposing a "nice" photo that is technical ok but fails to either be among our finest or have any wow. Where's the "wow" in the above stained glass? Does anyone claim it is among our finest? It is nice and very typical of competent images on Commons. Wow is more than "made you look". The 7-support/2-3 majority rule simply doesn't work for that kind of voting. And nor does it lead to any collection of our "finest works". It simply selects popular images. Well, Featured Pictures is not "our most popular images". -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

All of this for nothing?[edit]

Looks like all this discussion is in vain. this another candidate is currently being promoted, when it looked like it didn't stand a chance a few days ago. Author was probably aware of that so he looked around for supports. Last ones were adding after these requests from nominator : [1] [2] [3]. Now nothing forbids that but I'm really suspicious about them when I see no justification or even one which states "sharp, good composition (!) and good lighting (!!). I hope FP is more than just begging for supports or other tricks. - Benh (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of this for nothing. The fact that nobody argues with you doesn't mean everybody agrees with you or Colin. Obviously you two are also cooperating. You often try to influence the vote, make people change their vote or make them withdraw their nomination and so on. It's not your project. Don't do this. No need to answer, your arguments are not very convincing. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Donninigeorgia: Trying to influence other people's opinion is supposed to happen in all foruns and is a fundamental component of FPC. Our opinions, expressed as comments which go along (or not) with our votes serve two different purposes: to help nominators and creators improve their work; and to influence (hipefully in a positive way) the other reviewers, some of them less experienced in Photography or image assessments. That is one of the reasons why we just don't support ("like") or oppose ("don't like") a nomination. This is indeed very different from Facebook or Flickr. Our main goal is, or should be, to choose the very best images Commons has to offer, not to engage in social interactions or please the creators. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And anyways, what does an anonymous participant try to do, if not influence... since his input is not counted. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, you'll see people disagreeing with me and Benh, and even me and Benh disagreeing quite regularly. A healthy FPC is one where reviewers discuss the qualities of the image and their reaction to it. One with full support is kinda boring :-). What's unhealthy is where people try to stop discussion and disagreement, to protect their own opinions from any criticism. That's a pretty infantile approach and not really appropriate for a community forum. Who learns anything from that? People may not always be swayed in an individual nomination to change their votes (thought that happens), but it adds to our collective judgement over time. This is why, if nominations start becoming !like votes then that will become the culture over time, and our voting criteria would simply end up promoting any half-decent nice photograph. And that would be rather tragic because if there's nothing "excellent" to reach for, then quite a number of photographers here will stop nominating and ultimately stop uploading. Donninigeorgia, I'm far more interested in what you think of the FP candidates than what you think of me, and I can't imaging anyone else here is much interested in that either. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not but I am far more critical about the FPC than you all together. But if I opposed a nomination would confine myself with the "o" and maybe a short reason why. What I wouldn't to is to challenge "s" voters under the nomination. Nobody likes the nominators who challenge every "o" vote but I think it's no better when the opposer challenges supporters. If you want to educate the contributors then that's OK but it shouldn't take place under the nomination. You should just vote, explain your reason and then forget it. You should just trust other reviewers. At the end of the day if some bad images slip through the process and becomes a FP it's not a big deal and definitely not an end of this project. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I've benefited from people questioning my reviews and think the forum benefits from such. There are some people who never oppose ever. Everyone's got different psychology and views on how they personally would vote or comment. So you wouldn't act like I do. Well, it would be a dull world if everyone thought or did the same. -- Colin (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Donninigeorgia, there's absolutely no reason why a support vote is more precious than an oppose vote, both are equally valid targets for discussion if someone feels they are unfair or not well supported. It may not be a big deal if some bad images slip through, but that truly is settling for mediocrity. Featured Picture is the highest accolade an image on Commons can receive (other than POTY finalist, which is a subset of FP). Why shouldn't we expect only excellence? You don't seem to understand the place of FP or value its high standards. That's your perogative, but don't be surprised if we're hostile to your mentality here. We actually care about keeping standards high. Diliff (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Donninigeorgia, now that you are a few edits away from actually being able to do what you say, I'm looking forward to see you voting on the project page itself. Would be a better way to voice your more critical than other opinion about FPC. - Benh (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- For the first time in a very long time I went through all nominations and voted/commented on a few. Of those !votes only one was a support. Some will consider (or perhaps complain) that I wanted to make a point, but that was not the case. The truth is I was only touched by one picture and, in my opinion, that is precisely what FP is about: the exceptional and the magic. Please notice that the deafult state of a nomination coming here to FPC is "not promoted". And it should remain in such state unless very strong reasons are found by the revierws to change it. I don't understand those editors who justify their support votes with comemnts like "nothing wrong with the picture". In the past I struggled in this discussion page to force editors to justify their oppose votes with meaningfull reasons. Now I'm much more woorried about the unjustified (and apparently shallow) "like-type" supports. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What you did was great. You submitted your vote like you're a part of this project, not like you own the place. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It does seem like you've tried to make a point though. As you said, only one of your 16 votes in the last day or two was a support. I'm not going to go through all your historical votes to get a long term ratio of supports to opposes, but I think we would all agree that it's better than 1:16. Probably closer to 1:1 or 1:2. How then do you explain the sudden change of heart and what does that say about your previous voting patterns? And can you honestly say that using this new mentality, you would support your own recently nominated images such as this or this? I have no problem with people being quite critical in their evaluations because based on the discussion above, we clearly need more of it. But please use that same critical eye on your own images and be consistent. ;-) Remember that a nomination is a support vote too. It should be more than a "I'm going to put this image out there and see what other people think". Diliff (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that your conclusions on my inconsistencies are unjust in both cases: my reviewing practise and my nominations. Concerning the first, it is just not true that my average ratio support/oppose is close to 1:1 or 1:2. As a matter of fact it is usually much lower, which can easily by confirmed by someone patient enough to go through last years's nominations. Most regulars here know how hard to please I have always been and how I have consistently consider that a FP is nothing less than the very best Commons has to offer. And that, with the general improvement of the average quality of the nominations, the FP bar should raise accordingly. Moreover it is inaccurate and misleading to make statistics (and draw conclusions) about someone's reviewing behaviour on the basis of a small sample of cases, as you did in your last comment (by the way, my ratio seems to be 1:13, not 1:16). Next month my ratio may raise to 1:10 or better (never to 1:1 or 1:2, unless a miracle happens), depending on the particular set of pictures in contest. Concerning my nominations, you should know that most of us (if not all) are seldom objective when evaluating our own creations. That is easy to explain by the close relations we often establish with our pictures during the process of observing the objects, preparing and making the shots, treating the images in the lab and enjoying them afterwards. It is also easy to confirm that very seldom did I contest the assessment of my own nominations, made by the other reviewers, even in the cases when they were offensive or just incompetent. When I realize, during the first days, that my images are not appreciated by a consistent group of editors I discretely withdraw the nominations, with no hard feelings. No one can be 100% consistent but we should keep trying. That is what I also do. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And in defence of Alvesgaspar, there are images between "full support" and "full oppose" where one may or may not choose to make the effort to review thoroughly and vote, particularly if the nomination is very mature or from a nominator (such as Diliff :-) where one can be fairly sure of consistently high quality. So looking at ratios doesn't really say much -- think why medicine now requires prospective trials rather than retrospective analysis. And I agree that it is difficult to be objective on one's own images, though there are some who have two nominations on the go continually who have a low success rate, and that to me just seems like expecting others to do the selection / gaming the system. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I much agree with Joaquim about the subjectivity on our own pictures. I've often found people nominating pictures of mine that I never thought were worth FP label (like this nom which I see more as a fine QI or this one which I feel a bit shameful about, and plan on delist and replace it (new shot being processed now). I did nominate a lot of pictures which I thought were going to make it through, but didn't ultimately, like this attempt or this one. I like both a lot, but people don't share my point of view. - Benh (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course none of us are completely objective about our own nominations - I'm not suggesting we can completely remove our own impressions. After all, if we didn't like the image, we wouldn't have nominated it I suppose. But I do think the two examples I gave show that there is a big disparity between your own images and the images you are opposing and I think it's important to acknowledge our own blind spot in these situations. I do give you credit though - although I've opposed a few of your recent nominations (and Poco with his recent nominations also spring to