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, 23, 24
candidate list


PotD is a little more user friendly[edit]

With the help of User:RZuo, PotD now auto-fills most of the template information, like MotD does. It should make it a bit easier to use.

Feel free to try it out at Template:Potd/1522-06. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your commitment, Adam! I will try it soon … --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FPCBot[edit]

FPCBot is currently not scheduled to run. I took the scheduled runs down in an effort to migrate as required and am encountering issues. Will update when sorted. -- KTC (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And we are good to go (I hope). Shout as usual if you think it's not running when it should have done. -- KTC (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@KTC: It looks like FPCBot is down again. -- King of ♥ 15:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: it didn't like Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ensifera ensifera (22271195865).jpg. I've removed it from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list. The tag on the image itself was already manually changed earlier. Can you (or someone else reading this) check if any other manual actions are required after an image delisting. (e.g. on Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds, Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/December 2021, ...) If not, I'll take a look later when I have time. -- KTC (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More and more mediocre images pass the line – do we have to save the FP badge’s value?[edit]

Some years ago, the QI badge completely lost its value for me, when really bad images were promoted by friends of the nominator and discussions became useless. I get an impression that FP is heading the same way. Considering that a straightforward, uninspired image like Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Busha_cemetery_2021_G06.jpg is going to win the badge by 8 to 4 votings, I wonder what makes the supporters so enthusiastic about it. I think they have a quite different approach to FPC than I have built up through the years. As for me, I ask myself something like, "Is this an extraordinary, skilfully taken and processed image you could easily sell to a stock photo supplier?" Today’s voters, on the other hand, seem to place a "Support" whenever they "like" an image, turning FPC into a sort of Insta or Facebook, where it’s all about collecting "likes". In other words: Whenever I oppose a nomination, that does not mean I don’t "like" the picture. It just means I, while still liking it, don’t think it’s one of our very very best ones, the cream of the crop.

