Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

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

Counting delisting votes: rules unclear?[edit]

This delisting vote ended in 6:0 votes for delisting, but was closed as kept, which I found a bit strange. I looked at the rules again:

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured […]

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. […]

As far as I understood the rules, it should have been delisted, as 1) there was a clear larger then 2/1 majority in favour of delisting and 2) there is no minimum of 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes mentioned anywhere. After thinking about that for a while, that may not be how the rules were intended to be interpreted. The part The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs is what is confusing me: how is that to be understood in terms of rule #2? Should we take that as

  • "if the candidate does not reach at least 7 Symbol support vote.svg Support votes again, it will be delisted" or
  • "if the candidate does not reach at least 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes, it will not be delisted"?

Could we please clear this up? Pinging XRay who closed the vote. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, looking at some past delist votes, it seems that my initial assumption that there is no minimum amount of Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes required seems to be correct:
… unless the rules have changed since then? --El Grafo (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry. I'd choosen "kept" because there was no result (6 votes, not enough votes for a decision, so no delisting). It was one of my first closing procedures and I was very unclear what to do. --XRay talk 09:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm with XRay on this. I read the rules as there must be 7 votes pro or con and the 2/1 majority for a decision to be made, otherwise the nom is inconclusive and the file is kept. Not voting is often also a way of making a statement, "same as for FPs". But per El Grafo, the rules could be written in a clearer way. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it doesn't seem logical to have a different standard for delisting than for listing, unless it's made very clear, with a reason given. So therefore, my assumption is that a lack of total clarity is just an oversight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think I may have an answer to old delisting noms (from 2009) mentioned by El Grafo. A while ago, I happened to take a look at the Swedish translation of the FPC page info. I found that it hadn't been updated for ages! It stated that only 5 votes were necessary for an FP (of course I changed that), so it looked like in the past there might have been a 5-vote-rule for FPs. And yes looking at the page history for FPC, in 2009 only 5 votes were required. So it was "same as for FPs" back then too. --Cart (talk) 11:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    5 votes to 7 votes happened on 1 July 2010 per this discussion. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Example of 6 delist, 1 keep that was not delisted. I agree with the reading that 7 delist minimum and 2/1. -- KTC (talk) 11:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

clearing up the rules for delisting[edit]

@XRay, W.carter, Ikan Kekek, KTC: Thanks to all of you, it's now clear that I initially misunderstood the the rules. I'd like to propose a simple change in the wording to make the minimum of 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist more clear:

2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days

Any objections? --El Grafo (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks ok to me. A simple solution. --Cart (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • no problemo -- KTC (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Cart (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


Before we get too into this, SHOULD it be easier to delist than to list? I'm inclined to say yes... Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And I think it should be just as easy but no easier. Otherwise, I could imagine a situation in which a file is listed 7-3 and delisted 6-2. No good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the minimum of seven is a statement the validity of the vote in terms of participation, and the 2/3 majority is how we've decided where to draw the line. I am of the opinion we should raise the seven vote minimum (for both activities), as participation on the forum is high and good images easily get 10 votes quickly. But I'd like to suggest that another day. I don't see why the participation levels should be different for delist. The reasons for delist are not just a re-run of the original vote. -- Colin (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
But it's not like we'd say 6 keeps, two delists are closed as delist, so comparing it to the original vote isn't quite right. It's not a rerun of the original vote: It's asking if we should strip its status. Six delist four keep says a lot more negative about an image than seven promote three oppose. We certainly wouldn't promote an image on six opposes four supports. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty much exactly the reason for my initial confusion: how can something that gets 6 negative votes and not a single positive one retain its FP status? --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
El Grafo, it retains it on the grounds that not enough people offered their opinion on its status. A 100% negative voting could be 1 negative and 0 support, so where do we draw the line in terms of participation? Perhaps delists are underparticipated and should have a lower threshold for participation. If lots of people looked at the delist and thought "meh" then perhaps it isn't the end of the world if it is retained. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
You could also interpret it as none of the people looking at it liked it well enough to defend it against the delisting that would have happened with just one more negative vote. I have not had a look at the numbers, but my very subjective impression is that over the past couple of years participation in delisting votes has indeed been much lower than in votings for regular nominations. I might be wrong, but I'd bet a crate of fine Franconian Lager (unfiltered, ungespundet, amber-colored, delivery not included Face-wink.svg) that the majority of failed delist attempts did fail because of not reaching the 7 votes threshold rather than not making the 2:1 majority. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I think there are probably two reasons for people not to participate in delisting noms: (1) Some people post only supporting votes. That's unfortunate but clearly true. (2) Just not being able to decide or not caring. I know that oftentimes, when I don't vote on a nomination, it's either because I can't decide or because I have a different view than an overwhelming consensus and don't feel like sticking my neck out to no important purpose. Just because I feel "meh" about something everyone loves isn't necessarily a reason to say anything (though I often enough ask what people are loving so much about a photo that's not striking me much, hoping to learn something). A similar dynamic is at play on delisting votes. If I can't decide or don't really care one way or the other, I may not vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
+1 about your point #2. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Defamation from Photographer[edit]