mind), you seem to have accepted the critique without taking it personally. I did count 16 different nominations that you opposed, but whether it's 13 or 16, it's certainly quite a large number. Perhaps you're right and you're normally more critical of nominations than I realised. I haven't paid too much attention to anyone's voting patterns but nor had I noticed a particular pattern of opposes previously either. I suppose it's only when there's a lot of them all at once that it becomes obvious. As for drawing conclusions though, if indeed your ratio was normally 1:2 (and I accept your claim that it isn't), then a sample of 17 votes only one support out of 17 would be statistically significant, with a ~5% chance of happening by chance alone (if my maths is correct). If your long term ratio is truly close to 1:5 or 1:10 then the probability of 16 out of 17 votes being opposes is much easier to explain by chance. Anyway, this is all academic now really but based on my (incorrect) assumptions about your voting patterns, I do believe I wasn't wrong to bring up the perceived ratio change based on those assumptions. Diliff (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Diliff, voting ratios can't be used for the purpose you intend, unless one prospectively requires a reviewer to vote on the next 30 FPCs. Anyway, I'm more concerned about lightweight reviewing such as User:Tremonist, who yesterday managed to hand out over 30 supports in about 40 minutes. It is difficult to believe the images were viewed in any detail in that time, and certainly not enough time to check elsewhere on Commons to see if they are "among our finest". Such voting merely serves to tilt all (except the most obviously flawed) nominations towards success, and it only takes a handful of such voters to completely wreck FPC and make serious participation here pointless. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why a sample of 17 votes can't be used for the purpose I intend: to compare a short term trend to a long term trend. As I said, assuming a normal voting ratio of 1:2, 16 opposes out of 17 votes has a 5% probability of occurring by chance. That is significant and think it's worth mentioning because probability is easy to misjudge - sometimes what seems likely is actually unlikely and vice versa. I'm not saying it proves Alves was trying to make a point with the opposes, and in any case he said his long term voting ratio is not 1:2 anyway so it was an incorrect assumption. Anyway, I agree with you though that the more important issue is people who support almost every nomination but it doesn't mean we can't look at the other extreme too. Diliff (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly very academic, but I feel your math is a bit off. If we assume a binomial as described as your normal case (n=17,p=0.666,x=16), the probability for that happening what you observed is actually a pretty low 0.8%, so it is very unlikely to get the observed result if your initial assumptions hold. You can also turn it around and calculate a binomial proportion confidence interval for the observed p=0.94 and n=17 and see that p=0.666 is certainly not part of it even for very small alphas. --DXR (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the internet wonderful? We can have a conversation about pictures involving Scottish, Australian, Portuguese and French reviewers, and a German turns up with university-level statistics to correct our sums :-) Without Tim Berners-Lee, www would just be some letters at the end of the alphabet. Amazing. -- Colin (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Haha you're right. I currently spend my days analyzing forecasts for my thesis, which is quite interesting, but not exactly stimulating creativity in commenting or photography, so I have to resort to the statistics for the moment... --DXR (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ouch touché... DXR, please be aware that some people here are past 30 and have their maths far, far behind them. ;-) - Benh (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, well, probably true. In any case I would trade a bit of (basic) probability theory knowledge for Diliff's eye in a heartbeat, so let's all stick to what we are best at, taking photos :D. --DXR (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did say "if my maths is correct". ;-) I was aware that it was likely to be slightly inaccurate as I applied a simplified calculation (the maths required to do it properly is beyond me!) that approximated things. I guess with each of the 16 iterations, the error of my approximation became amplified! Thanks for the correction though, it only proved my point more completely, given that 0.8% is even less likely than 5%! Diliff (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In real life I use statistical techniques and numerical modelling to figure out how the medieval and Renaissance nautical charts were constructed (here). It’s a pity that the cartographers who made them didn’t survive to our days because a much easier way to get the correct answers would be to ask them. In the present case the most effective way of knowing accurately what my voting pattern is and whether, yes or no, I wanted to make a point with my last voting is … to ask me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, that is a much, much more useful and interesting thing to do with statistics. Last time in 2014, I complained about the similar voting pattern by you (and I still think it is a distortion if it is on-off), but actually with some distance I guess that most of the votes are fair enough. Opposes are not pretty on the scorecard, but even if they were done overly harshly, they would usually do less harm than blind support and FPs should not sail through if they are not truly outstanding (even though that might be in the spirit of the explorers ;-) ).
