Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 4

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

Contents

Commons:Press releases/1000FP[edit]

Commons has over 1000 FPs now. pretty cool. please add some interesting things to Commons:Press releases/1000FP. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What about featured picture candidates that are not used?[edit]

As we want complete/latin names, geolocalisations and descriptions, a featured picture candidate can be unused... The first goal of wikimedia is to provide medias for all wikipedias... can we accept to promote a picture while it's unused and maybe unuseful ? (sorry for my poor english) Sanchezn 20:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

An image doesn't need to be actually used, but it must be at least potentially useful for some Wikimedia project. I would even say for some potential future project: we are not simply collecting encyclopaedic images here. On the other hand, if an image is really unuseful for practical purposes it shouldn't be on Commons at all, let alone as an FP. --MichaelMaggs 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Besides agreeing with Michael. There are several topics of which we have a lot of good and helpful pictures in the commons galleries and categories - you can't put them all into the related wiki-article. In a wikipedia article you can link to the commons gallery or category, so people who are interested can watch more pictures related to that article. So in the end most pictures on Commons are used in wikipedias. --AngMoKio 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A number of potential candidates awaits...[edit]

Featurable?
Featurable?

I have a somewhat unusual request. A friend has been uploading images to Commons and Serbian Wikipedia for a while, mostly plants, animals and landscapes (she is a biologist). However, not knowing about the recommendations, she was uploading them in quite a low resolution.

So, could anyone go through her galleries at Commons and at Serbian Wikipedia to identify pictures which have the potential to become QIs or featured? I would then ask her to upload them in the highest resolution. Nikola Smolenski 14:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask her to upload her pictures at the highest possible resolution in any case. --Dschwen 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hard to say anyway which pictures would be featurable. Many low quality pictures look like high quality pictures if they are downsampled. They should all be done with high resolution if possible. -- Ram-Man 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, all of these look like they have a chance. Adam Cuerden 06:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Protecting FPC log pages[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to protect FPC log pages and closed nominations so that CommonsDelinker can not automatically break the archives, like this or this. In most cases such delinking will break the archives, and if delinking really is needed it is better to let an administrator do it manually for these logs. /90.229.135.58 19:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear 90.229.135.58, I do share your concern. -- Klaus with K 13:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing[edit]

I think the authors should be able to withdraw a nomination of their work too as it's their work that's being critiqued. I've made the change to the guidelines, feel free to discuss and/or change it back if there is opposition. Dori - Talk 19:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. Why should the author of an image have the right to prevent it from being featured here? Authors have licensed their work for free re-use, and that must include posting and discussion here. Allowing authors that amount of control would effectively allow them to post images to Commons under a partially-unfree licence. At least one user (I forget who, now) has explicitly tried to do this. --MichaelMaggs 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing is preventing us from using the images, however here they're being critiqued, and that might hurt the author's feelings. I don't see how it's different from the nominator withdrawing the work. If they had nominated the work themselves they could withdraw it. Why would this be different? It's not a matter of legality or control, it's a matter of being courteous to our contributors and not discouraging them from contributing their work. Unfree licensed work is a whole other matter and has nothing to do with FPC. Dori - Talk 22:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this can be handled on a case by case basis, I don't see a need to provide a rule for it. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree very much with you Dori. I think that both the nominator and contributor should be allowed to withdraw an FPC. It is a matter of courtesy. The typical case is when the creator knows an Image is not FP-quality and despite that it is nominated by another user and critizied in public at FPC. In those cases the creator typically kindly asks the nominator to withdraw the FPC, and the nominator then normally withdraws it in courtesy of the creator.
I quickly trolled through the last few months of FPCs and here is an (incomplete) list of events
There really aren't that many, but as I see it, no harm would be done in letting the creator withdraw an FPC, when it has been nominated by another user. It is a smoother process than asking the nominator to do it. In the unlikely case that some brilliant contributor systematically refuses to get the users excellent contributions nominated at FPC we may reconsider, but right now i think it would be operationally more optimal to let the creator withdraw an FPC. -- Slaunger 21:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ben Aveling: there is no need for a rule, case by (rare) case works obviously just fine. Lycaon 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree it is necessary that authors should be able to withdraw a nomination. If they feel that strongly about having a nomination removed, they're free to request this, I suppose, but there's certainly no reason to give them power over potential criticism they might receive. Anrie 13:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured revision[edit]

Seems like this might have come up before, but shouldn't the featured template specify the revision that was featured? After all, a later edit might actually make the picture worse than it was at the time it was featured. Dori - Talk 21:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is usually clear which version has been promoted by looking at the date the template was added in the history compared to the upload date. It might make things more obvious to add a date stamp each time we add a FP/QI template, eg {{QualityImage}}~~~~~. And yes, any modification of the image should cause it to be re-submitted to FPC or QIC as 'improvements' are often not improvements! Best to upload 'improvements' of QI/FP images as separate files :-) --Tony Wills 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture template[edit]

I thought it might be worthwhile adding a 'featured' star to the top of all featured picture pages using the featured picture template like on the English Wikipedia (and maybe others). I have mentioned this on the templates talk page, but i suspect that isn't viewed too much so thought i would put it here too. Chris_huhtalk 18:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That would be problematic, as it would duplicate the star on projects like en:wp. AzaToth 18:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, i didn't think of that. Is there a way (like the <noinclude> tags) to not transfer certain stuff across to other projects? Chris_huhtalk 19:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a way to not include it on wikipedia (and other projects), but it could always have a Commons featured star which would shift to one side (ie not set absolutely) when the image is featured on both projects. The commons one could have a slightly different icon, and link to commons features pictures. Just a thought. Chris_huhtalk 00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is POTY 2008 ?[edit]

It is past 9 here, in Europe, and there is no visible sign of POTY 2008, except for a tiny line on top on Commons pages (very difficult to read, by the way). I saw no announcements, either in Commons (Main Page, FPC, QIC, etc.) or in the other wikis. Anything wrong? -- Alvesgaspar 09:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It is posted on COM:VP. There does not seem to be anything wrong seeing the galleries at least (haven't tried voting). I have asked there for a more clear link from on the main page. -- Slaunger 09:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It is now posted on the main page. -- Slaunger 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

PDFs and OGGs[edit]

I've been involved with a PDF Media:Yeomen of the Guard - A Laughing Boy.pdf and an ogg Media:Little Maid of Arcadee.ogg. Can I nominate these anywhere? Adam Cuerden 13:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disappearing Nominations[edit]

What causes nominations to disappear with no log and no mention and nothing? -- carol 02:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the newest nomination, it may come from some, old, cached version of the FPC page. Benh 19:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem has been resolved and I don't know if it was me not seeing/finding the image in the logs or what. Mystery resolution. -- carol 23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes from newly created users[edit]