Photographer has accused me of threatening the life of an endangered animal. This is a serious allegation. He has not withdrawn his libellous accusation. I seek guidance as to what sanctions can be imposed for this defamation. Wikipedia states that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." and "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." So the libel should be removed immediately, but by who? Charles (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a complaint for Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a thought. I also found an e-mail address on w:Libel. Charles 11:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although his claim is certainly nonsense, I wouldn't call it libel. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

More subcategories under "Sports"?[edit]

How about dividing the two categories of individual sports and team sports into more detailed categories like "soccer", "winter sports", "track and field", "cycling" and so forth, but keeping the existing ones? That would make it a bit more straight forward to sort new FPs into an appropriate category. I could just do it - but would that be appropriate? --Granada (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that change is needed. Here are my suggestions which you can cherry-pick.
You’ve got a bit of work ahead of you.
I would ping all users who’ve had a sports image promoted in the last couple of years and also say the top ten active successful FPC people.
I would scrap team and individual. It’s a silly split. Usain Bolt competed alone and in a team, so do sailors, golfers etc. etc.
I would have Winter Sports and Summer Sports as the first split, using the Olympic Games as a guide.
Within summer sports, it looks like the next split is water sports and land sports.
After that as a general principle I would split out an individual sport when it has 5+FPs, so football/soccer; athletics/track & field, cycling when it has 5 etc.
Good luck --Charles (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Granada, it is fully appropriate, and a very good idea, to create new sub-sections when there is a lot of images. Sometimes it is even necessary. Do not hesitate to modify this page, you are welcome. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, wouldn't you agree that some sports aren't strictly winter or summer sports? Baseball has a long season from spring to fall in the U.S. and Canada. Basketball is mainly an indoor sport, so it can be played in almost any weather. American football can be played even in driving snow and rain. And there are quite a few other examples. So I guess those sports should be primary subcategories under "Sports". Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes sure, take out Winter sports and you're left with 'other'. But remember the Olympics 'Summer' games are the time of year they happen and basketball is part of the summer Olympics. Charles (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the U.S., the National Basketball Association is huge and Olympic basketball is not that important. Though I guess on a worldwide basis... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Motor sports is a clear category. I thought about ball games, but water-polo and snooker made me think again. Is bull-fighting a sport? I hope not. Charles (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure it is, as is prizefighting. You and I don't have to like or approve of it for it to be a sport. Hell, American football is barbaric and results in brain injuries to large numbers of people - but it's still a sport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've done some counting and while counting I've tried to put every image I found in FP:Sports into a category. This shall not be mistaken as a proposal, but just my counting:
Category count
Motorsport 18
Track & Field 11
Surfing 12
Sailing and other water sports 9
Nordic skiing 6
Alpine skiing, snowboarding and related 7
Show jumping, horse racing and related 8
Tennis & table tennis 7
Fencing 4
Cycling 7
Soccer, Football 12
American Football, Rugby 13
Handball 7
Basketball 2
Ice hockey 1
Swimming, water polo & related 3
Paragliding 2
Mountain- and free climbing 2
Golf 1
Baseball 1
Bullfight 2
Wrestling 1
Gymnastics 2
There are quite a lot of categories with five or more photos, but also many with just a single photo of their kind. Taking five as a minimum this would create 12 categories, but leaves the rest to be categorized in a way I have no idea for. Also I am no expert in telling rugby from American football, so these images went into a common category --Granada (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
There's also Canadian football, which is different from American football but I think it's similar enough to share a category, and there's also Australian rules football, which merits its own subcategory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Five seems to be sensible as a hurdle for a separate section. We can easily separate rugby and other oval-balled sports. Just leave the rest for now. Charles (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Increase minimum resolution to 4K?[edit]