Do we have to do anything about this to keep the high value of the FP badge? We could establish rules like "only users who have nominated 3 successful FPs in the past are eligible to vote" to restrict voting to these users who have a distinct idea what FPC is about. Or does the community not see a problem here at all, and it’s only me? --Kreuzschnabel 17:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That photo is losing 8-5-1, so is this still a problem? But let's face it: images from Ukraine have probably received favoritism since the start of the latest phase of the Russian invasion; at least some people who voted for some of them stated that they did, though I don't know if they were being fully serious or not and I think most of the photos from Ukraine that have passed recently deserved the star and some nominees didn't pass. But while it's great to uphold standards, rules are not going to make people vote a different way. Look at the more serious problem at QIC, where people are voting against a photo based purely on finding it "disgusting" and opposing the practice shown in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it easy to know if my images would end up in stock photo libraries. They keep appearing in them. Must be nice to have there be doubts. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone relatively new to the process, I am aware that raising my voice here might impact my future and my current nominations. I still think speaking up is important. I am just above the threshhold of 3 successful nominations that Kreuzschnabel mentioned. And I don't think I would have gotten there, if I had not been allowed to take part in voting. Voting kept my interest in the process up and helped me learn and understand. Keeping newer people out will not help select an overall better sample of images, at least in my (of course biased) opinion. However making such statements and suggesting newer contributors just shower "likes" on not good images demotivates newer contributors, as it massively devalues their contributions.
I also want to note, that many images pass the mark easily, that I find have no WOW at all, or otherwise are not one of "our very very best ones". And I see many other pictures that I think belong in this category, that do not get promoted ... or even nominated. Each of us has different opinions about what makes a picture one of our best ones. And that is why yes, the idea of "what a FP is about" will change with new people coming to the process. Just as it changes with time anyways (many early FPs lose the badge, because of that). But it is also the idea of crowdsourcing in general. We all hold a different facets of knowledge, have different experiences and skills. By bringing those to all onwiki processes, we have made the projects an amazing success.
If you really care about improving the quality of the process for selcting FPs, please do not talk about who should or should not be allowed to contribute. Let's instead talk about what acutally makes it "extaordinary", how do you recognize if it was taken and processed "skillfully"? Leaving this judgement to others (stock photo suppliers) will not really help us here, in our own sphere. Let's be bold and have our own criteria for what we consider excellent, outstanding and truly OUR very, very best --Kritzolina (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some images that get promoted that I don't understand. Sometimes I think that's because I just don't understand; other times, I wonder if there are other factors. Most likely isn't "friends vote for each other" but "people with similar tastes are more likely to vote for each other's images because they have similar tastes, not for reasons unrelated to the images". Even if we're cynical about it, I don't see any good way to stop this from happening. As for stopping newbies from !voting, that doesn't seem like the right direction. In the FPC example above, only one of the participants would not pass a three-nomination criterion, for example. A lot of new contributors go through a phase of lots of supports or lots of opposes that are outside the norm. Eventually it works out and they get a better feel for the standards, though. We seem, at any given point in time, to have one (or two at most) new contributors who do this. So I more or less agree with Ikan/Kritzolina about the "what to do about this" part. If it's a real problem (and I'm not saying it is), a more fair approach may be to revisit [yet again] raising the vote threshold instead of excluding anyone. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Today’s voters, on the other hand, seem to place a "Support" whenever they "like" an image, turning FPC into a sort of Insta or Facebook, where it’s all about collecting "likes". Dear Kreuzschnabel, there is no need to insult us. (Comparing us to the “like” crowd on Facebook is indeed a heavy insult. Many ‘users’ there are not people but just bots. Do you want to insinuate that we are bots?) I have made an argument for the photo you refer to. We have regulars which are excellent in making contra arguments; I try to compensate for this a little bit by making (most times) pro arguments. IMHO a photo has deserved a fair discussion; for this we need good pro and contra arguments (and not people who kill nominations prematurely by arrogant statements). And, to keep this short, when I compare the FPs promoted in the last 2 years with earlier FPs, I get an impression totally different from your one. There are always some exceptions, but in generally today’s FPs are not worse but better than the FPs promoted some years ago. --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In no way it has been my intention to insult anyone (however, you’re free to take it like that) – and I think I have tried to make myself clear (though, not being a native English speaker, I might miss the best tone of course and beg your pardon for that). I was talking about my impression of FPC discussions nowadays, and what else impression should I get when supporting votes are accompanied by remarks like "it’s nice" oder "I like it"? In almost all promotions here, no one would ever doubt that the image in question is nice, nor that anyone tends to like it. That’s just not the point here, and I still think the FP badge will lose its value entirely as soon as it’s adorning any picture that seven users did "like". In my opinion, the FP badge should only be given to images that seven users (at least, and I have no problem if the threshold is raised to 12 or even 20) found to be absolutely extraordinary and excellently done. Remember it’s the highest honors a picture on Commons can get at all, so it should be granted to the best of the best exclusively. --Kreuzschnabel 11:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a problem is that, generally speaking, most votes don't say anything in the first place. If there isn't a culture of justifying your decision, we can't be that upset that what does get said with the votes is fairly trivial.
On the main subject: my impression from the past is that raising the number of votes doesn't do much to weed out bad photos - we have plenty of voters - it more tends to affect the more unusual or rare images. Stuff like blueprints or diagrams - anything that rarely shows up at FPC at the time, so a lot of people opt out of voting on it. I could be wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ACK. I tend to write way too much on most of my votes, especially on the ones where I disagree with the majority of previous voters. I don't do that so much to convince people, but more to encourage everyone to be a bit more conscious about their own thoughts before they vote. And maybe more importantly in practice: to give those who don't dare to disagree on their own something to agree with.
But back to topic. I've said it when we moved animations over to Featured Media and I'll happily repeat it: I think we should turn Featured Pictures into Featured Photographs, or at least move all kinds of computer graphics elsewhere. They are made by different people for a different audience, need different criteria, and never will get proper recognition here. That would allow raising the threshold for photographs, although I'm not convinced that would change much in the end.
Anyway, I don't think any further minimum requirements for voters would help much either. It might even trigger a new kind of unwanted behavior when today's voters-who-like-everything turn to nominating sub par images in order to move up into the ranks of recognized FP-reviewers. Great breeding grounds for more toxic behavior and elitist gate keeping, if you ask me. El Grafo (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that when I look at photos that passed a few years ago, we have higher standards today, in general. The technical quality tends to be higher, and in addition, because of the photos that have been featured for the last x-number of years, we have developed a reserve of high-quality FPs in certain categories, such that it takes more to impress us now in photos of motifs such as landscape panoramas, church ceilings, art reproductions and wildlife pictures. It also helps that we weed out some of the worst legacy FPs from days when standards were lower. Kreuz, if you'd like to up standards, one of the things you could do is nominate more really obviously substandard legacy FPs for destarring. I also still don't think changing the number of votes required for a feature is necessary or necessarily helpful. As Adam Cuerden says, such increased minimum votes for passage would be likely to leave a lot of restored historical pictures (for example) in the dust, not because they're not deserving but just because some people aren't impelled to vote on them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other advantage of delisting old substandard FPs, of course, is that it provides an example of an image, with an explanation of why it's bad, which, of course, is educational to the voters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically, it is true that the ratio of promoted / failed FPCs has changed between the last 2 years, compared to the 2 years before. I also share this impression that poor nominations sometimes get unwarrant supports, but a rigorous study made on a long period of time (15 years for example) will be necessary to conclude if this drop of value is more an anecdotal wave, or more a rising problem.