Moved here from Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Weiße Baumnymphe Idea leuconoe 5 Richard Bartz.jpg --norro 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question Shall we take into account a vote from a newly created user with no contribution but votes on FPC and such poor justifications ? Benh 22:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Any registered user can vote for FPC. --norro 09:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes but it takes seconds to register... it's almost like allowing anonymous votes. There should be a few days between registration and first vote on FPC. Benh 07:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right, registration is not a huge obstacle to overcome. But I don't see that this rule has done much damage yet or will in future. It even works for image uploads where you also just have to be registered. But if we would alter the handling of votes from new accounts, commons community would be a little less open. --norro 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the "open" point too, but in that case, why not allowing anonymous votes ? If users have to be registered, then it's not much more to require them to be registered for a few days. Even 1 day would be nice. But I wonder if this rule can be changed this easily. -- Benh 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I brought up the same topic some time ago and I have to agree with Benh. We don't even know if this rule has done much damage so far. As far as I know we don't have a statistic of the number of votes that were made by newly created users and of how much those votes influenced the voting. --AngMoKio 13:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How could we "take a poll" and see whether other wikimedians agree to change that rule or not then ? shall we add a message on the FPC page, which would make it more visible ? Benh 21:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see votes from new users as a problem. It happens occasionally that new users make some votes which seems strange or seem to reflect that they have not understood what FP is about. On the other hand I see these users votes influence on the outcome as being below the noise floor. If a single starnge oppose vote results in a declined FP, well then that cabdidate was properly borderline already. Users giving obviously nonsense votes are often challenged by other reviewers when this happens, which usually results in one of several outcomes: (i) The user leaves FPC again, (ii) The user gradually learns the name of the game improves own reviews, (iii) After some discussions it actually turns out that the new user has some valid points, which helps stir the pot among the regulars, (iv) (very seldomly) the user becomes disruptive. This is handled as all other types of disruptive behaviour. I think there are several examples of "new" users, who has really made a mess in the beginning but gradually learned the game and has become a qualified reviewer. I think we should keep it this way. The FPC circuitry is sometimes accused for being a too closed circle of insiders. Disallowing new users will only add to those accusations. If you are concerned about suckpuppets and new users, I would not be worried about that too. As I see it we have regulars and administrators who spot issues like suckpuppets, meatpuppets and national voting very fast. Just my opinion. -- Slaunger 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you think that User:RBID is Richard Bartz? "Still bad"? -- carol 15:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I always wondered how you can identify a socketpuppet? Most likely sth about the used IP...but what about people using the same internet connection and so on. I don't think that you can clearly identify them. Btw here is the discussion we already had --AngMoKio 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I ran into this one today. When I saw that the votes had been canceled by an admin, I applied that same sense of 'there is nothing I can do about that' to the situation. -- carol 16:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Here (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER.jpg) is another suspicious case. User Vanrip, Nasosi and maybe also Cpl Syx have very few edits and all vote pro for Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MOSQUE-ON-WATER.jpg. Can someone check that case? --AngMoKio 11:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I have struck some votes in the one referred to above based on Checkuser evidence. There are strong similarities with the uploader/proposer & I believe the accounts to have been created for this purpose. I have warned the uploader. For now - assuming good faith - I have not blocked the additional accounts but would not be against doing that.
As one of the project's checkusers I am happy to take a look at any concerns that established users have with voting here and will always do what I can to help. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help! Does it make sense to create a report page for such cases? --AngMoKio 13:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess if you want to you can create a "case" here (& that may well be the "right" way to do it). However I am always happy to take a look at something if I am around & would always do what I can to help. Worth checking that I am currently "active" but if I am then my talk page (or email is open) will get you a response. It does strike me as remarkable how some people discover this aspect of Commons on the first upload :) Regards --Herby talk thyme 13:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I'm the uploader that Herby was talking about above. I DID NOT create those accounts ( Vanrip and Nasosi) but I do know those users. As I told the Herby earlier, we couldn't find anything that states clearly that it is against the rules(they had to register because "Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted"). -- Ilmarry 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the problem when new users are immediately allowed to vote. When I want that my pic gets featured, I ask all my friends to create an account and vote for my pic. They might do that just to support me as a friend or because they really think the photo has value. I guess the first option will be more often the case.
And we can't really identify socket puppets. People/users with few edits using the same internet connection will always have a credibility problem, if they vote both for the same pic. I think we could get rid of this problem, if we add to the rules that users are only allowed to vote, if they have more than x (to be defined) edits. Because only very few people will build up 2 or more users with various edits just to get more votes. --AngMoKio 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, I agree with AngMokio that only users with a certain number of edits (and a certain number of days) should be allowed to vote. I don't think that measure to be excessive or limitative of any fundamental rights. Right now, it appears we are been assaulted by a new swarm (of socketpuppets?) -- Alvesgaspar 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(indents reset) As Ilmarry correctly states it is not mentioned explicitly in COM:FPC that votes from friends, family, etc. are not allowed, in short, meatpuppets. I really think we should add a statement which in general terms makes clear that coordinated voting is not allowed. This would also embrace national voting, which we have experiencing from time to time typically triggered by some note on a national forum, like the local village pump urging to support this or that image from Ubonia. If we make this entirely clear, the scene is set straighter. In this particular case I think we should assume good faith and not come on down too hard on the nominator.
Some months ago, User:Acarpentier entered the FPC scene in a similar way not being conscious about meatpuppets. That spurred a lot of heated debate and eventually triggered that a very significant contributor left Commons for some months. Luckily User:Acarpentier learned from the experience and made several outstanding contributions the following months including several fair game FPCs. I think it is good that AngMoKio got suspicious in this case and that CU User:Herbythyme rapidly reacted, and I do not think we should get too worried about this. It is normally quite evident when this takes place. Concerning the idea of requiring that a user has done such and so many edits to vote, well maybe it would help, but how should such a rule be reinforced? To my knowledge we do not have tools available which can automatically check that, and certainly not at the time of voting. Is it a rule to use if you get suspicious? -- Slaunger 20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm not usually suspicious but this time the situation with two particular new users seems fishy. WinSocket uploaded a single picture and then proceeded imediately to COM:FPC. All his edits are between 17:13 and 17:26, today. User:RedWine uploaded 2 pictures and then did the same thing, all between 20:34 and 20:46 yesterday. Yes, I think that it is a rule one should apply in case of suspicion, like it is now. What about 100 edits and 15 days? -- Alvesgaspar 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Herbythyme could check these two users as well. Personally, I do not think we should impose such an edit count/account duration rule. The amount of edits and the duration after creating an account does not necessarily say anything about the capability of the user to review an image or whether it is coordinated voting. There can be competent users, who has browsed Commons for ages and perhaps used it as an image repository as an editor on other WMF projects without having an active account. Users who are perfectly aware of the FPC circuitry. I do not see any reason why such users can't just jump in. For me, the users should just be checked when a suspicion is raised independent of the account age and edit count. Of course the probability that such a suspicion is raised is larger the less known the user is at FPC and the more peculiar the actions. -- Slaunger 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The reason why I support the proposal is because itis the simplest and most effective way to make life more difficult to sockepuppets. The rule could be easily applied by anyone in case of suspicion, without the need of an admin. Unexperienced users don't (usually) bother me. Like everyone else I have done some mistakes and made stupid remarks and will continue to do so from time to time... Alvesgaspar 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I will certainly look into some of the issues above (& I have mailed fellow CUs to make them aware of the concerns of the community). Eligibility to vote is a thorny issue - a part of me would like to include all the people we possibly can (it is a wiki after all!), however some criteria may be useful. It certainly makes me thoughtful when new users seem to find certain aspects of the project so easily at the start of their editing. From my view point I am a servant of the community (my view on all admin type rights) so if there are concerns & I can help I will certainly do so. --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Thank you Herby. I still think it is worth extending the present clause in COM:FPC about anonymous votes to also include votes from friends, collegues, family members, and national voting. Just to make this point absolutely clear. I do not know exactly how to formulate that in a concise manner though - not a native speaker. -- Slaunger 13:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think that this is realistic. We need more good photographers here - so why not ask friends, colleagues and family members to join the project? If I do so, I have a problem when I want to vote for a pic and my friend/colleague/family member wants to vote too (which will be most likely quite often the case). How do you want to solve that problem? --AngMoKio 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
            • The problem is real Commons consensus. It would be possible for me to upload a file, arrange for family & friends to create accounts & overwhelm the process & wishes of the longer term contributors to Commons by getting them to support my picture. That is what would concern me here --Herby talk thyme 14:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
              • I agree. That's why I think it makes sense to let only people vote who have a certain amount of edits and are members for a certain amount of days. This way I think it doesn't matter if it is a friend or a family member. --AngMoKio 14:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I see your point, AngMoKio about friends, collegies and family, etc. On second thought I think it would be more correct to add explicitly that campaigning is not allowed. So, telling your collegues, "Hey, these weird Commons users don't like my nice picture. Make an account and vote for it." would clearly not be OK. Having said that, I would sertainly ask any I know from outside Commons not to vote on any of my own nominations simply to avoid giving them the dilemma of wanting to be nice or do an (as well as possible) objective review, which may turn out to be an oppose vote. -- Slaunger 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
                  • Could there be an instance where a person got everyone they knew to support a Nomination and it still didn't change the outcome of it? That would make all of the people who have been involved for a really long while look, hmm, very credible, capable and strong together? -- carol 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think FPC needs yet another rule, yes people can get all their friends etc to vote, but how often does it happen? Also a negative vote is worth two positive votes so it only takes half as many people to defeat such a campaign. Finally we have a delisting process which corrects for all sorts of erroneous promotions. If it is felt that a note about it is absolutely necessary, add a note about campaigns pointing out the integrity of FP relies on people honestly assessing images and not voting en-block just to support someone. Don't add rules that encourage contributors to make judgements about other peoples votes and even delete other peoples votes because to their assumptions, it just generates conflict. Assume good faith :-) --Tony Wills 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry to add to an old discussion, but was reading through the Talk page and saw my username mentioned above. Firstly I'd like to clarify that I know none of the creators on here personally. My Wikipedia account is of the same name, I should probably redirect my Wikimedia userpage to it to prevent a similar case arising again. Secondly, there is the fact that I created a Wikimedia account for the sole purpose of voting on FPs; as a photographer myself it is interesting to see what others are contributing. Surely by adding a minimum number of edits you are forcing users who are of the same grain as myself to jump through unnecessary hoops? And lastly I wondered if any more progress has been made in regard to this matter. Cpl Syx 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding new nomination, take 2[edit]

I'm always wondering why we have to copy paste a text when being taken to a new FPC nom page by the "create new nomination" form. What about replacing the current nomination form by :


It's pretty much the same thing except that the text area is preloaded with the wiki code, instead of having to be copy/pasted -- Benh 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That signs it with your signature, you know. Adam Cuerden 02:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
WOOPS ! trying to find a fix -- Benh 08:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think I fixed it. Could you give it another try please ?? -- Benh 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • That works! I've taken the liberty of putting it in. Adam Cuerden 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And thanks for "reviewing" ! I was thinking about changing the instruction text first, and make it more "eye-catching" but I think it's OK. Benh 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
        • It's showing up with subst in it when it shouldn't I think. Was it like that when you started it or did something change in the software. --Dori - Talk 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem[edit]

{{helpme}} Something strange happened on Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Image:Ivan_the_Terrible_and_Harsey.jpg.

A flower image from under it has disappeared and suddenly it looks as though this good image has opposing votes. Jaakobou 18:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I've (partially) fixed it. Adam Cuerden 19:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange display[edit]

The file itself and the way it appears in FPC nom look like two different crops.

Help? Durova 07:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved (thanks to sage offsite advice). Durova 09:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Need your help and photography-relate knowledge[edit]

Please help to correct and expand the page : Commons:Photography terms. Your help will be helpful for all newbies interesting by photography. 220.135.4.212 13:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Help:Scanning[edit]

At the moment, most of the advice for nominators applies only to photographs. Do you think we should link Help:Scanning, to give advice for other types of pictures? Of course, that's a relatively new page, but, well, I did nominate or scan a good chunk of the Engraving and so on FPCs. Adam Cuerden 06:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. --MichaelMaggs 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A new template for WP:FP[edit]

Template:WPFP I have noticed that the Featured Picture template from the English Wikipedia doesn't show in Commons and other wikis. I have made this small template for those of us who have such pictures. The effect can be seen here, in the Summary section. -- Alvesgaspar 11:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A similar template already exists Template:Featured_picture_on -- Gorgo 15:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose votes[edit]

IMO oppose votes, which do not explain why the image is opposed should not be counted. If an opposer has problems with English he/she could write something in his/her native language at least.What do you think?--Mbz1 13:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. For an opposing vote a comment should be compulsory. It is much more helpful, when the nominator can read what is maybe wrong with the picture. --AngMoKio 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is certainly better with a native statement than no statement. Often there are other reviewers along, who can translate or at least understand partially what the comment is about. However, requiring an explanation from oppose votes (and not support votes) is followed by an asymmetry, which may give biased results. Lazy reviewers can be inclined to support (without) any comments on images he/she supports but abstain from opposing images he/she does not support because it requires more effort. As a result images may be promoted, which ought not be promoted. Why not require a reason for supporting too? Acctually, I seem to recall, that in very old days, you actually only cast support votes, because the effort in arguing your oppose votes was too large, or do I remember wrong? ;-) -- Slaunger 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You are absolutely right.I did.--Mbz1 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, both oppose and support votes should require a reason in the case. --βαςεLXIV 10:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it's courteous and the right thing to do, however I don't think we should discount such votes. --Dori - Talk 17:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't see how this could work. First of all, what's an explanation? Is something like "I don't like the picture" enough? What about "stupid picture"? Or "I agree with xxx"? And finally who decides if an explanation is not good enough and doesn't get counted? -- Gorgo 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    I did not mean to request any specific explanation, but just an explanation (any explanation), just few words to keep in the history, but whatever...--Mbz1 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think we have to life with this. Its not friendly but vote is vote--Richard Bartz 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not about unfriendly votes. For most of my images I do not care to know a reason for oppose, but, when a 15-years old boy opposes such hard to understand image as , for example, mirage, I am not even sure he understands the subject and he knows what he's opposing to. Sure I gave the link to the article, but did he read it, did he understand it? Was his English enough to understand? Who knows. That's why I wish he explained his reason, but of course as User:Gorgo says an opposer could write anything he/she wishes to write, like for example, "No wow" and it will do it. That's why I agree with you, Richard, and with you, Gorgo that vote is a vote and we should live with this.--Mbz1 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think things are fine as they are. Occasionally a new voter will neglect to specify a reason for an opposing vote, but most will give a reason next time when asked politely to do so (often by LLycaon) as a courtesy to the nominator. I'm aware of only one voter who in spite of repeated requests often doesn't explain a nagative vote. --MichaelMaggs 16:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FPC Statistics update[edit]

FP statistics Mar February 2008-1.JPG FP statistics Mar February 2008-2.JPG

Here are some statistics of the FPC process from 2004 to the present. These are approximate numbers as I was too lazy to discount the delisting nominations. Anyway it is interesting to verify that the percentage of promotions seems to have stabilized at about 20/25%. It would also be interesting to collect data on the number of support and oppose votes, but that is too much work... I leave a more detailed analysis of these data to others. I'll be glad to send the Excel file with the numbers by email.-- Alvesgaspar 18:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Great work! Thank you for posting.--Mbz1 16:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice, if you want I could try to create SVG's instead of jpgs. /Daniel78 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Archives[edit]

Can the page not be archived by a bot as with the talk page? Maybe it is but I looked and missed it. RTG 14:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about the nominations, which are archived by hand (I'm doing that job for the moment) -- Alvesgaspar 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been thinking about that casually for several month now, so I want to make a suggestion. Cleaning up FPC is really lots of work as Alves probably will confirm. There is the posssibility that this can be done by a bot, although a slight change in the result summary would be necessary. If the result would be indicated by using templates like {{result featured|cat=MAM}} and {{result not featured}}, a bot could do all the archiving work. The cat parameter would give the category of the featured picture. A bot could then do all the moving, logging, categorising automated. Since I already started a minor approach a few weeks ago I would volunteer writing such a bot. What do you think? --norro 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Great idea! I wonder why it hasn't been done yet. I'm a little skeptic about the archiving of the pics in the thematic FP and chronological pages though. Hope I'm wrong. Good work! -- Alvesgaspar 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This would be great! Full (moral) support. --MichaelMaggs 21:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Featured picture mul[edit]