Hello all,

I initiated a discussion on increasing the minimum resolution (such that pictures fill up modern 4K monitors) on Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Increase minimum resolution to 4K? and as Cart pointed out this discussion is highly relevant to FP since the Commons:Image guidelines are the same and this page gets the most relevant traffic. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For some hard-to-photograph wildlife images, 4K is inappropriate. Charles (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, the discussion is on the other page, and isn't just about 4k. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For most landscapes and architectural shots, our effective standards are already much higher than 2 MP. For a shot with mild "wow" factor, I might oppose a 12 MP image when I'd support a 120 MP version of the same image, but I'll go so far as to nominate a spectacular 4 MP image. What I'm saying is, at QIC uniform standards make sense because you must have a reason to decline an image. At FPC it can be simply because you don't like it. So I don't think minimum requirements are necessary at FPC, as participants will compare each candidate to what is possible and ask themselves, is this among the best we have to offer? -- King of ♠ 01:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • King of Hearts could everyone please stop (a) voting and (b) voting here. The discussion is on the other page. Voting is evil. There's a discussion to be had about whether we have minimum standards and what they should be, rather than blanket opposing on the first idea to come into someone's head. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Colin: The discussion for QI is there. If we're going to discuss FPs, it needs to be done here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • To be honest, the whole thing is a mess because "Increase minimum resolution to 4K" was proposed without, IMO, thinking through what that meant. There's a rather wide variety of views on what the minimum size might be, and don't see much point in rehashing that right now with exactly the same people on a different page. I think starting a discussion during the Christmas holidays was also a bad time. Suspect it is probably best to just mull it over for a while then someone make a proposal that properly considers all the different kinds of photography, issues with photography, issues with downsizing, etc, etc. If QI can't come to an agreement on threshold, then I don't see why FP would be any more likely. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Shutterstock[edit]

A number of images belonging to Commons users are being sold on Shutterstock. See Andrew Marwan's Shuttestock account and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Theft by a Commons user. If you recognise any of your photos you can contact Shutterstock by emailing "submit@shutterstock.com". The user User:MarwanAndrew is likely the same guy. Please look at the upload file list. They appear to be mainly from Morocco so perhaps are genuinely his photos, but it would be good if others could examine. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Category for landscapes with human elements[edit]

A large majority of our FPs are either landscapes or architecture. When it fits cleanly into one of those categories, it's great, and we have many useful subcategories such as cityscapes, towers, etc. But often it doesn't. Take some of my own FPs for example:

Now QI does have a wonderful category for these kinds of pictures: Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Mixed. Why not have something similar here, and avoid all the mental gymnastics required to squeeze these square pegs into round holes? -- King of ♠ 03:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: This is no big problem. It's just like when we get an FP of a previously unrepresented plant or animal species; a new section/subsection is created. Someone just have to take the time to do it. Objects now fixed. For your other photos of gazebos in parks or small bridges in landscapes there is the mixed page/category Commons:Featured pictures/Places (or "Other places" as it's called in the FP template). Feel free to move those photos to that page. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see! I thought Commons:Featured pictures/Places was just a metacat, didn't realize it was meant to hold images. -- King of ♠ 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abfertigen einer Meldung durch Brieftauben - CH-BAR - 3240471 - restoration.jpg[edit]

Um, this may be an odd thing to complain about, and I appreciate the sentiment... I'm pretty sure that this shouldn't be featured since I withdrew it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, technically you didn't withdraw it since you didn't use the {{withdraw}} template, which is the only way you can "tell" the FPC Bot that the photo is out of the game. Most users will not take just a written "Withdraw" seriously either, they want the template. So now you have two options: Fix the thing that was wrong with it really fast or nominate it for delisting, otherwise you are stuck with an FP. Commons bureaucracy I'm afraid. --Cart (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking that the unique oppose vote is my vote, its should be easier to withdraw my vote than to withdraw the nomination. I think the majority spoke and you were wrong to not use the template, unfortunately it was a technical error and I think you should not charge in your consciousness to have a FP that is not, please, simply take into account my recommendations and upload a new version or just forget the subject, nobody will tell you anything. Thank you for your sincerity and concern, not all users see FPC as an opportunity to improve themselves --Photographer 02:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, well. Anyway, I should note this, though I doubt anyone will care: Because of the failed withdrawal, I think there was like, a day when I had three nominations up. Sorry. I thought it was two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Shit happens. Face-wink.svg There were no malicious thoughts behind it, so go in peace Adam. You'll do it right next time. --Cart (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)