QI label is granted with extremely low requirements, making the process quite uninteresting for many photographers, however we have to keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons has no restriction at all concerning the minimum acceptable quality of the hosted medias here, in general. Thus a so-called "Quality Image" sometimes represent a first selection among a bunch of much more terrible pictures.

Concerning Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Busha cemetery 2021 G06.jpg, my opinion is that many voters gave emotional supports, due to the current war in Ukraine, linked to the very sensible aspect of this symbolic cross in this sad context. Nevertheless, biased votes seem to frequently occur when the picture contains religious elements, like Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Параклис во Тресонче (2).jpg for example. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on modern photos - hence why I tend to focus on historic ones - but I can kind of see the appeal of the one you give as an example. If you don't have that kind of old building - and most of America is quite new when it comes to architecture - it's an attractive building, and the icon on the front of it is unusual. I think it's fairly typical of Balkan architecture, but it has nice composition, and if you haven't seen a thousand pictures of typical Balkan architecture. Throw in an aesthetic fence, and there you are.
...I don't think it's that people are biased towards religion, I think it's that churches tend to be quite, quite old buildings, and they often fall into that sweet spot of being different without being so different that people find them hard to judge.
Frankly, this is one of those cases where Commons vs. English Wikipedia featured pictures might be worth considering: English Wikipedia featured pictures require encyclopedic value. This means that the merit of the image is considered both by quality and by how useful of an image it is. Consider File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg, 2013's Picture of the Year. It's a very striking image, and Commons, clearly, loves it, and there's good reason to. But it's also a deeply misleading image: The effect shown happens when the bulb cracks while electricity is going through it, but the lamp fitting was intentionally photoshopped out. As such, the image is basically unusable to demonstrate the effect: It misleadingly implies that the cracking of the lightbulb will make the filiment burn up when it's not plugged in, which is completely wrong.
Basically, Commons FPC is set up specifically to prioritise "striking" images, regardless of whether they're ever going to be seen again after being voted on (and possibly run on POTD, but given you have to set up POTD yourself... Consideration of image uses is explicitly not a criterion. And that's... arguably fine. But to then turn around and complain that people are voting based on whether they like the image or not.... kind of ignores that, as long as the image is above a certain minimum standard, that's Commons FPC doing exactly what it set out to do.
If you want to exclude a symbolically resonant photo of a gravestone, frankly, you shouldn't be looking to up number of votes needed, or percentage of votes, or anything like that. You need to add something to the featured picture criteria that calls for the image to have a clear usage case on some Wikimedia project. I don't think it'd necessarily need to be used on them, but your complaints seem to boil down to that some FPs aren't useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if an award has only 30% chance to be refused, it has not the same meaning as a 50% merit. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Statistics are an interesting thing - did you also look at the ratio of images uploaded to the project and the images that get promoted to FP? Perhaps nominators have just become better in nominating those images that can make the mark- --Kritzolina (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the number of images uploaded to the project increases by the time, but paradoxically the number of FP nominations has slightly decreased between 2020 en 2022 (856 candidatures on 5 months in 2020, compared to 715 candidatures in 2022 at the same period) Face-grin.svg. Better nominators? But better equipment too. Hard to analyse the reasons of a drop of value concerning the FP label. I just hope people will keep the courage to oppose, or to cast a subjective comment, to maintain the process as enriching as possible -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:31, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit, I am a bit confused. If we have more pictures uploaded and less pictures nominated (even though this drop might not be statistically significant) - we are probably promoting a smaller percentage of images over all to FP status. What does the ratio of images getting promoted of those nominated have to do with the value of the badge (it is not really an award, I think)? --Kritzolina (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Facebook, if there are only "likes", hearts and smileys, what is the problem? More promoted works = more people happy 😄💖👍 </joking>
In an exam, if you give the diploma to 70% of the students, do you think the level of the graduated people will be the same as before when only 50% of them were rewarded? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like Aristeas, I think the comparison to Facebook is neither appropriate nor respectful towards voters. But that is not the point.
I am still confused, why do you think there is a direct connection between the value of images/people and the ratio of rejections? The value in my eyes has nothing to do with how other images or people do - the value either IS there (it is an excellent image/it is a person that will be able to perform well in the field they graduated in) or not (they fail). I could start nominating really bad images and encourage others to do the same. Would this really raise the value of the images others nominated in the normal process? --Kritzolina (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A joke is a joke. FPC is not Facebook or Instagram, but a metaphor is like comparing Wikimedia Commons to Flickr or 500px: nothing wrong in an open discussion.