  • I don't think I misrepresented anything though. From the start, I said that it was only my guess that you had a usual a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 and that I didn't want to go to the trouble of counting it, so it was always presented as a guesstimation. I could have asked you, but for the purpose of the discussion, it made more sense to simply express my perception of the discrepancy and give you the chance to respond. Also, I want to make it clear again that I didn't say I believed you were trying to make a point, I simply said that it seemed that way. A minor difference I suppose, but I was only telling you what it looks like to me, not that I could read your mind. Perhaps even if you weren't consciously trying to make a point, the maths could point out a subconscious bias. Lots of possibilities. Anyway, that's all I was trying to do - bring up a few points for discussion. :-) Diliff (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am being not far away from saying goodbye to FPC altogether, to maybe come back in a few years and see what’s become of it. It’s rapidly ceasing to be the place where visual excellence is cared for, being turned into some sort of photography Facebook. Support reasons like "parallel lines" or "correct exposure" is far from judging excellence, it’s nothing but looking for reasons to support a quite mediocre candidate. I still think (and I was serious about it) that only users that had one (or several) own nominations (not necessarily own works) being featured should be allowed to vote (except for their own nomination, which they may support of course) to prevent this looking-for-supporters-with-at-least-50-edits and keep standards up. – This may sound like an arrogant approach but isn’t meant to be. I’ve had more nominations declined here than featured, and I learnt a lot from the decline discussions. If my nominations were to be judged as "correctly exposed" in the future, I would’t learn a thing about how others regard my work anymore, about whether my picture conveys the impression I had in mind creating it. That’s what used to be valuable in FPC, and it’s completely lost if this is turned in some sort of QI plus. --Kreuzschnabel

The problem with FPC lies not in weak reviewers but weak nominations. I think even Colin wouldn't mind if I supported an excellent picture with the comment "I like it I like it I like it!!!". It is OK to like a good picture but not Ok to like a bad one. But who's to say the picture is good or bad. Who's to say who's opinion is superior to any other opinion. I agree that the standards are slipping but the real problem is that there is no real progress, no improvement in nominated photographs. Photography is a kind of art where you need continuous improvement. In other words, if the standards are sustained and not raised, it actually seems that the standards are slipping. I'm sure you fellows are learned a lot critiques. You reviewer's skills have improved, that's for sure. But what about your "photographical" development? To keep the standards high, every nominated picture should be somehow better, somehow more extraordinary or special than your previously nominated picture. But is the latest Diliff's church interior somehow better than one of his nominations last year? --Donninigeorgia (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think putting the blame solely on weak nominations is expecting us all to be, alone, reliably able to judge FP including on our own images. However, for those who nominate other people's images, I do think there are some who's standards are way too low and just treat FP as a game to collect stars where other people do the hard work of serious review. That just wastes everyone's time and if the nominator doesn't improve his eye over time, then perhaps they should find another game. And there are some photographers who over-nominate their work too, and should be more selective. For our own image, many report that their photography has improved through participating here. Even a highly successful photographer like Diliff learns what is acceptable in terms of extreme wide-angle, perspective, HDR, faithful-colours and light vs less wow or visible detail. His HDR process hasn't always been what it is now, and has altered through discussions with others here, and may alter again with Lightroom 6 :-). Very little of that would have occurred if the only feedback we got was an icon and a signature. My guess is that Diliff's images would not be as good if FP was not held to a high standard. To take one example, if we regularly promoted unsharp 6MP architecture photos, would Diliff have any incentive to upload 40+MP versions for free? Or even to participate here, if professional-level photography really wasn't appreciated at all.