Please mark successful noms with {{Featured picture mul|com=1}} from now on. Thanks all. -- Cat ちぃ? 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice idea and a good job, thank you -- Alvesgaspar 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is very usefull and easy to use. Thanks Cat.--Manco Capac 06:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Featured picture mul}} was renamed to {{Assessments}} as it now has a broader scope including POTY.
Usage hasn't changed: {{Assessments|featured=1}}
-- Cat ちぃ? 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not the same model, at least the size of the barnstar has changed. I liked the first one but I don't like this one -- Alvesgaspar 19:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the same style and the size of the featured star did change a little (its 20px smaller). I can make it larger but that causes format problems. You could adjust the star size with the size parameter. Try {{Assessments|featured=1|size=50px}}. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you look at Image:Japanese Squirrel WUXGA.jpg you will see the use of smaller images. I think they look nicer. No? -- Cat ちぃ? 11:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Reducing the default logo size from 50 to 30 pixels corresponds to a reduction to 36% of the original area. I would not call that "a little". Personally, I prefer the original logo size of 50 pixels. -- Slaunger 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes I was trying to conserve 36% (your calculation) or 20px of width. The size of the featured logo doesn't matter. It is recognizable in any size. -- Cat ちぃ? 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Why has some of the text that is shown in {{Featured picture}} been removed? -- Slaunger 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? I merely reworded
"We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination" as
"it is considered one of our finest images" where "considered" links to the nomination
This rewording reduced the text width so that everything more easily fits a single line. What exactly is your concern?
-- Cat ちぃ? 21:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
And PLEASE stop replacing the "Featured picture" template I have put back in my FP's. While there is no consensus on this matter that is an illegitimate action. Instead you should revert the changes made in all FP -- Alvesgaspar 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
A nice idea and a good job, thank you -- Alvesgaspar 20:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


You were saying that about two weeks ago. Now you are asking me to mass revert all my hard work. I'd rather delete the main page. -- Cat ちぃ? 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sizes[edit]

30px
50px
80px

Chronological archive of FP - proposal[edit]

The present format of the chronological archive of FP is too heavy and ackward to handle. What do you think of a simpler one like this? I intend to start using it (with possible improvements) next May 1st. -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine in principle. Might it be better to wait, though, and see what can be automated by norro? --MichaelMaggs 05:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have that in mind. Some decisions about the future formats will have to be made before the automation begins and these experiences will be certainly useful. In the meantime I have further simplified the information about each picture in the gallery. I don't think it is relevant to show the result of the voting, after the promotion all FP are alike. Alvesgaspar 07:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FP promotion question[edit]

Hi Alves, Regarding this. Did you notice that the last voter opposes all versions. I believe that means the original does not pass then...?? Cheers, -- Slaunger 10:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, that is not the way things are held here, where each nomination has its own entry. If I had noticed before I could have warned the user but now it is too late. I don't think that any really important opinion was lost though, as Barabas has opposed all but one nominations since he arrived here last month. -- Alvesgaspar 11:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, its not I want to make a fuzz out of it, but where is it stated explicitly that each edit has its own entry? And even if it was I think it is pretty clear that barbaras intention with the vote is to oppose all versions as it is boldfaced. Strictly speaking I do not think that the fact barbaras is a newcomer and almost consistently opposes all nominations is really relevant for whether to include the vote or not. In principle barbaras is entitled to have that opinion. It would have been different if we had some kind of approval of reviewers. However the fact is that being registered is enough. -- Slaunger 11:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact that Barabas is a newcomer didn't have any weigth in the decision, that was just a personal comment. Each edit having its own poll is a long and consolidated practise here. Anyway, that wouldn't have changed the result since the last oppose vote by Aqwis came too late and didn't count... -- Alvesgaspar 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Moving the discussion to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates -- Alvesgaspar 12:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that in this case it does not change the final result. The principal discussion is still relevant though, so I think it is fine you have moved the discussion to COM:FPC talk scope. -- Slaunger 12:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do we really have that selection criteria?[edit]

You probably all know what I mean. Yes, once again I mean "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Let's, for example, take that nomination of mine: nomination. Aren't my subjects difficult enough and the picture is not bad enough :-) to be considered a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary (not moving subject), for example? There were quite a few others nominations by me and other users that IMO should have been promoted under that same criteria, but were opposed for quality. Maybe it is a good idea to remove that criteria because IMO very few FP reviewers ever use it anyway. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is useful and often used appropriately. For example, a low quality underwater image in Antarctica was made a featured picture, IIRC, because 1) it has great content and 2) its defects could be forgiven to the extreme difficulty in shooting that image. No offense intended, but your shot was not nearly that difficult, so I think for many reviewers the guideline does not really apply to the same degree in your situation. -- Ram-Man 04:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are right - my image is not nearly as difficult as underwater image in Antarctica, but isn't this a very extreme sample? Maybe then we should add to that criteria :"To use only in extreme situations" and give as an example an underwater image from Antarctica? BTW Could you please give the link to the image. I'd like to see it.--Mbz1 05:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is an extreme example. I was trying to point out that there is a continuum. Trivial subjects require very high technical perfection while the most difficult subjects require the lowest technical bar. Images not at the extreme will be judged with varying levels of technical requirement. Perhaps the biggest issue that you face is that each person weighs the quality/difficulty ratio differently. You can't really avoid that though. Here is the original nomination. -- Ram-Man 05:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you. It is a geat image. I would have supported it at once.--Mbz1 05:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • BTW, the image you see now was not the one that was originally put up for voting. I replaced it by a much better quality one by the end of the process. Lycaon 05:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was surprised tha the image quality was so good. Now I know why. :-)--Mbz1 11:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In my opinion the expression "difficult subject" doesn't necessarily mean technical dificulty but, most of times, rarity. In the case of your birds, that is a quite common subject though not very easy to catch. It's all a question of patience and skill. -- Alvesgaspar 09:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree about rarity. I could not find any similar image at Commons, I could not find any similar image at Flickr. It let me to believe that it is a very rare image indeed not because the birds or fish are rare, but because of the combination of these things. Two birds and a fish close to shore and a person with the camera ready (well more or less ready) is a very rare combination IMO. What I am trying to say that IMO it is not excactly right practice to apply the same quality standardts to an image of the fast and unexpectly moving subjects and the image of for example a flower. Let's even take for examle, an image of a hummingbird. It is a very difficult subjecet, but one could use a tripod because a hummingbird comes to the same flower over and over again. In my situation tripod would not have been of any use.Anyway I just wanted to share with you some thoughts. Thak you.--Mbz1 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

FP template[edit]

Something is going wild with the FP template changes. First, we changed from "Template: Featured picture" to "Template:Feature picture mul", and that was an improvement IMO. But now, "Template:Feature picture mul" is being replaced (by a robot) by "Template:Assessements" and there seems to be an attempt to include various types of information in that template (FP, QI and other info). This is not the proper way to handle things and I think we, at FPC and QIC, have a word to say on that matter. -- Alvesgaspar 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know of any consensus about those renaming exercises :( Lycaon 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to consensus, but I personally don't mind it (so far). It makes complicated images like this one look a lot better, for sure. -- Ram-Man 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be discussed here: Template_talk:Assessments. /Daniel78 00:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well that's only a few hours under the name assessments then, as it was renamed recently. It would have been nice if people concerned had been notified (e.g. in FPC talk pages). Lycaon 00:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
A related discussion is here. -- Slaunger 06:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And also here. A partly releted discussion on template protection can be found here. It has ended up with her resignation as an admin. Not sure how that will affect what she has been doing. --MichaelMaggs 08:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is the proper place to debate the question (where else?) but here is my opinion. I agree with putting all FP awards in the same template (like in Template:Featured picture mul), they are qualitatively of the same type and the barnstars are identical. That results in a more elegant and less cluttered display. I don't agree with merging the FP awards with QI, POTY, etc.. The possible saving in space does not justify a confusing template, more difficult to apply and to interpret. Furthermore our beautiful barnstars are reduced to an insignificant size. Another question is how to handle the present situation while we discuss the subject. I think that the recent changes in the actual FP templates, made by a robot, should be reverted at once as they are not supported by any consensus. Anyone interested (and capable) of doing that? BTW, the former "Template:Featured picture mul" has been deleted and now redirects to the new Assessements one. -- Alvesgaspar 15:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hm, well. I proposed the name change. But it looks like not much discussion was allowed. This whole bussines was handled suboptimal so far :-(. Anyway, the new template makes sense. It reduces clutter and if you get off the whole featured picture or award trip and reevaluate the purpose of all those little templates, then they all (in some way or another, according to different criteria) are dealing with assessments of the images (potd is an outlier, but it usually is connected to fp). So the overall outcome could be good. --Dschwen 02:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe so, and I would have accepted that conclusion if it were the result of an ample consensus. I don't want to inflamate the affair either but that shouldn't prevent us of doing what's right: to revert all changes made to the actual featured picture files until a proper agreement is reached. I'm putting the two templates together so we can see how they look like. Alvesgaspar 07:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This template is deprecated.
Български | বাংলা | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Zazaki | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | +/−
Featured picture This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons. We think it is one of the finest images on Commons; see its nomination. If you have an image of similar quality that can be published under a suitable copyright license, be sure to upload it, tag it, and nominate it. Wikimedia Commons

There are some problems with the template:
  • It does not document the support for linking to featured picture candidacies where the link is not in the form Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Exact image name of the one promoted.ext - A common situation where edits have been done.
  • Every. Single. One. of the En-wiki candidate links are broken: En-wiki does not use commons formatting for candidacy pages. It is presumably possible to get the candidacy link from the en-wiki page for the image, but, again, not supported.
In short, a rushed-through idea that, with a little bit more care, could have been managed without the need for dozens of bot edits. Adam Cuerden 07:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is an interesting idea to try and decrease the number of award templates, but the discussion about this should be taken beforehand on the affected projects talk pages, experiments should be done in an unrestricted sandbox template, without touching the existing templates and the rsult shall be thoroughly tested with worked out examples and shown alongside with what we have today for comparison. Only then, if consensus is reached, should other templates be used. First, the new {{Featured picture mul}} template, now replaced with the new {{Assessments}} template has been used for prototyping of new concepts while using it as (what should be a stable) FP template. Although I feel the intentions have been good from the creators side, previous working functionality is broken (like overriding default FP subpage names with other names, when there are edits), logos are presented in different sizes and the displayed text has been changed without consensus. Most of us cannot even go fix it because the template is restricted. This is really annoying. I propose to roll back everything to the time when we used {{Featured picture}} on the image pages. This is an extremely stable template which works as intended. {{Assessments}} shall then be unprotected and we can continue the discussion about such a thing could work and everybody can improve on the template. -- Slaunger 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. /Daniel78 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree also. --MichaelMaggs 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, but I suppose it will have to be done by an admin. Any volunteer? -- Alvesgaspar 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As I agree too, I have unprotected the template (registered users only). Lycaon 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I consider myself a template guru meaning I am experienced in creating templates. I am trying to help.
  • It is trivially easy to add a subpage parameter but while at it we can fix the actual problem. On commons 98% of the time the nomination subpage name happened to be the filename. We can make that 100%. All featured subpages have been moved as of today. There weren't many - something about 80 cases. So I think the subpage issue for commons nom is resolved.
  • Until very recently images on commons had no mention of en.wiki featuredness. That was an addition by me. I was fully aware of the sub standard nomination naming used by en.wiki. en.wiki nomination pages should be moved to match the filename. I already proposed this on en.wiki but the discussion there seems to proceed slowly. I had this discussion on es.wiki and the community promptly adopted the naming scheme.
  • {{Featured picture mul}} and {{Assessments}} are the same template. {{Featured picture mul}} wasn't deleted. It was moved to {{Assessments}} which I think is a finer name. If you dislike it it can be moved again. Feel free to propose it and this time I will wait till someone else closes the discussion.
  • The template is capable of hosting "featured images", "quality images", "valued images", and any other process. Capable does not mean it will. The template currently only deals with "featured images" and POTY. POTY is basically the featured featured images so I do not see the inclusion of POTY in the template to be anything radical. Possible inclusion other processes like QI or VI is under discussion.
One thing I can suggest is can we have this discussion in one place? There are several parallel discussions and it is hard to follow them all.
-- Cat ちぃ? 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The transition from many templates to a unified one isn't problem free. Some of the problems faced are not unique to the new template. Issues we are dealing with were shoved aside with hot fixes in the past. We can also do hot fixes or work on more concrete solutions. -- Cat ちぃ? 02:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • PLEASE Cat stop changing the FP templates against the present consensus and after being warned not to do it. How do you want us to assume good faith with such a beahaviour? I'm really tired of reverting the changes you have been doing to my FP's. -- Alvesgaspar 07:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • They are not your fps any more than {{Assessments}} is my property. If the community is not willing to assume good faith, why am I not blocked? Revert waring is disruptive behavior. -- Cat ちぃ? 11:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is probably the best place to post (at least I hope so). I have no opinion whatsoever on how the outcome of this process should be, but as a completely uninvolved editor I have some suggestions to all users involved as to how the process it self should proceed:

  1. Assume good faith
  2. Try to agree to one place where the a discussion about matters assiciated with {{Assessments}} and retagging of images/ moving of nominations etc could be discussed.
  3. Discuss the matter(s) and please be patient: Do not make extensive changes (or revert changes already made) before a consensus on how to do this is reached.