  2. Concerning the value of the FP reward, it depends on the process. If every participant feel that 90% success is the norm, then the green button may become almost automatically activated. And the dissident reviewers, feeling their oppositions are unsatisfied here, will simply leave the project -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint: If you arbitrarily set the number of people who can pass to 50%, did all of the half that failed deserve to fail? Which of the images from the months you mention shouldn't have passed, in your opinion? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, all those for which I opposed, ha ha! -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Basile, I don't want this to come off as snarky, but you literally only opposed one of the images that didn't pass in all of April 2022. (this one, for the record), which kind of makes it seem like we're just getting a better set of featured picture candidates. For comparison, in April 2020, you opposed five of the ones that passed. (1 2 3 4 5 (and possibly one more, as I thought I had counted six when I was going through it)). Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because the candidatures tend to become less and less interesting? More diversity = more controversy. Less originality = less opposition -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, but it does kind of show the problem with using passing ratio as a proxy for whether everything deserved to pass: You apparently thought far more shouldn't have passed that did when the ratio was 49%, and agreed with almost everything in the 72%.
I'm not saying that FPC is perfect, but if we want to improve things, we need to actually find examples of the problem to discuss. We're getting a lot of weak arguments: ratios of success to fail (which really depends on the quality of the submissions as much as the quality of voting), this FPC which you thought shouldn't pass... and didn't, and so on. Focus on examples of things that passed and shouldn't have, and/or ones that didn't pass and should have, and we might be able to move forwards.
Again, I hope I'm not being rude, I'm not digging into your arguments because I disrespect them, I'm looking at them intensely to try and learn what I can from them. And I think the general idea that featured pictures is a little samey, a little dominated by the same few people nowadays is true. But we need to look at examples of the process going wrong, and be open to the idea that we're just a bit more jaded after being here so many years. It might well be that the high success rate in recent months might be down to, frankly, people remembering that really good content creators like Ivar Leidus and JJ Harrison and so on had pictures that weren't nominated yet, and nominating them. I know people have been helping me nominate a load of images beyond the two at a time, which - and I hope this isn't too arrogant - is going to push things up a bit given I have a pretty high success rate overall.
But it does feel FPC is less diverse. It's rare we see a restoration not by me at the moment. Animal pictures do predominate. I haven't seen a successful Wikipedian-made illustration or any diagram pass in some time. Hell, even the Cenotaph design, which is a historic illustration diagram and I'd have thought would do well, is kind of languishing at best.
Some of this might just be down to losing contributors who were uniquely skilled. Some of this might be biases in FPC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's somewhat interesting looking at past COM:POTY entries (Are we running the one for 2021, d'ye think? Or are we just dropping that as a COVID thing and choosing extra winners next year?)
I think it's interesting how much NASA dominated the early years of the competition. When did we last do much with NASA images? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmm, I don't think that opposing images, especially with unfriendly and disparaging comments, does a lot to encourage diversity ... but that might just be my personal bias as a relative newcomer and a woman ... --Kritzolina (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the hell of it, I'll mention that I'm among other things a professor, and I always thought that grading on a curve, such that C is the average grade, no matter what, is nasty and grossly unfair. I grade based on criteria and standards, and when I was teaching music courses, most of my students got final grades in the B-A range, not because of any grade inflation, but because they enjoyed the courses and did good work (and of course there was some self-selection of people who liked music). Those who goofed off and did the minimum got grades of C+ and lower; those who didn't satisfactorily complete the work and had no excuse failed. And when some appealed their grades, they never won, because the syllabus specified the required scope of work and my comments always explained their paper grades. So how is any of that relevant? Imagine if we insisted that 50% of all nominees failed. What possible benefit could there be from such a nasty policy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kritzolina: Agreed. A polite message saying why one opposed is far better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diversity in the votes encourages diversity in the nominations, because the photographers / nominators usually understand, and are grateful towards all kind of feedbacks, negative ones included. And reciprocally, diversity in the nominations encourages diversity in the votes, since everyone judge the image subjectively. All the votes should be politely written. An opposition is not rude in itself, although it can be felt as such.
  • A diploma given to 70% or 95% of the students in medicine will lead to the graduation of completely incompetent doctors. But that's assuming that the level of the candidatures is unchanged. Many other aspects of the evolution of FPC could be studied, like for example the complexity of the discussions, the diversity of the voters / opponents and the engagement rate for each, the heterogeneity of the specific fields involved in the nominations, etc. Best regards, -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that more opposes will encourage more diversity. I do think we go too easy on some subjects, but it's so subjective I don't think there's much to do about it. What would encourage diversity is to opposite of more opposes -- seeing actual results. An indication that people are willing to promote (not decline) more images of unusual subjects which have various technical shortcomings, may just result in more of those nominations. My guess (but I don't have data to back this up) that the most likely explanation for an increase in support % over a given period is that it's a period when long-timers are more active and fewer new people join. The long-timers, for the most part, learn what passes and what the FPC crowd doesn't like. I'm reluctant