Commons talk:Featured pictures

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

Static, non-photographic media[edit]

This category is becoming so disorganised as to be near-useless for navigation. I think it should be divided into about 3 new categories, and some of its contents that better fit elsewhere reshuffled (such as images of scenes from history being moved to "Historical"). Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

FP Image Size[edit]

In this era of retina and other high density displays can we please feature our FPs at a image size that doesn't make them look like postage stamps on the screen? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Others Arthropods"[edit]

That's a category at the bottom of the page. It should be Other Arthropods, but I can't figure out how to change it. Please make the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Also changed a few for consistency. — Julian H. 09:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I like to fix spelling mistakes whenever possible. In the future, how would I be able to make this kind of correction? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
You can edit a template by click on the "e", top left of the template. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured set invisible[edit]

In the 3rd slot from the left under "Places", in lieu of an image, I see "Featured picture candidates/Set/Pittsburgh panoramas". It is not clickable. I don't know how to fix the problem, but it sure looks bad and needs to be fixed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem has recurred with the leftmost slot in "Static non-photographic media". This is a bad bug. Wouldn't someone who knows how to fix problems like this tackle it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I manually fixed this one. Yann (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
So that does work. Thank you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Nu, is anyone reading this talk page? This is a bad problem that needs solving. Please? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Better you post at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates which is watched by more people. Jee 03:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
No-one seems to be paying attention there, either. It's really awful. I think I'd better try the Village pump. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's not that no one pays attention to CT:FPC, it's partly because the page didn't appear on most people watchlist as your edit was followed not long later by a bot's. -- KTC (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
IMO the bot should take the first image of the set. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, that's a bot problem. It does that. Trouble is, the people who maintain the bots are very hard to reach, let alone push for updates. Also, I'd say include all the images: An FPC page just isn't a set gallery for what we want to be linking people to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Captions[edit]

What's with the captions that cover entire pictures? Eg Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have the More button more prominent[edit]

Hi

It would be very helpful to have the More button more prominent for people not used to Wikimedia, perhaps it could be called full set or similar? Its very easy to miss the more button and think that the only images are the ones on this page.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

John Cummings the changes to make the more links more prominent can be made using CSS so a graphic shouldn't need to be made for that purpose (making note about graphic due to your COM:GL/ILL request ).
Examples of CSS to make the more link more noticeable:
and

I don't ever use this page, so I'm going to leave changes to this page up to those who actually use it. Just make sure to test your changes before making your edit. Offnfopt(talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Offnfopt, thanks so much, would it be possible to put each link in a button? maybe similar to the More details button in media viewer? Thanks again --John Cummings (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
John Cummings check out the {{Clickable button}} and {{Clickable button 2}} templates. Offnfopt(talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit: The media viewer button uses the Agora styles, example More.Offnfopt(talk) 17:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Offnfopt, this is amazing, it works really well (just a placeholder icon obviously) Caution icon - Noun Project 9556 white.svg Arachnids. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Offnfopt, Here is a proper version Drosm3 white.svg Diptera (Flies), is there an easy way to convert all the buttons? I would be very happy to create new white versions of the illustrations is someone could help me with the code. Thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please could someone make the icons next to the links to categories not clickable?[edit]

Hi

Please could someone make the icons next to the links to categories not clickable? It may be confusing for non Wikimedians using this site to click on what they think is a link to a set of images but then its just a big version of the logo used for that category.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

John Cummings Regarding disabling picture links next to the categories, that can only be done on images that are free of licensing requirements. Meaning you can disable the link of a image being displayed if the image is {{cc-zero}} or public domain, etc but the images that are under other licenses such as those that have attribution requirements or require the license notice to be displayed, the links can't be disabled for these since the link is what satisfies the licensing requirement. The permissions for the various images are mixed so I think it would be more confusing to the user if the link was disabled for a subset of the images but not for the others. Offnfopt(talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong?[edit]

Hi

I reformatted Commons:Featured_pictures,_list to fit with the styling of all its subpages, however I thought that once I had saved that page it would then show on this page..... Have missunderstood something?

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


Update: Its working now, not sure it was a cache refreshing or a kindly user. --John Cummings (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured Picture Photoshoped?[edit]

Change the enviroment to show a more beautifull but irreal image?. For example:

Snow leopard portrait.jpg Snow leopard portrait-2010-07-09.jpg

To the point that it became acceptable? --The Photographer 21:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

  • That's way over the top, imo. Don't get me wrong, the photoshopped version is great, but manipulations of this extent have to be made VERY obvious in the pertinent description --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • From here we can assume the rejection of original version was more because of the crop than the background. Maybe someone thought that snow background is better for a Snow leopard too. :) Jee 07:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, The background come from where? @Niabot: --The Photographer 18:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Should this photo be nominated for destarring on this basis? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
IMHO yes --The Photographer 18:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

FP gear statistics[edit]

I thought I came across (maybe a year ago) some statistics about featured pictures based on individual image metadata. E.g. the cameras or camera brands most often used. Am I making this up? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? :) — Rhododendrites talk |  01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Flick has statistics similar to what you're looking for. I personally find the technical aspects of photography already a bit overblown here on Commons. A fun fact would be to know how many times people used the words "resolution" or "chromatic" compared to how many times they used the words "aesthetics" and "viewpoint" ;-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC) 
And "noise" problems that now could be easy to fix --The Photographer 16:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential Nomination[edit]

I really have no idea how this process works, but File:2016 Singapur, Downtown Core, Marina Bay Sands i ArtScience Museum (10).jpg is one of the better picture I've seen in a while. Even looking at other pictures of the same (admittedly impressive) building, many of which are from the same contributor, this one in particular has pretty much ideal lighting and angle, and is basically perfectly framed.

Can someone tick the right boxes for a nomination, or point me to exactly where the step-by-step is? TimothyJosephWood 13:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, See here: Commons:Featured picture candidates. Please add a category from COM:FP. Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers seems appropriate here. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Aaand...after reading through some of the guidelines...I think I'm probably out of my depth. TimothyJosephWood 18:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Logos of films[edit]

Hello. Can I upload to Wikimedia Commons logos of the films? --ToJack (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2016 Results[edit]

The 2016 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2016 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In the first round, there were 1475 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 58 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).

In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 4765 people who voted in total (R1 and R2).

  • In the first round, 2553 people voted for all 1475 candidates.
  • In the second round, 3625 people voted for all 58 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 615 people voted for the winner, File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg.
  2. In second place, 443 people voted for File:Khaoyai 06.jpg.
  3. In third place, 352 people voted for File:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in the drift ice region north of Svalbard.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

File:The Devil bargains with God over Job's faith in Duomo (San Gimignano).jpg[edit]

Wrong author (it's Bartolo di Fredi and not Lippo Memmi). --- Salutations. louis-garden pinXit (On en cause) 09:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Jurors for WikiScienceCompetition 2017[edit]

Hi, if you did not see my message on English or Frenc or Spanish wikipedia or at the Commons village pump please take a look in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/09#Upcoming_Wiki_Science_Competition. We are looking for jurors with wikimedia expertise. This way, some of the picture can be better described and classified. --Alexmar983 (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)