Regards, Finn Rindahl 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merely agreeing with Finn. Consensus first then changes with good faith please --Herby talk thyme 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Endorse Herbythyme and hence Finn Rindahl. -- Cat ちぃ? 14:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rather ridiclous[edit]

I nominated several (12) images of galaxies. Most of them are criticized for being "noisy" which is a shame because the "noise" in question are individual stars (technically clusters of many stars that appear next to each other). If the "noise" is removed it is no longer an picture of a galaxy. I was wondering your thoughts on this.

Before anyone accuses me of forum shopping, the candidacies will probably fail regardless of this. I feel like I have wasted 4 days of mine uploading some 61 really large images to commons.

-- Cat ちぃ? 14:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Some thoughts of mine: First of all, your four days weren't wasted, regardless if the pictures get featured or not. Their value for wikimedia projects doesn't depend on the featured status. Secondly I think you ask for too much from the commons community if you want them to be able to evaluate pictures from different fields in a professional or technical correct manner. The community loves images and media, but is not an astronomy expert. :) --norro 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Right, I am not expecting that. But people seem to be focusing on the aesthetics rather than what the picture represent. This is like opposing pictures of bugs because bugs are typically aesthetically unpleasing. -- Cat ちぃ? 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I never understand that a few people think their images are worthless or not valuable if they do not become FP, such comments arise here from time to time. The FP status means "the very best" images, which is a much higher limit than good and acceptable and valuable images. And regarding the noise, some of it might be stars, but I am pretty sure that in many of the images there are a lot of noise that are not stars (however I am no astronomy expert). If it's enough to oppose or not is another question. And please continue with your uploads ans contributions, as mentioned by norro the time is absolutely not wasted :) /Daniel78 16:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Daniel78, you are one of FP reviewers, who I respect very much. When my images get opposed, I do not think that they are worthless or not valuable. I know they are. I just cannot understand how people, who never ever seen the subject of the image not only in a real life, but not even an image of it could oppose the image. Here's for example nomination of Green flash. It is one of the best green flashes ever photographed. The scientists are studying the image, but who cares. Yes, a Wikipedia reader could go to w:green flash article and read about the phenomena, but how many people ever heard about green flash? How one could find it without specificly looking for it? On the other hand, if the image was featured, many more people would have learned about green flashes and maybe one day would have seen one on their own. That's why IMO, when an image like this gets opposed, it looses its value. Thank you.--Mbz1 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes all votes will not seem fair. I understand that, the images that are nominated are from a wide field of different subjects and the voters might be far from knowledgable in the area. And there will always be a rotation of voters where new ones have no knowledge about discussions such as this. /Daniel78 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not even about fair or unfair votes. To me it is more about the value of my work at Commons. IMO, if an image like, for example, that green flash is not getting featured it looses its value, not an absolute value, but rather the value of the Knoledge for the readers of Commons. When I withdrawn the nomination you, Daniel78, were one of the ones, who asked why. Really why, only after two opposes, yet I am sure, if I am to nominate the image once again, it will never get featured. Should I try and see what happens? --Mbz1 23:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • At least I will support that green flash image, as last time you had withdrew it before I even had the time to vote. And I suggest not to withdraw nominations because of other peoples oppinions (unless you agree with them). Personally I would only withdraw my own nominations if the comments made me realize that yes this image could have been better, that I have things to improve upon that I was not aware of when nominating. I am also thinking of the mercury transit image which I was quite surprised to see withdrawn. But now I am withdrawing, to bed :) /Daniel78 23:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You are right. I believe no one and me in particalar never should withdraw a nomination, if one believes that Commons could benefit from the image becoming FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The thing is even if I spend millions of dollars to build my own private space telescope that has ten times the magnification of Hubble (ten times larger image) the image would still have the same "noise". The more you zoom in the more stars you see. Each pixel here refers to several light years distance. Every non black cell is multiple (hundereds to thousands) stars that are "near" (distance between them may be hundereds of light years) each other. Zoom into that single pixel an make 10 pixels out of it you will still have "noise". It is not possible not to have noise.
Let me explain in a different way. Being inside the Milky Way galaxy we too see "noise" Image:Perseid and Milky Way.jpg. Obviously the noise is much less for us beings of this galaxy than someone watching us from Andromeda (we see stars of our galaxy further apart than someone looking at us several hundred thousand light years away) but never the less the "noise" is still there since the Milky Way galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter (the other end will always be at least 50,000 light years away). This is how the universe looks and works. I cannot fix how universe is.
So by that high resolution pictures (that are detailed enough to display individual stars rather than blur them out) of galaxies are all automatically non-featureable. Low resolution such images are featurable as the noise is removed with the lowering of the resolution. An example would be such individual (say of Image:Galaxies Gone Wild!.jpg - there are 4x3=12 individual 1500x1125 resolution images on that one).
-- Cat ちぃ? 15:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, it is not waste of time that you have uploaded the images. Each and every image is a valuable addition to Commons and both of an informative and educational character and within the scope of Commons. That most of them probably will fail FPC is really not something you should be too distressed about. About one in every 2000 images on Commons acheives FP status, so the bar has to be set pretty high and it would be very unlikely that 12 images nominated in a row all got featured. I see that at least of of the galaxy images you have nominated has gotten the FP designation, which, after all, is also a positive result. A secondary thing is that reviewers just generally will be annoyed by considering 12 noms in a row dealing with very similar subjects. The reviewers here provide the feedback to the contributors and nominators in their spare time, they are not on a payroll, so something else have to drive them. One reason could be that it is an interesting task to undertake, due to the diversity of the nominations (at least ideally). It can also be rewarding for the reviewer as in the process they may learn something too.
Had the reviewers here been on a payroll you could have other expectations like careful, constructive reviews grinding through every single nomination nomatter how similar they were. But that is not the case, so users get bored with the nominations, make harsh comments, and so on. All this can be avoided by showing a little consideration as a nominator by carefully selecting exactly what is the very best material and then only nominate one or two candidates at a time, such that reviewers do not get fed up. A question of showing empathy. Just my opinion-- Slaunger 18:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the empathy should go both ways. I spent hours of mine to very slowly download and upload large images (my upload time stamps are the evidence of this - I started a new upload as soon as the other one was completed). In my case I spent no effort in creating these works had I done that it would have been lots of sleepless nights in the lab. What I am trying saying is creating images takes time and effort just like reiewing them.
I personally am not willing to spend my time reviewing other peoples work because I do not feel I am qualified for the task. Because of this I hardly ever vote on FPC votes. This is a personal opinion, not the law or rule or anything. I think someone should not vote at all if that person is voting oppose just to punish over getting annoyed by multiple nominations.
In this case people seem to have condemned pictures of galaxies to non-featured status because they will always be "noisy" due to the very nature of nature. Mind you my noms are over Galaxy collisions where galaxies are more densely packed as a result of the collision.
-- Cat ちぃ? 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cat ちぃ?, I understand what you mean very, very well. Few weeks ago I've nominated that image Image:Mercury transit 2.jpg.It got very few supports, and few opposes and I withdrawn the nomination before the next oppose would have killed the nomination. Commons have no one image of the Sun featured, but I guess that's OK. User:Ram-Man said once: "We cannot feature every NASA image." while opposing a nominated NASA image. I guess he was right. We cannot feature every NASA image and we cannot feature the only Sun image, but we could feature many images of the same insects and the same flowers and the same birds (even taken at the very same day and of the very same bird), if they are of a good quality (and they really are! I love them all but aren't there are too many? .) Cat ちぃ?, you are right: nominating images on Commons FP is a waste of time and maybe uploading them to Wikipedia (Commons) is a waste of time too. BTW the image Image:Perseid and Milky Way.jpg was taken by me and it is a great image, which shows a meteor. FP have no single image of meteor, but even in a very, very bad dream I would not have thought of nominating that image on FP. It would do just fine in the article.--Mbz1 19:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please don't play the victim Mbz1, you are not being completely honest. Your image of the Sun was almost featured (7:2) when you decided to withdraw the nomination (against my advice btw). Two more oppose votes would have been necessary (and no supports!) to revert the situation. Fair is fair. -- Alvesgaspar 20:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was mistaking in my calculations. As you could see from here I believed that only one more oppose needed to kill the nomination and you,Alvesgaspar, never corrected my mistake. That's OK. Thanks that you posted the message to my talk page at all. I know you are not obligated to do it. I'm afraid you did not understand me right, Alvesgaspar. I am not a victim. I saw Mercury transit, I took an image of the event. It was published at NASA site, it is in the article. No, I am not a victim, IMO - Commons FP is, the readers of Commons are. BTW Mercury transit was only one sample of many to prove my point. Thanks.--Mbz1 20:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've lead the charge, in a manner of speaking, to not featuring lots of NASA photos, so I'll explain myself. Let me say that I've been profoundly confused by how many of my own images are flatly rejected, despite what I believe is very beautiful. I could provide numerous examples of spectacular images that can't be featured, so I understand this point of view. I think the insect analogy suffers from flaws too. We will not feature every single insect photo. Roughly, you can do one of any given pose for any given insect species and with increasing attention to quality and composition. With astronomy, we are not experts and have no easy way to differentiate between different "species" of astronomical objects, nor is it easy to determine if one has superior quality and composition. As such, they are often in one big pot. This is probably not fair, but it is the way it is. When you nominate a dozen images that look similar to the casual reviewer, he has no way of determining why one is special enough to be featured over any other version. Insects do not have this problem. This issue is mainly the role of the "wow factor". I refer to this as "aesthetically pleasing". This is where the "noise" issue comes into play. Those stars just don't have a high enough resolution to be "useful". They are literally background light noise in the image. If you could zoom in at any given spot, you'd see near "infinite" number of more stars. As such, they clutter the image and cause it to not have an aesthetic focal point, which is needed for a wow factor. They are a visual distraction, not an educational one. If it were in the rules, these would be easy QIs perhaps, but not FPs. -- Ram-Man 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • OK. What about these two nominations, one of which is already featured and the other is going to be featured: nomination 2;nomination 1. They are both images of the very same bird taken at the very same day (in the very same ZOO?) What is the reason of featuring both images? They are great, high quality images, but they are almost the same. Please explain to me why to make an FP from the second image instead of just adding it to other-versions tab of the summary of the first one? IMO the more FP of the same subject we have, the harder is to a reader to find something between all these FP. Maybe you could tell me what is such a big difference between these two FP: Image:Apis mellifera 2 Luc Viatour.JPG Image:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg and there are few more FP of Apis mellifera. They all ave very beautiful, very sharp, very pleasant to look at, great quality, and... almost the same. IMO the more images of the same subject FP has the less value every image has. Please notice I an not going to oppose these images. I just share my opinion. IMO because Commons is part of Wikipedia and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia most readers (myself included) come here not only to see "aesthetically pleasing" images, but rather to learn something new and interesting. For example I learned something new from this nomination, but only because I saw it between candidates. Otherwise I would have never read the article about these interesting slugs. Maybe in addition to current FP, QI and VI we should have something new to collect unusual and interesting images without looking so much at the quality of an image. The image of these slugs would have been great for that purpose. I would have called the new thing :"Did you know?" IMO the readers of Commons would have appreciated such collection (I know I would) of the images with the explanations and links to the articles.Honestly if I like to see aesthetically pleasant images I'm going elsewhere. Of course Commons and FP in particular have many great and "aesthetically pleasing" images. Some of them are very educational too. Thank you.--Mbz1 04:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you are telling me that we have duplicated featured pictures. Nominate them for delisting, and I will be happy to choose which one should be delisted. I'm not in favor of that case, even though it happens from time to time. Not everyone follows the rules consistently. Of course many times voters do not even realize another version exists when they are voting. No one is required to look up "prior art", so to speak. Again you confuse educational and useful with the FP process. Those are only parts, but wow factor is entirely subjective and always will be. -- Ram-Man 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Those stars cannot ever have a high enough resolution to be useful. Individual stars aren't the focus, thats the Galaxy. What you should accept is the "noise" is part of the natural/real image.
If I were to zoom to any one of them you would see tens of stars, keep zooming it and you'd hundreds and later thousands of stars. The wow factor here is that you are looking at a galaxy. In addition you aren't looking at any galaxy but two or more galaxies that have either collided or are colliding. That is entire Galaxies colliding. All the images I nominated are recently (on 24 April 2008) released by Hubble. Hubble scientists were "wow"'ed enough to publish these.
Hubble poeple created these images not me so these can't be QI's.
Featured picture candidates should be selected based on objective criteria not subjective. Any oppose should be fixable. If image is low in resolution a higher resolution version can be taken. If the image is blurry or noisy due to the clumsiness of the photographer, that can be fixed. But in the case of galaxies the noise is unfixable even if we were to take a new picture. Noise is anatural part of the image.
-- Cat ちぃ? 04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To take an image of a meteor I should use ISO at least 800 (1600 is better). The images came out noisy (very noisy), but to me they are very spectacular, very beautiful and very educational.--Mbz1 05:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So what is the objective standard that people should use when judging astronomical objects? We can't feature every image, so we have to have some standard for dividing between the "good" and "bad". If you claim that they are all good, then you've lost me and everyone else, because the point of FP is to feature only the best and only one of each best. Wow factor is subjective and as such will always pick and choose between images based purely on arbitrary, non-technical reasons. If you don't like that, don't participate in FP because that's the way this system is designed. No one is stopping you from trying, of course, but you have to understand why they've failed even if you don't like it. -- Ram-Man 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture template poll[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump#Featured picture template poll -- Cat ちぃ? 00:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This is the kind of uncivil behaviour we should not allow from an adult user. I suggest the actions of White Cat to be blocked. -- Alvesgaspar 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moving a discussion to the Village Pump should be a blockable offense? Wow. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 19:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Knowing a little more about the story might help to understand - Alvesgaspar 20:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This has now been moved to:

Commons:Village pump/Featured picture template poll. --MichaelMaggs 20:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of FP[edit]

As people are having different opinions about the purpose of FP, I think it makes sense to discuss it. For me FP is a source for the best pictures on commons. This means it is not a problem when several pictures of e.g. one and the same species get promoted. It is the other way round - it is a big luxury if someone can chose from several FPs about one subject.

The second purpose (and maybe the even more important one) of FP is for me that it motivates people to upload better pictures and to improve their skills. When we only allow one picture of one subject it gets harder and harder for newcomers to get a own picture promoted. It is not very motivating if you put work in a picture to get a good result and to nominate it but later on you get opposes because there is already a FP of that subject (with the comment that it would get FP, if the other one wouldn't be there).

I think we should clarify that and add the result to the FP criteria. --AngMoKio 22:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Here's the extract from Commons:Image guidelines: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, so if a better version exists the original version should be delisted. The purpose of featured picture status is to recognize that an image is currently among the most valuable images—the top fraction of a percent. As overall image quality improves, some images will be delisted." IMO it says it all. IMO the image Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca 2 amk.jpg is just an another version of the image Kaiseradler Aquila heliaca e amk.jpg and should not get promoted according to the Commons:Image guidelines.--Mbz1 23:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well i dont see those 2 images as other versions. Another version is in my opinion the same image but with a different colour balance, sharpness or crop. In my picture the composition is simply different. The picture was also not shot at the same place, as you can see in the background. --AngMoKio 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to discuss your statement :"The second purpose (and maybe the even more important one) of FP is for me that it motivates people to upload better pictures and to improve their skills." I cannot agree with it. The purpose of FP (IMO) is not to motivate people to upload better pictures and to improve their skills, but to educate Wikipedia readers, who now are getting lost going through the images of the same subjects at FP.IMO FP should be more about readers than about Commons photographers.--Mbz1 23:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is sth that has been very often the problem with votes for FP. We are not only working for wikipedia articles. Encyclopedic value is not relevant for FP. I see Commons and also FP as source for good pictures. You know i often get requests, that someone wants a picture of mine printed in a magazine or an info brochure or whatever. For such purposes they start searching in the FPs because there they can find good pictures. And about motivation: Motivation is in my opinion really a very important purpose of FP. We actually need still more people that are motivated..imho --AngMoKio 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with the guidelines, which is why I vote the way I do. I see no reason to change this. If a user wants to nominate a featured picture but a better featured picture already exists, then why would we want to feature one that was not as good? From my own experience rejection has strongly encouraged me to improve. True, sometimes you get frustrated and you don't follow all of the advice, but overall I've used this process to hone my skills. And I really wonder, how many times has a newcomer been rejected because a similar image already was a featured picture? It must be exceedingly rare. I'm sure we've rejected lower quality images of the same subject, but that happens naturally as our standards get stricter. The line for "best of the best" keeps getting higher, as it should. -- Ram-Man 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
exactly. Pictures never got rejected because of this reason. Just check bees or hoverflies for example. And i agree with this way of voting. And obviously most of the voters do otherwise those pictures wouldn't get featured. I think it is common practise here not to see a problem when there is already a FP of a certain species. --AngMoKio 09:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am afraid my English is hard for you to understand, Ram-Man. On the other hand for me it is very hard to follow your thoughts too. Let me make it clear please. I hardly care about quality of the image. The encyclopedic value of the image is much, much, much more important to me. It always was and it always will be. May I please also point out that we are discussing the Commons:Image guidelines and not me learning something. I'm afraid I cannot learn anything from you, Ram-Man. On the other hand I hope you would learn to be more civil and more polite in your comments. Thanks.--Mbz1 00:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've removed the comment that Mbz1 is referring to because it was not critical to my point and I don't want to cause trouble over communication difficulties. It was an error on my part. -- Ram-Man 00:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shall we put it this way: The comment that you removed had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of the purpose of FP? I've removed my comment too.--Mbz1 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, Ram-Man. One very nice thing about one having one FP per "subject" is also, that it can stimulate contributors to seek out new subjects/topics for which we have a lack of FPs. As I see it there are very many areas, which today only have a very few FPs. It is the same observation, which have caused us to state in the guidelines for Valued mages that we can only have one VI per scope. That is, to encourage a wider diversity of subjects. And if we still have COM:QI to recognise several high quality images within the same topic/subject/scope. -- Slaunger 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi, AngMoKio. May I please ask you, if after reading the extract from Commons:Image guidelines, which I provided, you still believe your second image should be featured ? IMO Commons:Image guidelines differ quite a lot from your opinion of FP purpose. Thank you.--Mbz1 01:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Mbz1, yes i still think so. I don't see those 2 images as other versions. Another version is in my opinion the exact same image but with a different colour balance, sharpness or crop. Another version is for example an edited version for me. --AngMoKio 17:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, then your opinion differes from the opinion of most Commons photographers. Please take a look at this image by Richard Bartz Image:Bartgeier Gypaetus barbatus front Richard Bartz.jpg and see what images he put under other_vesions. IMO the exact same image, but with a different colour balance, sharpness or crop should go under original_versions, not under other_versions.--Mbz1 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • well in the picture descriptions you can show other versions or other pictures of the same subject. Fact is that most commons users think that it is no problem that more FPs of one subject exist. The FP gallery of insects is the best proof for that. --AngMoKio 18:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Surely there are insect lovers. IN the absence of astronomy lovers deep space objects such as galaxies are all non featurable because such images will always be noisy due to the very nature of nature. Noise is a part of such images. -- Cat ちぃ? 23:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad you're back, Cat ちぃ. May I please encourage you to nominate more images, which you believe could make good FP and do vote for other nominations? Thank you.--Mbz1 17:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FPX grace period[edit]

I think the grace period of 48 hours after the "FPX template" and prior to the closing is too long, as we have now more active reviewers. Perhaps 24 hours is enough? -- Alvesgaspar 14:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. I very often find myself having to hold off archiving images that have no hope whatsoever just because we currently have a 48 hour limit. There are now enough reviewers around for us to be pretty sure that a misused or mistaken template would be seen and removed within a day. --MichaelMaggs 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. Another issue about this template is that the text clearly say that you can just remove it and replace it with a support vote, however there is usually someone leaving a comment about that you should not do that but instead leave it striked over with the comment still visible. I of course agree that it is nice to save it so you still can see it, but the description does not say that this is what you should do. Could we change the descriptive text to make this more clear ? /Daniel78 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with this, and btw, I'm often the someone that is leaving the comment Daniel is referring too ;-). Lycaon 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've tweaked the {{FPX}} wording a bit. --MichaelMaggs 21:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've done that a few times myself (And been yelled at). One problem. How do you "strike" the template? I tried <strike>{{FPX|asdf}}</strike> and it didn't do anything. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You strike with <s> ... </s>. --MichaelMaggs 09:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Reducing the grace period to one day makes this process even more undemocratically. You always have to consider that we disable other users to leave votes by reducing the candidature period. That's not what I expect from an open project like Wikimedia Commons. And for what reason? Making this process less open to save a few kilobytes? Please reconsider. --norro 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The saving of machine resources is not the main purpose of the FPX template. More important than that is to avoid unnecessary humiliation to (good faith) newbies and to save human resources in the work concerning the control and closing of nominations (especially those made with not-so-good-faith). Maybe we could make a more discrete template, so that the first could gracefully withdraw but still feel encouraged to try again. I'm willing to discuss the alternatives. But it should be firm enough to protect all of us (and the fun we are supposed to get from this page) from the second. -- Alvesgaspar 00:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Imagine giving people more time to think... That is the last thing we should think of doing. -- Cat ちぃ? 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It might be good for getting the list cleaned up, it's getting longer and longer and I am a bit afraid that if there are too many nominations, images that might be worth FP status will drown in the large amount of nominations. But I am not sure of this, it seems not to be a big problem yet, but maybe it might become one. /Daniel78 17:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, it appears that the new 24h period can be implemented. I'll start tomorrow. -- Alvesgaspar 19:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons announces launch of new Valued images project[edit]

The official VI seal

The project goes live for nominations on 1 June, 2008 at 0:00 UTC[edit]

This Commons Valued images project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high diversity and usability, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute images of difficult subjects which are very hard or impossible to obtain in featured picture or quality image technical quality. The project will run alongside the existing Commons Featured pictures and Quality images projects.