to nominate e.g. pictures of social movements, even though it's one of my favorite subjects, not because my feelings will be hurt, but because I think it'll be a waste of time -- that FPC just isn't the right venue. Every once in a while I'll do it, but it almost feels like a "protest vote," so to speak. I've toyed with tossing this one in, for example, but I already know what people will say: bad background, harsh light. And I wouldn't even disagree! I'd just disagree that it's disqualifying. Everyone wants diversity until it comes down to "well, yes, but I want diverse photos that meet my own standards", which is fine, except the sum total of those standards excludes a lot of "diversity". As it happens, my personal interests have shifted to include a lot more birding and bird photography over the past few years, and feedback here and at QIC has helped me to improve those. As such, my promotion % has significantly increased, but that's also in part because I don't bother with [most of] the stuff that I think should be promoted but isn't (at one point I started tossing things I like but have no chance at FPC, along with things that have some special significance, into a category, but I typically just skip that now). I've just come to accept that FPC is not the right venue for some things. And that's fine, but hearing claims that we'd support diversity if only more people opposed just got my attention as a strange claim. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that photo, but I don't have the same aesthetics as some other regulars. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need diversity in all votes, which means diversity in opposes as diversity in supports too. If each voter gives a reason, as recommended in our guidelines "Explain your reasoning", then all the nominations will gain in value. Concise comments welcome of course. -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about diversity in nominated images? And if we talk about comments - concise ist one thing and I agree that "not up to the mark of the other images we already have" ist not what we are aiming for, but can I please raise the hand again for helpful and friendly? --Kritzolina (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, hands up ! 💃 :-) Diversity is always welcome. I tried this diver in an ice tube and luckily it worked. Recently an intriguing microscope capture nominated by IamMM also gathered enough supports. I think original works have potential at FPC -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FP has its faults, but it does work. As someone pointed out a few months ago, there are voters who seem to support but seldom oppose, but that is their choice. A voter who only ever opposes my FP noms, but never supports them is annoying, but it's not against the rules. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with Charles here. (There are also voters who seem to oppose often but seldom support, of course. So in the end these different attitudes balance each other ;–). At the same time I also want to raise, like Kritzolina, “the hand again for helpful and friendly”. (Constructive) criticism and friendliness, lively discussions and helpful attitude do not need to exclude each other, they can go hand in hand, although this is admittedly not always easy. --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A support makes you look friendlier than an oppose though, so my guess is that people are more reluctant to go with them. Even I sometimes see a picture I'd oppose on a first glance, and then think twice because I've opposed the author already. Or pictures that don't even trigger reaction so I don't even bother reviewing them (which is worse than an oppose in a sens). So not so sure about the balance thing. But I agree that the FP gallery is generally filled with good pictures and that the process is not that bad. - Benh (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I f we want more diversity, nonsense comments and opposes should stop. It would also improve the unpleasant atmosphere on FPC. Yann (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who wouldn't agree to that? We've lost so many great contributors that got burned on their first try or eventually gave up after prolonged hostility - just because they dared to try something fresh. Posting an unspecific rant here won't actually change much, though. People voting with rude comments don't know their posts are being received as such (e.g., I hope my lengthy comments don't come off as condescending smart-assery, but I don't know) and/or keep doing it because they get away with it. So what to do? We could bring out the torches and pitchforks and start a witch hunt, but that tends to end in a lose-lose situation. Calling them out on their nonsense right where it happens would probably be the best way to counter that. Calmly, politely, respectfully, and repeatedly by different people. Of course, not everyone is comfortable doing that, and that's OK. But maybe consider to occasionally give a simple "+1" to those who do. --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 --Kritzolina (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear colleagues, even though I am still a newbie compared to our hardworking regulars, I would like to make my views known here. I have always chosen a support or opposing vote very carefully. The last oppose I submitted in September of last year. My votes were and are always image-related, never user-related. I generally had the subliminal impression that an opposing vote would be taken personally and, at worst, end in subtle, indirect revenge votes. Since then, I leave opposing votes to other users, and choose at most a comment to point out flaws. I agree with previous commenters that as a newbie on FPC, you can have a hard time. It's frustrating, intimidating, and in my humble opinion not at all in keeping with the collaborative Wiki spirit. FPC is there for all photo enthusiasts, whether beginners, advanced, or regulars. Therefore, we should be grateful for every newbie, because only in diversity lies the strength of a valuable FP media library. We should welcome them respectfully and always assume good intentions. In personal communications with some FPC users in the past, I have suggested that some sort of supervisor should keep an eye on the rules of civility and politeness. However, because we are all here voluntarily, this is unrealistic. Perhaps users with admin rights should pay more attention to avoid subtle antagonism. We should at least try to work together in a tolerant way, so that we don't lose focus on the main target, which is to build up a valuable FP library. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether this "unpleasant atmosphere" statement refers to me in person, having started this discussion. Surely no one would say anything against being as friendly as possible to each other, and neither would I. While I certainly place more "o" than "s" here, I do so because IHMO only the very very best images should get a feature, and in case of opposing, I mostly try to put my criticism constructively, and to explain my reasons to oppose as precisely as possible in order to offer the submitter a starting point for further work. As a matter of fact, I have opposed images taken by myself that got nominated by someone else because I didn’t think they were up to FP standards. You see, FPC simply is not a feel-good club for Commons photographers – this is the place where the very best images in this entire database are elected, the highest of decorations an image can get here at all. Our bar should be set accordingly high. This is not the welcome area, this is the assessment center. So, just being "good" or "flawless" or "likeable" or even "moving" should not be enough to get a support here (that’s QI’s and/or VI’s work), the images featured here should be outstanding, exceptional, singular work on a high photographic level. That’s all I’m asking for. It might be a silly comparison (and I am not referring to a particular nomination) – when submitting a student's homework for the Nobel Prize, I’d have to put up with being rejected, and maybe even being rejected rudely :) --Kreuzschnabel 09:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being critical and/or opposing often is not what this is about - that has nothing to do with being polite or friendly. One is about assessing the image, the other one is about how you package your judgement for the author/nominator. AFAICT, you're doing fine there: you tend to explain your thoughts, and if there's something you like about an image, you will mention that even if you end up opposing. It's constructive criticism 101: instead of just saying "X is bad", say "I like Y, but I think X would be better if you'd try Z". And WRT Nobel Prize: It is absolutely possible to FPX a terrible image without the nominator feeling like they (or you) are an idiot - it just takes a bit more effort ;-) El Grafo (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not about you. There are people, while being technically competent in some areas, either express their criticism in a harsh way, accusing the nominator of various defects, or who find nonsense pretexts or completely unrelated issues to the proposed picture. It would be much better to just say "I don't like it" or to abstain altogether. Yann (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kreuz, I'm glad when you comment on nominations. You help remind everyone what FPs really are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can’t resist to meddle, in support of Kreuz's concerns. The French use to say "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose", that is, this issue of the proper placement of the FP bar is being discussed for years! Please allow me to cite what I have written a long time ago, here, about the need to justify the support votes: “Quality has improved dramatically and we are now faced with the problem of rejecting excellent pictures just because they are only excellent, not exceptional or ... magic ... or inspiring. Three years ago I considered very important to explain why I opposed a nomination; now I consider more important to justify why I'm supporting it. Three years ago I considered inappropriate to justify an oppose vote with "no wow" or "don't like" it; now I found it the least of evils. As I said elsewhere, the default state in FPC is "not promoted". It is the ultimate goal of the forum to identify the nominations whose original state should be changed to "promoted", based on good and consensual reasons; it is not the ultimate goal of the forum to justify why all the others are not worth the star. Of course, pictures can be quickly rejected because of technical shortcomings. But those are just the easy cases... Just my two cents. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that brings me back to one of my original points - how do we deal with the fact that "wow" or "exceptional" are extremely subjective categories. As they should be. But if you truly want diversity, you will always find people who feel something you do not find hits that mark, brings that extra added value. Currently there is a strong gender bias in this group for example. I am sure at least some of you have read up on the problem of "the male gaze". We also have a strong bias towards Western European tastes, especially German ones (yes, this includes me). There are a few more things we could analyze, but I think you all are aware that we as a group do not represent the world as it is. And we should never consider our personal, individual tastes (which are shaped by our culture and privileges) as binding for everyone. I see some people start their rational for opposing with "in my eyes" or "to me" - in my opinion this is a really good practice that should become standard.
  • We also should consider that while some of us prefer to hear a clear rejection to no comments at all, there might be others who prefer the opposite. There are a lot of cultures where any kind of critisism is seen as deeply embarassing. And from a psychological viewpoint, a photographer whose image fails with one or two positive comments might learn more and be more encouraged to submit better suited images than one whose image fails with only negative ones. That is one reason why I give mostly positive comments for example. Where I would leave a negative comment, usually two or three others already opposed. Sometimes I also do not leave an oppose where I see there is a clear majority for an image - but this discussion is encouraging me to do so anyways, if I feel what others see as a "Wow" is just a bad imitation of better work, following skewed aesthetical standards or the image is in some other way not worthy of being promoted.
  • What might be really ineresting for us as a group, would be to go over the already featured images one day - and ask everyone to pick their favorite and their least favorite image(s) in each gallery. And find out where people agree and where there are huge differences. Perhaps we can do something like that at a Wikimania or some other event one day and learn more about what constitues this "exceptional" on commons. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear nominators, please check your FPs after promotion[edit]

