Commons talk:Featured picture candidates

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Featured picture candidates.

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
candidate list

Israeli canvassing?

By the previous logic, is it canvassing? ★ 00:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(sage) Can we please stop with that, for God's sake? RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again: canvassing or not? ★ 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but this is not helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into the realm of empty discussions. Being Brazilian, this situation has affected me as well, but I think that reacting in the same childish and immature tone, resorting to the same fallacies (tu quoque) as a form of argumentation, is definitely not the way forward. It's time for us to adopt a more mature stance, without getting lost in superficial disputes fueled by drama that only serve to divide us. Wilfredor (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Dredging up a nomination from 2016 and making completely unfounded racial comments about Jewish people voting is not a good look. To suggest canvassing you need to have some evidence beyond that these people all have heritage from a specific country. Basile Morin, when raising concerns about canvassing, did attempt to provide evidence of this.

As a matter of fact I agree with others that the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that canvassing certainly did take place, but Basile a) attempted to draw attention to a recurring issue (see here when a completely different user raised questions over possible off-wiki canvassing including some of the same participants), b) attempted to evidence his claims, c) explicitly disavowed racial or ethnic bias and kept the discussion strictly focussed on the facts (‘I am personally open to Brazil like to other countries. Very good friends of mine live there, I have traveled in Brazil for several weeks, supported many Brazilian FPs, and even created and uploaded content related to Brazil’), and d) has explicitly stated that he considers this discussion closed and has no intention of re-opening it (‘ It is not false in my opinion. But I totally respect the doubtful party. As simple as that. Now I'm closing this discussion.’)

Regardless of whether you felt that Basile Morin’s comments were hurtful, it is you who has chosen to continue reopening this discussion - and now to make racial innuendos about Jewish people - while he has been clear that he wishes to leave this behind. As someone who has Jewish family members I find the fact that you seem to be going on a Jew-hunt in nominations from 2016 to be hugely offensive. Not to mention hypocritical seeing that you are keen to disavow responsibility for your own actions that provoked complaint as recently as November 2023 but think it is okay to make racial comments about people for innocent actions that provoked no complaint eight years ago.

Until you apologise to this forum for your racist comments I will not vote on any of your nominations going forward. I have seen too much of the world to be content to allow anti-Semitism to go unchecked. Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Last part retracted. It would be unfair of me to punish other people's work that this user nominates just because of my views on their behaviour, and not voting on the pictures they nominate just increases the chances that substandard work will pass. Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cmao20: I understand, man, but you should grow accustomed to racial innuendos. This is especially prevalent against people of my color. The thing is that many people are racist (not that I'm calling anyone racist) without realizing it, which is sad. It's not easy, and I especially feel sorry for my brothers and sisters with darker complexions. However, I don't think the person who is discriminating is to blame or should apologize. That's my two cents; take it or leave it. All I'm trying to convey is that you are not the only one who finds these statements offensive. Wolverine XI 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As a descendant of the Caribbean and African Brazilian First Nations, I want to express how difficult it is to talk about this topic. My experience has led me to point out on several occasions the notorious bias towards whiteness in FPC, reflected in an overrepresentation of images and content related to Europe and predominant Western culture. However, I would also like to recognize the efforts of those users who, even if they are few (like Poco a poco which coincidentally means little by little in Spanish), strive to make a significant difference. I would like to invite you to read an article I have written about the racial situation in my environment. This article has been translated into several languages, and I am proud to mention that the Spanish version has been recognized as a "good article." Wilfredor (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing antisemitism here. Were there comments that were deleted? In terms of a bias toward subjects in European countries and those dominated by descendants of emigrants from Europe, I think all of us know that exists, even if for no other reason than who uploads photos and nominates them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Crediting photos and images on Wikipedia