Please visit Valued images candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Commons is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelMaggs (talk • contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on FPC management and criteria[edit]

FPC has become a quite popular place with the monthly number of nominations and promotions steadily increasing. Last month we hit a record of 228 nominations and 47 promotions. And looking at the candidates list I guess this month will be a busy one too (today we had 4 promotions). This is a good thing, of course, meaning that FPC is fulfilling its objectives of atracting new creators and getting better pictures uploaded. But it is also represents a heavy burden in the daily routine of managing the page and assuring a proper closing and archiving. We certainly need some kind of automatism and the reviewing period could be shorten to 7 days (like in en:FPC) to make the stack smaller. Also, maybe it is time to put our promotion bar a little higher (7 support votes?). Notice that our present standards come from a time when there were much fewer nominations and less people reviewing. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar 22:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are still plenty of images that don't receive much attention, so I wouldn't want to increase the required number of support votes. People tend of focus on certain images and overlook others. Shortening the period to 7 days will likely result in more images ending without a quorum (the minimum required votes for a decisive result). Ideally every image will end conclusively with either 5 support votes or 3 oppose votes. We can talk about raising it to 7 support and 4 oppose if we successfully eliminate images with insufficient votes. -- Ram-Man 23:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This may need to happen but first I would like to see some automation of the closing process, as it is that which is getting intolerable. Who might be persuaded to write some scripts to help? --MichaelMaggs 06:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
We can also consider some changes to the closing procedure: Refer to en:Wikipedia:FPC: Some thoughts that come to mind is archiving images to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log immediately after promotion, or failure, and using a shorter period (e.g. 7 days), but delaying decisions to, say 10 days, if there is no clear consensus.
For instance:
  • >90% support after 7 days → Feature. (E.g. 10 support votes, require at least 5 oppose votes not to feature, if there is only one, it is unlikely that another 4 oppose votes will be cast.)
  • >66% support after 7 days → Wait another 3 days
  • <66% support after 7 days → Wait another 3 days
  • <30% support after 7 days → Not featured. (E.g. 2 support, 5 oppose, it is unlikely that another 9 support votes will be cast.)
G.A.S 08:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FP closing[edit]

I'll be too busy in the next times to guarantee a proper FP closing. Any volunteer to take over? -- Alvesgaspar 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Today it took more than 1 hour to do the closing, archive the promoted pictures and send messages to the nominators. In the first 4 days of this month we have promoted 12 pictures. This means that unless we find some bot expert soon, this job will become too much of a burden for anyone. I would have done the programming myself if I were able to, but all I know is Pascal, Fortran and Matlab... Anyway, I really have to pass the job today due to pressing working committements. What about a task force with the most prolific nominators: Mbz1, Richard Bartz, Benh, Ram-Man ... did I forget someone? ;-) -- Alvesgaspar 22:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, who did you forget.... -- carol (tomes) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What exactly needs to be done to ensure a proper closing? G.A.S 05:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It should be outlined in the rules, or since this is FP the guidelines. -- carol (tomes) 05:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. --MichaelMaggs 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I expected it would be on Commons:Featured picture candidates itself (like en:Wikipedia:FPC#Closing_procedure), but couldn't find it. G.A.S 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • en:User:Gimmetrow is operating a bot (en:User:GimmeBot) that supports en:WP:FAC. Maybe he could point in the right direction? G.A.S 06:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Dschwen, who is operating QICbot is about to make a VICbot but maybe the need for having an FPCbot is more urgent right now? Try contacting this user perhaps. -- Slaunger 06:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • QICbot has some real recognition problems and chokes on non-ascii user name characters and a few other problems like limited to a gallery which apparently metawiki disabled (hacked even) many of those abilities. Had the bot been developed to run through QICCR, it would have been much more able to manage FPC, in my humble opinion and from my observations of the bot and with all due respect to the author. -- carol (tomes) 08:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Italian traduction[edit]

I advise you that I'm traducing this page in Italian. Every-one is wellcome for collaboration. If someone is interested, contact me, please. Thanks --sNappy 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A first traduction has completed now. It is here. Please look at it and suggest me some corrections if you'll find them (it's also sure!), especially about the choice of terms to use. Thanks. --sNappy 11:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Downsampling[edit]

Officially, the guidelines states that images should never be downsampled in order to improve quality. However, from a discussion with User Benh concerning his FP candidate, downsampling seems to be a common way of making a picture look when it is reviewed, simply because the first thing people do is to click until they have a 100% zoom on the image: if it's a sharp image, they vote for, if it's not sharp, they vote against. This is naturally pushing the nominators towards downsampling their images, to make it look sharp at 100% zoom, resulting in a lower quality image in the end!

I have this problem right now with my FP candidate, left at it's original 17 mpx size in order not to lose quality. All the negative comments I recieved up to now are based on the articafts, and the lack of details they see at 100% zoom, while the candidates pictures before and after me all have (as of now) positive comments on their pictures with, respectively, 2.64 mpx and 3.4 mpx. This doesn't seems fair to me.

I propose to create, for every FP candidate, a viewing window of standard size so all images could be evaluated on the same ground, while encouraging all nominators to upload images to the highest resolution. The technical aspect of the vote would have to be made from that viewing window, and not from the 100% zoomed image. All images under a 2:1 aspect ratio could be rendered in a 2000x2000 px downsample, while other images would be rendered with their small size at a 1500 px downsample. Have a look at my FP candidate downsampled at 2000 px, and you would probably agree that on the technical aspect, for artifacts and details, my picture is a serious FP candidate. Once again, exception could be made, but only with a valid reason. So what do you think? -- S23678 20:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, reviewers just looking at 100% without taking the image size into account are damaging to wikimedia commons. It's that simple. These guys are scaring/frustrating contributors of high quality images away. The original is always to be preferred over any downsampled version. You never gain quality by downsampling. But no matter how often this simple statement gets repeated, some useres have apparently never heard it before, or just cannot get it into their heads. Sigh! --Dschwen 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think a standard-resolution window would be very useful to deal with this issue. Why don't you mock something up for discussion? --MichaelMaggs 21:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't say (or maybe I did, but I don't think so) that downsampling improves a picture, but its apparent quality, which is the first thing perceived and which counts (unfortunately) for many. I also think that sometimes, a picture is a little blurry, a there's not much value in leaving it at full res.
For your proposition, I'd say I agree, and your FPC is a good case to discuss. I personally take the size and resolution/details into account when reviewing, but I think it's also up to the author to find the optimal res. If a picture has details to fit 2mpix, don't leave it at 20mpix.
By the way, to me the guideline only talk about 2mpix size, not about whether image should be downsampled or not. Do they ? Benh 21:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
"it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible" - From here (resolution) -- S23678 23:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposition[edit]

2000x2000 px preview[edit]

Regarding the presentation of a 2000x2000px preview, I think this can be done directly on the FPC page by having the image wrapped in a banner. From my small researchs, the wrap template is not in Commons, and I don't really know how to create such a template.

However, we could expand a little on that and put all the info of every FPC in a infobox. I know this proposition is getting a little outside the scope of the "Downsampling" subject, but it would make everything neater than having a banner in the middle of everything. We could have something like that:

  • Title : Name of the picture, Date of proposition, picture size, work by, uploaded by, proposition by
  • Thumbernail : 300px thumbernail of the picture
  • Wrap : Wrap banner. You click on it, and you have a 2000x2000px preview for 2:1 and smaller aspect ratio images, and a ????x1500px for images with an aspect ratio greater than 2:1
  • Info from nominator: Any comments from the user proposing the image, (description of the picture, rare image, etc)
  • Votes, in 2 columns : Votes supporting on the left column, votes opposing in the right one
  • Comments : Neutrals votes, comments and questions from voters
  • Result : Final result.

The box could be gray during the voting process, and changed to red or green once voting is finish. Also, a lot more info could be included in this infobox, like a speed delist box, nominations for edit versions of the image, or request for a full resolution image (see below)

If this idea is supported by some, could someone with knowledge about infobox editing make a draft version of this idea for further discussion. I don,t know myself how to make something like this.

Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea 4 equalization--Richard Bartz 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

2000x2000px preview Draft[edit]

Here a first draft. After looking at the templates for Value Images, I realise it's way beyond my current knowledge, so I concentrated only on a more conventional preview. Click on the image to see the difference. Feel free to modify and comment my draft. -- S23678 04:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPG[edit]

Click for a full size evaluationIguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.2.JPG
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose...
I support the idea, but would prefer some more comprehensive templates such as those on VI. I believe Slaunger is pretty busy at the moment, but maybe he could be persuaded to help when he is freer. --MichaelMaggs 06:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Downsampling banner[edit]

If it's the wish of the majority to enforce maximum resolution images, we could put a banner next to the downsampled nominations asking the nominator to upload a maximum resolution version of his image. Something stating:

  • This image seems to be a downsampled version of a larger image. In accordance with the FP guidelines, all nominations must be at the original resolution, as downsampling is a reduction of the overall quality of the image. If this image was downsampled from an original image, please upload and nominate the original size image. If it's not possible, please state why

If the user has legitimate reasons to have a downsampled version of his image (for reasons like computation problems with larger images, image uploaded from flickr, this is the only version the user has, etc), there he could put a banner stating:

  • Although the FPC guidelines ask for maximum resolution images, I nominate this downsampled image because ... (user states reason)

Tell me what you think -- S23678 23:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As input: If you take a look at one of the subpages in COM:VIC you can see how a switch between preview ({{VIC-thumb}}) and review ({{VIC}}) sized images can be done using two different templates which are either included or noincluded. This is one way to approach the problem of a uniform review size. For Vi the review size is deliberately small (as high res is not the focus there, but this can be trivially changed for FPC if desired). -- Slaunger 13:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I think this would be perfect, and could be implemented easily. I'll see if I can manage to create a template and present it here. -- S23678 13:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We should assume good faith. This is 2 complicated to examine and goes to far. --Richard Bartz 19:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PNG vs. JPG[edit]

...Can anyone give me one good reason why saving an engraving or litograph as PNG (a lossless file-saving medium) so often leads to surprised comments? I mean, why on earth would JPG be "better"? Particularly odd as engravings and lithographs are defined by the sharp transitions which JPG struggles with. Adam Cuerden 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

To me, your picture should be compressed in jpg, I don't see any "sharp" transition, as the ones in printed texts and screenshots. Benh 17:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FPX suggestion[edit]

Instead of striking through the template, how about creating another template, {{FPX contested}}, so voters who add a support vote can just change:

{{FPX|too small - SomeUser}}

to

{{FPX contested|too small - SomeUser}}

Which would change:

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small -- SomeUser Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

to something like

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small - SomeUser

This would solve two problems: the ugliness of striking through a template, and since FPX is an implied oppose vote, it would automatically render it as such. – flamurai 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --MichaelMaggs 06:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done – flamurai 07:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Well done! --Richard Bartz 15:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question why is the contested template crossing out the oppose vote ? --85.181.4.141 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"short description"[edit]

What's the logic behind requiring this? It is just alt text/tooltip. Many nominators forget to fill it in and no one seems to care. – flamurai 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid html, perhaps. That has been a requirement for validity since 1997 (before tooltips) that I know of. Personally, I am always surprised when the short description does not appear in the information area. -- carol (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How to re-nominate?[edit]