I have already posted this some time ago, but please allow me to repeat this as a gentle reminder ;–). This is especially important for nominators who regularly nominate pictures on some Wikipedias, e.g. Adam Cuerden, IamMM, UnpetitproleX, Yann and others. No offence! I just want to help.

If you nominate here on Commons a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, and the picture is successfully promoted to FP status, our FPCBot does not change the image description page of your picture as appropriate. It seems that when the image description page already contains the {{Assessments}} template (because the picture is a FP on some Wikipedia), the bot does not add the necessary featured=1 parameter to the template.

Why is this important? Only with that parameter your FP will actually “look” and “work” like a valid FP on Commons – the description page will show the “This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons …” message and the image is sorted into the appropriate category, and then another bot will flag the picture in the structured data as FP which is necessary for the search function to recognize the image as FP.

Therefore, if you nominate here a picture which is already a FP on some Wikipedia, please go after the promotion to the image description page, search in the Wikicode for the {{Assessments}} template and add the missing parameter. E.g., when the template reads like this: {{Assessments|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}, please add the parameter featured=1, so that the template now reads: {{Assessments|featured=1|enwiki=1|enwiki-nom=Museum of the History.jpg}}. Thank you!

Probably there is a bug in the bot and that bug should be fixed, but until that please take care for your FPs – they are great and worth that additional effort ;–). Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Do try and do this but have been very busy of late. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, Adam! I did not want to criticize anybody. I just wanted to remind us about this little problem … ;–). Best regards and thank you for your wonderful restaurations and other contributions, --Aristeas (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]