It isn't a question of being "not Ok to like a bad picture". Like what you like. But to support, as among our finest, a bad or ordinary picture, is something different. Kreuzschnabel I'm sorry to hear you are so despondent. I think, though, that quite a lot of the weak votes are coming from those with some FPs under their belts. The only solution (and it is worth exploring others) I can see is for those who care about high standards to use the "oppose" option more often rather than assuming others will. If enough do that, the message that FP is a tough forum to succeed in will sink in. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually Colin, I've been creating 40mp+ stitched images since before FPC, Wikipedia and Commons even existed, and certainly before such high resolution was anything but a novelty. ;-) I've always done it simply because I enjoy the details available and the perspectives that become available, rather than because I'm specifically trying to impress anyone here. But that said, of course critical feedback results in better photography, and more of an incentive to improve, and I absolutely agree that it is an engine for us to innovate and learn, but only if feedback allows us to. A mere support (or oppose) without any comments gives absolutely no indication about why the vote was cast and no opportunity to learn.
And yes, Donninigeorgia, I think my interiors from this year are generally better than last year. Not every image, of course, and often the subject I've got to work with is what matters most, as technique only gets you so far. But my images from this time last year were systematically lower resolution, processed with poorer workflow and with a lesser understanding of how to best use HDR tone mapping techniques to give an image improved dynamic range without compromising realism. You may not have noticed any of that but then again, perhaps you don't actually have a fine-tuned eye, not having been actively involved in FPC in the past. I also disagree that photography is a kind of art where you need continuous improvement. Of course personal improvement is desirable, but ultimately if you are producing high quality photos from day 1, the fact that you aren't imrproving on them doesn't diminish the fact that they are already high quality. Likewise, if you producing crap photos after 10 years of photography, you may well have improved significantly, but they're still crap photos. Of course we should be capable of rewarding an individual's improvement, but at the same time we need to be capable of judging an image objectively amongst its peers. If we take literally your need for continuous improvement, both on a personal level and on a FPC-wide level, then you seem to be suggesting that every new FP must be objectively better than the FP before it, on a given subject/style/etc. I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I think it's better to have a minimum standard that we expect. A standard which is continually adjusted according to its contemporaneous and historical peers. A new FP could soar well above that standard and blow everyone away, or it could just scrape through above that applied standard, but both would be valid FPs IMO. We don't have to be completely elitist to be critical judges of nominations, we just have to judge the images rigorously and fairly and apply the criteria - not simply vote with the equivalent of a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Dillif, there's a difference between "creating" and "upload ...for free". Your earlier panoramas on Commons/Wikipedia are relatively small. -- Colin (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
All right, that settles it. If this quality is already considered excellent, there’s not much of a challenge left in it for me. Have fun. --Kreuzschnabel 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Set nominations again[edit]

After seeing several de facto set nominations at FPC, I think it's time to bring back sets formally. My idea is this: Instead of having several broad criteria that all set nominations must satisfy, have a list of very specific criteria of which a set nomination only needs to satisfy one. In other words, enumerate the allowable types of sets. If someone wants to nominate a set that doesn't fall under any of the criteria, they should either propose a new criterion or get consensus on this talk page to allow an exception. Here are the criteria I'm thinking:

  1. Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  2. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  3. (added per Diliff) A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  4. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Feel free to suggest any amendments or anything I might have missed. Again, what I'm going for is a rather narrow, unambiguous set of rules that can be expanded as needed. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't have strong opinions on this but I think your suggested guidelines sound reasonable. I was just wondering what your thoughts are on what is most likely to be a potential set of mine: A series of images of the interior of a building (eg a cathedral). What I usually aim for is to shoot the main views, but it's difficult to say that any group of interior images are definitive and show all possible variations, because there could be an unlimited number of angles and perspectives of an interior. I've nominated a few sets on the English Wikipedia FPC and they've been received well as they are used to illustrate a single article in a somewhat definitive way, but I'm not sure it will have the same effect for Commons because of the different scope we have here. Thoughts? Diliff (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    Diliff: Added a line, what do you think? -- King of ♠ 03:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Quite reasonable actually. The distinction that you make about 'different rooms' of a building, or 'an organ and a facade' not being acceptable is an important but fair point. For English Wikipedia FPC sets, these would likely be allowed because the scope is for any homogeneous group that provides strong EV in illustrating any one article particularly well, but I think Commons' scope is narrower and a Commons FP set should be more visually identifiable as a set. So I'm happy with the addition you've made - no complaints. Diliff (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine for me. -- Christian Ferrer 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was trying to have a look at previously featured sets to help me think about this, but Category:Featured picture sets only contains Category:Featured picture sets of Paris, which only contains 2 sets. I think if we re-allow set nominations, featured sets should be categorized as such and the {{Assessments}} should get a new parameter that changes the text from "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons […]" to something like "This is part of a featured picture set on Wikimedia Commons […]". --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Have a look at Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/Candidates/Sets and Commons:Picture of the Year/2014/Candidates/Sets? -- KTC (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's helpful. Any objections against me going through the lists and putting the files in Category:Featured picture sets? --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not from me, something I would do myself. -- KTC (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you remind me then what the rules are/will-be for sets at POTY, and for categorisation/listing. Will sets be kept separate or will every image in the set be considered a featured picture in its own right. Clearly POTY is limited in having only one winner, but "Set of the year" could be a prize and encourage comprehensive illustration of a topic. If sets were entered as individual images to POTY then it is quite likely they will dilute the votes that might have otherwise gone to a single image from the set, and thus stand little chance of making any shortlist. Is it work having a "key image" that represents the set and could thus be considered the featured picture for Main Page/POTY purposes? Sorry if this has been discussed before. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Afair, in the past a single vote was held for the whole set, but each individual picture from that set was then tagged as being FP with no indication that it was a set nomination whatsoever. Personally, I don't like that, which is why I suggested adjusting categorization and the {{assessments}} template above. --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I would be in favor of the "key image" approach. The creator of the image should be requested to specify one of them to enter into POTY, and if no response if received, the organizers can pick whichever one they feel is the best. -- King of ♠ 04:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it will be better to request the nominator to choose one of them when he make the nomination, like that you will be sure to have an answer. -- Christian Ferrer 22:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the conversation has died down and my proposal seems uncontroversial judging from the opinions here, so I've added the language to the top of the FPC page. -- King of ♠ 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island.jpg[edit]

Can someone experienced pick the alternative to promote. It's been nearly a week since voting closed. -- KTC (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I closed it on the second one since three people have said it is better while no one has defended the first one. -- King of ♠ 03:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have processed the promotion manually with your choice. -- KTC (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi, The bot is stopped from 8 March. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone other than me want to do some manual closure as well in the meantime, or volunteer to run another bot to do the same job, please do. -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I remember a discussion between Daniel78 and Dschwen on sharing the operation of the bot. Jee 01:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Intermediate School 72.jpg[edit]

Banned users[edit]