Is it possible to nominate a picture a second time? And if this is the case, what's the preferred way to do it? I'm thinking of Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg - this image was a failed candidate in 2006, got uploaded in a better version in March 2007 and then was a failed "Quality images" candidate as well. Personally, I think that the image is very impressive, despite and partly even due to its technical faults. As others said in the previous discussion, there is a dreamlike, haunting atmosphere; a very beautiful remembrance of this citadel now destroyed by earthquake - also thanks to the overexposing. The previous discussion maybe was too much centered on questions of purely technical "correctness"; the historical significance of the subject wasn't much discussed. Of course the uploader Arad seems to be quite over-enthusiastic about his own work, calling it an "amazing photo", and slightly over-zealous to get it awarded, but still... I think that with a new angle of view on this image and its historical background it could become a featured picture. However, if regular contributors here think it's hopeless, well, then I'll not try it. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You can simply re-nominate, giving a link to the discussion last time. Re-nominations coming a few months after an earlier one are not encouraged, a year or more later shouild be fine. My own view, for what it's worth, though, is that the image will still fail on picture quality for all the reasons that were given last time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You can simply re-nominate - well, a new nomination page seems to need a new name, is there a preferred format? If I simply use the "create new nomination" box at Commons:Featured picture candidates for Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg, I naturally get an edit page for the old nomination at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg. Should I call the new nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arge Bam Arad edit.jpg-2, for example, or something similar? However, it is now a theoretical question, as I don't think I'm going to re-nominate this image - the probability that technical aspects outweigh its other merits seems to be high indeed. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Although the question is currently theoretical, I still would like to know the preferred re-nomination format in such cases :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

SVG Images and paint scans[edit]

Proposal[edit]

I was wondering if SVG images and painting scans should be all transfered to Valued Images or Quality Images instead of FP. Here's why it should be like that IMO:

SVG Images
  • They don't have the following technical difficulties of a photograph:
  • resolution,
  • focus,
  • foreground and background,
  • exposure,
  • movement control,
  • DOF, and
  • texture
  • Of course there's an artistic side to SVG images, such as the shape, choices of color, disposition of information, etc, but they are used mainly for the value of the information that is contained within them, which makes them way more suited for Valued Images IMO.
Scans of paintings.
  • They don't have the following technical difficulties of a photograph:
  • Foreground and background,
  • composition,
  • movement control,
  • DOF,
  • shape,
  • volume,
  • perspective,
  • balance, and
  • proportion.
  • Symbolic meaning, relevance or notoriety can be difficult to judge. It's very subjective (are all paintings from Picasso notorious?)
  • What are we evaluating? the painting or the scan?
  • If it's the painting we evaluate, should we evaluate them the same way as we evaluate photographs? (quality and artistic value of a painting are very subjective). Can I find the Mona Lisa a borring painting?
  • If it's the scan we evaluate, then only quality is involved and there's already a process for that (Quality Images)
  • Sould we extend this to all scans of non-photographic material?

I'll ask your opinion first about my proposition, and if you disagree with my solution, please state propositions (something like have Featured Painting Scans, or specific guidelines for SVG images, etc) --S23678 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Responses[edit]

  • I personally find the skill issue somewhat irrelevant. It would make it seem as if a featured picture nomination was a form of personal award for photographers rather than an overall evaluation of the usefulness of any given picture. I'd prefer that we simply came up with more specific guidelines for non-photos. Peter Isotalo 13:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the end result rather than the difficulty of the image is the most important thing. However, where my brain starts boiling is at "what are those guidelines for non-photos?" Does all good scans of paintings should be FP (No IMO, but where do we draw the line)? Where do we draw the line between an informative diagram (VI IMO) and an informative diagram with outstanding graphics (FP)? etc? --S23678 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You can of course have specific criteria for SVG pics. But since there are some user-made SVGs whi h are simply outstanding (see Image:Pyrenees topographic map-fr.svg for instance), I think it wouldn't be a good idea to limit them to VI / QI only. le Korrigan bla 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As stated above, what makes outstanding SVGs and what makes non-outstanding SVGs? Under "Featured Pictures" should we have 3 subcategories such as "Featured Photographs", "Featured Scans" and "Featured Computer Graphics" with guidelines adapted to everyone of them (since, as I stated above, every of these medias have very different quality aspects). --S23678 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have great respect for your skill as a photographer but I disagree. I notice that you don't mention the technical difficulties of generating SVGs that photographers don't have. Each vertex and each colour gradient in Image:M1 Abrams diagram num.svg was individually placed. Generating this image took a full working week. Image:Lone House.jpg probably took upwards of a month. To be fair, reviewers are sometimes lenient on illustrations (and incidentally, quite hard on 3D models) but that's due to ignorance - more involvement from illustrators would ensure better quality control on illustrations. Shouldn't an illustration or render ever be called "one of our finest images"? Dhatfield (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You're right, I don't mention difficulties of both scans and computer graphics (I should have worded it in a different way), which are probably enormous, but my point was more that pictures, scans and SVG are of a very different nature, and should not share the same guidelines (or voting process). In the absence of general guidelines for those medias, everyone is voting with different opinions: What makes a scan "an outstanding image"? The Lone House image is outstanding computer graphics because it has a great level of complexity (effects of light, details, etc) all in a very nicely composed environment. But on a 2D diagram yes, there are nice colours, it's informative, but what makes it outstanding (what criterias should I look for)? I proposed the radical way (get rid of them in FPC process), which was not very diplomatic I have to agree, but on the other way, I need your help to propose more down-to-earth ways to arrive to a consensus and improve the voting process for these images. --S23678 (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FPC Bot[edit]

As some of you might know in the last few days I tried to write the bot, which would calculate votes for FPC and display results in the nomination. The shell of the program is ready and working IMO. I got great help from Daniel and Kim. Now I need to hear from you. If you believe the bot is going to be useful, I will continue working on it, otherwise I'll stop my efforts. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A few basic questions: Does it have full international support for the other-language supports and opposes? Is the bot intended to apply rule of the fifth day or other such things (that would be dangerous, IMO), or is that to be left to humans. Practically, can the bot keep things sufficiently up-to-date to be useful? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The bot does know how to understand votes in all languages. It knows how to disregard the votes, which were striked out, or which were not signed. As I mentioned earlier right now I've done only a shell. It is possible to keep track of fifth day rule, but I have not done it yet. IMO the bot will calculate the right results in 99.99%, but humans still should take a look at the results.There's still plenty of work to be done with the code and, if community is not interested in having the bot, I am not eager to finish the program.That's why I'd like to learn your opinions and your questions, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Try it. Let it write its opinion and we'll see how it looks and if it gets its numbers right. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about writing a bot too, but miss time, so I much welcome yours. Few points I think should be considered :
  • taking votes into account properly : all languages, only one per user, not from anonymous, no fake votes ...
  • classification, when putting images into galleries, a short caption goes with it. How could a bot guess it ? a way to explore is forcing nominator to add a short alternative caption. Classification must also be done at nomination. Nominations unproperly completed could be reviewed, and at closing time put into a queue for manual further processing.
  • ... forgot ! But maybe after a yummy sleep, it will come back. -- Benh (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification: The bot I had in mind was going only to calculate the results and put them to the nominations and that's it. Right now it calculates votes in all languages, and disregards votes from the same users or unsigned ones. I believe it could generate FP promotion messge at a nominator's talk page and archive images, which not passed, but I do not know how it could put images, which passed to proper galleries without changing the design of the nominations format, so Benh, if you want to finish my code up, please let me know and I'll gladly give to you what I've done so far.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The source code is here. Right now it only counts votes without looking at the date of a nomination and dates of posting of the votes. I did test it a litlle bit and it looked OK. I will not work on the code anymore, but I am ready to respond any questions about the code and help in any way I could, if somebody is willing to finish working on the code. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Mila, I don't know where you have gone. Thanks for the source. I'll have a look on it, but can't promise anything as it would be a lot of involvement of myself I'm afraid I can't afford. Benh (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Writing software and having it work is kind of a fun thing. People working together to do something has been in my life among the few real honest good feelings I have had that endured (much time and stress) when many other good feelings I have had are transmorgified into regret, embarrassment and a myriad of other not so great feelings. Leaving one person stuck doing a task that many are qualified to do or are capable to do is -- well, the words I have to describe this are possibly unsuitable so I will just leave it an open sentence. Hell, you could expand the bot to find images of high enough resolution and have it nominate them and vote for them as well.... -- carol (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, it is the anonymous internet and free documentation and image server and software, so why bother with having enduring good feelings. Just forget I mentioned it. -- carol (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I do see a bit of sarcasm (otherwise, I'm very sorry to have taken it personaly). If there's no place for suggestion and discussion over here, then I think I missed something. If one writes a bot which is inefficient, and someone else has to fix behind, we'd end up with more work on us while the goal was to relieve people who close nominations. Our suggestions are certainly welcomed. Benh (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I watched the user name Alvesgaspar tally up votes and close out FPCs and Simonizer. If they are using software to do this or not, I have not watched closely enough. It is interesting they do not comment here. Alves wrote recently that he knows and uses other languages. Other software writers author this. Users with only experience nominating and voting on images have opinions and write the software for it. It is difficult to not get a little sarcastic having watched the users here for more than a year now. It does seem to be a world in which caring about things is discouraged. Yay! Its free so its okay to do that! Or, it is the only thing everyone can get together on. Suggestions are welcome from some but not from others. Yay! More of the free world working for the few. QCIBot does a lot recently. I wonder though if that will kill QI because without the presence of a few beings with real personality who are not afraid to express it, QI is just a reversioning of space invaders -- only after eight days, it doesn't explode it just disappears if not shot with a review.
Yeah, it is a free to use interface, if an opinion is not approved of or sits wrong or whatever, it gets erased. Complicated justification systems find a home here. Where is the opinion of the users who cared enough to help and not simply cared enough to have an opinion? -- carol (talk) 01:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions by anyone are welcomed. There's nothing bad in making suggestions. Everyone has his/her motivations. Everyone has his own amount of time to work on Commons. I won't comment on this, and I don't think that's what we're here for. It is OK for me as long it works. I thinks suggestions made here make sense. Closing FPC has also a large parts of repetitive tasks which can be automated for sure. A bot can only help. I don't know if you have closed FPC, but if not, try to, and I think you'll agree. Benh (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I've closed QI and when another person who has done that says that closing FPC is more difficult and time consuming, I have a lot of respect for that and tend to simply believe it. Another thing that I have an enormous amount of respect for is how doing those tasks, for me, I have much stronger opinions of what qualifies an image or not. That is about the technical stuff -- the imagery itself is another thing. Different from reading a book, a photograph is a snapshot so I think it is not unusual for a human brain which is working still to fill in details from the before and after and worse, the symbolism. Dschwen has added to QICBot and to the QI close out, a method to put the images into the galleries which often makes looking at the images at more than the thumb sized resolution optional. So, it is great, the gui is simple and the task is so much easier. The people accomplishing the task now get much less of a "wild ride" though since less of the eyes and brains are used to complete it. I also have not looked at the galleries much since then....
In my real life, I have complained very much about people making decisions about the way things work who have no experience with doing that work, or even have no experience doing that work at a different time. So, my suggestion here is an old one with the exception that here I can encourage the people who are having opinions to "pitch in" and form real opinions. The experience is only drudgery when it is left to one or two people to do it. A current example is QIC lately. When the opportunity is there for me to sort the promoted, I feel like "yay! my turn today" instead of the few months that I was doing it and considered the promoted images to be "diva turds" that need flushing. I have brains that are working though....
Perhaps I have it all wrong and the Userspace Simonizer and the Userspace Alvesgaspar are being used by several people and not just those two single individuals.
My goal here, honestly was to have participants with the contest and writers of software for the contest to help with it. It is the only reason I expressed my opinion here. It is work; it can be very interesting. It can make a bad day seem worse and a good day seem that much more excellent. It is an experience where the expression of an opinion is not. -- carol (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Delisting Ciudad de las ciencias[edit]

Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG
Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg
Hemispheric Twilight - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg

Once in a while I see people arguing against new candidates because there already exist a featured image of the same or better quality. Now, there are currently three featured images on Ciudad de las ciencias in Valencia. All three are actually great images and in themselves worthy a featured status. The building is photogenique and with a great surrounding, lending itself well to photos. However the problem, as I see it, is that we don't really need three features on the same subject, from the same angle in roughly the same conditions. Wouldn't it be better to demote one or two of these to Quality image status, and keep the best one as featured?

Since the delist form is designed differently, I thought I'd check for support here before I go and design an entry that would fit the main FPC page. This isn't a real vote, just a "prepoll". Thoughts? Axelv (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Quality Images is not a demotion or has any ranking with or for Featured Pictures. -- carol (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The first two technically might not pass a QI Review. The first image is quite noisy. The second image has blown out whites.
The third image has some weird spots on the close side of the building which would probably have to be repaired (after noticed in the QI Review). FP is for passers by to say "Wow" or something -- I am not sure what works there or not. QI is for technical goodness and these have some problems for that. -- carol (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, cut the QI argument from my comment above then, obviously they would have to go through normal nomination procedure. Should they be kept as FP? Axelv (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


Pic of the day 18-8-2008[edit]

Discussion moved from Commons talk:Featured pictures

A bug pissing... really great subject! will it ever be possible to select a less disgusting picture to show in each wikipedia's main page, by the way? We had something like 15 pics of bug out of 31 days in August... I think we shoul be more carefull choosing pics which may disgust the watcher --Sailko (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This kind of beastly comments is not welcome here. Maybe you should be more carefull choosing the words ... and the place to use them. May I also suggest you use your fingers to help counting? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am not native english speaking, I don't know another word to say "evacuating liquid from the backside of its body". The total images of bugs on August are 6/31, almost 20%, and on the first week they were one every 2 days! I just felt disgusted for so many bugs pictures as featured pic, so much concentraded in a few days. Not everyone likes to see bugs on a large scale, I just wonder if there is a kind of filter or if we have to watch a bug on all langauges wikipedia's main pages every 5 days (or every day out of two, like in August). That's all. --Sailko (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can put an image up for Picture of the day. Maybe recent ones have been insects, but it's open to anyone to choose different subjects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you disagree with a selected POTD and have good reasons, the image can be changed. The best place to talk about that is probably Commons talk:Picture of the day. But it has to be done as early as possible, before users have done much work in writing descriptions in many languages, and so there still is time to write new descriptions. I agree that sometimes too many bug images are used (I moved this image from August 5 to August 18, because bugs were selected three days in a row the first week of this month). But insects and other bugs is one of the largest groups of Featured images on Commons, so it is not strange that many of them are used as POTD. /Ö 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of FPX template[edit]

Once upon a time the FPX template was designed to shorten the decision time for really clear FP candidates that clearly violate the guidelines and will therefore be declined for sure. Increasingly often the template is now used just as a substitution for just opposing - even if the guidelines are not clearly violated, but the opposer just dislikes the composition (see “lack of wow[1], “overexposed[2], “poor composition[3], “composition is weak in its symmetry[4]). I don't know if the FPX fans are aware of the fact, that by using this template we simply block the community from beeing able to participate in the process due to the short FPX grace period. One would have to come here every single day to be able to support even those candidates that are meant to have “lack of wow” or “poor composition”, which is clearly a matter of taste. This is simply not accaptable in an open, community-driven project like Wikimedia Commons.

FPX should really only be used if there is nearly no chance that there would be any support vote in the normal 10 days candidature period. Even if it's sometimes annoying to see FP candidates below the standards we can't let one person decide whether the community is graciously allowed to participate in the process or not. This is an open project! --norro 22:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you favor making the template's documentation more explicit, by saying, for example, that the parameter (the reason) should be the objective criterion the candidate fails? Or by making the parameter a number (1 indicates resolution below the limit, 2 indicates ... )? Fg2 (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Giving parameters for the reason is a pretty good idea because that would ensure that the template is only used for it's original purpose. Annyhow, I'm not a big fan of more and more restrictions to the wiki principle, so I think clearifying the purpose and that there always has to be a clear guideline violation is the better way. --norro 21:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Limit of Images[edit]

I was just wandering today, given that I nominated 3 photos and Ltz Raptor nominated alot of his photos, maybe there should be a limit on number of pictures nominated to each day. If we have too many pictures, then none of them will get enough reviews. Maybe make it compulsory to review the {{number of pictures you uploaded}} x2 at least? --SuperJew (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to post this as well, since that user seems to be putting all of their images into the voting. I would suggest allowing a user to have only two images nominated at any one time. Afterall there is no hurry, the pictures are not going to disappear from Commons. R-T-C Tim (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I talked to the user and he seems new and enthusiastic, but i think he'll now refrain to about 3 a day max.
do we anyway want a limit on image nominatons? ahem, admins are welcome to put foreward their point of view
--SuperJew (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think, that we need such a limitation. I know only one case where the candidate list was flooded in a way that the process was seriously disturbed. To add yet another rule or limit to prevent such a seldom case that can be easily be dealt with by just talking to the user seems unnecessary to me. --norro 21:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be worth adding a note to the section about how to upload pictures, politely requesting that users do not upload more than two images at any one time. Would probably deal with it. R-T-C Tim (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vote tampering[edit]

This is only a minor instance, since the image was doomed to fail anyway, but there is clear vote tampering going on with This Image. Do we have any guidelines on how to deal with this? R-T-C Tim (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at his User page you'll find he is 9 years old. I am not sure he knows exactly what he is doing or is fully aware of any consequences to his actions (especially in a virtual world) --SuperJew (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have informed an admin about that --Simonizer (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Error in delisting template[edit]

When creating a delisting page, the cut-and-paste wording that is automatically generated incudes a line like this:

*{{Info}} Reason to delist ([[Commons:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Aerogelbrick.jpg|Original nomination]])

The word "pictures" should read "picture" in order for the link to work.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

An unhealthy flux of rejected images[edit]

We seem to have incurred a certain stream of non-FP-able material coming through on a regular basis, to the point it seems that a significant portion of people are not understanding what an FP is and what our criteria is. Perhaps this could be rectified by the clarification or increased prominence of the guidelines and/or links to them. If we could further ensure nominators are more understanding of our process and the attached criteria, we'd likely have a favorable outcome in terms of the number of FP candidates we are rejecting as opposed to passing. Further to this, the workload would be significantly eased, with fewer images on the board. - Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I can only second this statement. I have already communicated with several of the 'new' FP contributors/reviewers, pointing them to the Guidelines but I'm still waiting for results. Apparently, even some seasoned reviewers seem to have issues with the FPX template, which is clearly supported by those guidelines. Lycaon (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling that it's too much text in the top of the page, people simply do not bother to read it all; it looks too complex which makes it more likely that people just submit images to see what happens instead. And the summary of the guidelines seem to almost be as much info as the complete guidelines. I would like to see all info on the frontpage much more condensed. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - condensing rather than expansion could be the actual road to clarification... - Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

More worrisome to me is a certain aspect to the voting: Quite a number of votes show utter ignorance, of the basic medium in which the work was created. For example, there's a proposal to delist a coin from circa 1700 because it's "Just a coin" - that's the only reason given, never mind that it's A.) a coin with a high-quality rendition of Pope Clement XI, B.) A former candidate for Picture of the Year, and C.) used in 20 projects. Elsewhere on the page, we see someone who thinks a lithograph is a painting opposing because it doesn't look like a painting. Yeah, imagine that. A while ago, I had opposes to engravings by someone whose only justification was that she thought only photographs should ever be featured pictures.

Frankly, people voting based on utter ignorance of the basic nature of the type of work being looked at is not a good thing. Perhaps it might help to encourage the nominator to give a few lines describing why the image is significant, and what the image is. This might help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • This is a recurring discussion. And though I agree that most votes (especialliy the negative) should have a short explanation, we couldn't yet find any effective way to implement that kind of obligation. Unlike WP:FPC the decisions here are taken by a strict voting process, with rigid rules. One of the reasons is that COM:FPC is open to all users, no matter his mother language or language abilities. Also, floods of sub-standard nominations occur periodically. The "rule of the 5th day" and the FPX template were both designed to minimize their negative impacts, especially those affecting the workload of the closer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
B) All FPs from 2006 and later are Picture of the year candidates for the year they get featured. So if that is reason to not delist, images can only be delisted the same year they get featured, or if they were featured before 2006. C) There are many unfeatured pics that are used on many projects. That does not mean that they are among the best images here, only that maybe there is no better images for illustrating some specific thing. /81.234.248.6 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
So why the hell do we put a big sign up saying it was a candidate on its page? Anyway, that doesn't change that the reason given for delisting was ignorant and invalid. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Preparation[edit]

We are starting the discussion on POTY 2008. Would you like to join? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong FPC closing[edit]

I've been closing FPC a bit too soon (1 day) for a few days now... I'm very sorry for that. Tomorrow night, I'll try to have a look at all the FPC I've closed recently... Benh (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More about my mistake : I closed FPCs on day 9 instead of day 10... but since voting period is 9 complete days (9x24h) most of the closing should be OK. I'll have a look at the "almost on par" cases and renominate them for those which weren't featured. I'll leave candidates which ended in getting featured (that would be a lot of trouble to delist or renominate them). Do you think it's a good idea ? - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, my apologizes to all contributors for the mistakes (which aren't my first ones ! I shouldn't close FPC :( ). - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Users who work, make mistakes;-) Users who do not work make no mistakes. I prefer users who actually do something here!
In my opinion it is not the end of the world. If an image was about to be not featured on day 9.5 it is unlikely that having it there for another half day would change anything. I propose a more pragmatic approach. If a nomination at the time of your closure was only 1 vote away from ending in another state, then open the FPC again, put it on top, and let it be open again for another day. You may want to make a dedicated section for the reopened ones. If the end result results in a change to the final result, do necessary changes (hope there are no changes). For all the rest. Let them stay closed as the premature closure probably did not affect the end result. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is recently then? I suggest just noting the starting and ending date of this mistake especially as there is a thread somewhere else about how many not so featurable images have been nominated recently. Personally, I would rather not see them again. I agree with Slaunger and additionally suggest that a user who is working is also more capable of knowing when mistakes have been made than a constant paroling by self-appointed or elected or selected. To me, it is one of the first signs of intelligent life I have seen in FP in a while! Yay Benh! -- carol (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Slaunger --Simonizer (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way Thanks for the work you do with the FP Closing. So Iam able to stay away for some days without being afraid that i have to close dozens of FPCs. Most users dont care the work to clutter up the FPC nominations but to close them no one cares. Its good to have users like you --Simonizer (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all for the kind and relieving words. They sort of embarrass me because I don't forget that you work much more than I do on Commons. Here are (hopefully all) the FPCs I closed before end of voting period.

Among them only this one was "close enough" from different fate (2 votes away) :

I will put it back on top of the candidate liste, for a day. This shouldn't be that much trouble. Hope you agree. Benh (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just do that. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

New nomination template[edit]

I've taken the liberty to update the nomination template. It now displays the voting period, so we should avoid repeating any mistake like the one describe above. Please tell me if it's not to your tastes. Benh (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  • No complaints so I consider it is OK. I've duplicated this on the removal template as well. Please let me know any bug you find (or simply if you don't like it) ! - Benh (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    Looks fine. Have a look at the very newly revised (a few minutes ago) templates used at COM:VIC for more ideas on how to automate useful messages to reviewers and the closer. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I'll have a look at that :) (I should have a look at VIC as well, I don't take the time to...) Benh (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    Although, I am a pro-VI-nut, I am also aware that VI is not as prestigious as FP, and if I had your photographis capabilities, I would also focus a substantial fraction of my efforts at FPC ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, I don't even take the time to upload pictures anymore... and have accumulated dozens of them. Ideally I'd spend time on FPC, QIC and VIC. But I think I'm better at judging a quality of a picture rather than its value. I don't think it takes a lot of photograph capabilities to shot potential FPs ; good equipment can make a difference... That doesn't mean we don't have talented photographers (IMO) here :) Benh (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed it again, because old one was misleading. Now it simply says when the voting period ends, with exact time. Benh (talk) 20:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)