This is a copy of part of a discussion that originated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. The discussion got out of topic and it can continue here instead. --Cart (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment For those who would want to see photos better credited on Wikipedia, I occasionally come across that on the Norwegian Wiki, [1] [2] [3]. It's not done on every image, so I don't know what their policy for this is, but it's worth a look. I think it looks very professional, and it doesn't disturb the article. I don't know if there are other Wikis with this practice. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Interesting – thank you, Cart! I have never seen this in other Wikipedia editions. I guess most of our photographers would appreciate this kind of attribution very much, but maybe not all Wikipedians would like that idea … Of course we normally argue that attribution of individual images is not necessary in Wikipedia articles. But the absence of any attribution in Wikipedia may contribute to the misunderstanding of many re-users of images that “Wikipedia images” are public domain. If we would attribute all photos in Wikipedia articles in this unobtrusive manner, more people could learn that not all “Wikipedia images” are PD, but that they must be attributed properly. – Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• I thought it was worth mentioning. It could be optional, and you might toy with the idea that professional photographers might be more inclined to donate some of their images to a CC license if they were credited in this way. There are arguments to be had both pro and con. --Cart (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's a good page on enwiki arguing for photo captions here: en:Wikipedia:Image_citation. I think if enwiki in particular is going to buy-in, it's going to be on the basis of verifiability, citing sources, and providing information without the need to go to a sister site. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• These day with all the AI-generated images and fake news, I think that in some cases it can help the article, if the reader immediately sees that the image comes from a trusted photographer, a museum or a photographer affiliated to some institution, without having to click away to get that info. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually have always wanted that on enwiki, just because I like checking for photographer names and I don't like clicking to do it. It's nice for verifiability reasons. The way Norwegian Wikipedia does it is nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes the idea is nice, however if hardly anyone maintains it and as a result some pictures are attributed correctly, some incorrectly and some not at all, that's definitely not nice in the end, and I would say better let it be completely. IMHO --A.Savin 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's what would happen; and already is happening at the Norwegian Wiki. I think they try to go by the letter of the CC license and actually credit the photographers, and failing just like A.Savin says. So in the end we on the WikiProjects are/would be just as sloppy and inaccurate as everyone else using our photos, yet we are the ones throwing stones here. I regard any photo I upload on Commons as a "lost" photo, and I live with it (like Korda did). It's always interesting to see where my photos turn up, and I'm not losing any sleep over if my name is on it or not. So many of my designs and artistic ideas have been stolen over the years, and if you don't let go of it, you will go crazy and bitter. I give this as my advice to Diliff and others. If you want to get paid for your work, make a hard copyright from the beginning and don't mix your profession with your hobby. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sad but true … Theoretically attribution hints like the ones in the Norwegian Wiki could in most cases be generated automatically by the Mediawiki software. When an image looks like a photo (has the usual Exif values etc.), has a single entry in the ‘Author’ field of the {{Information}} template and this entry has the standard form of a user-page link, the software could automatically add “Photo: <username link>” at the end of the image caption. In all other cases the software could show a small warning instead: “Fellow editors, please add the attribution to this image manually.” This way the need for maintenance could be reduced drastically. – Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about the same technical solution as in the "Favorites" userpages (such as yours User:Aristeas/Favorites), then I'd have to oppose -- the attributions are not always correctly generated, apparently there are problems at least with file imports such as Flickr. --A.Savin 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Good objection! No, I did not mean the same technical solution. The “Favorites” gadged uses a very simplistic (to avoid an impolite word ;–) implementation; it just looks at the name of the uploader in the file history. The result is often nonsense, of course. I would oppose such a solution, too. It should be possible to find a much more accurate implementation by looking either at the “author=...” field of the {{Information}} template or at the Wikidata values; and in any case the attribution should be created only if the result of the analysis is clear. – Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think any solution would need to involve no effort on the part of Wikipedians, and do the credit line automatically much like you get in the Media Viewer one sees when one clicks on a Wikipedia image while logged out (or if that's your preferred setting if logged in). It isn't perfect, relying on the photographer/uploader/commoner to get it right wrt templates and such, but it is better than expecting Wikipedians to do it.

The Wikipedia style is technically within the CC law, but requires a click to show any credit info. The Norwegian style isn't explicitly correct either, giving just the author name, and relying on clicks for the rest. So someone copying a Norwegian image and sticking "Diliff" below it, would very much still be using it illegally.

This has the unfortunate effect that the most popular and likely place anyone will see your photo is somewhere that does not explicitly get the licence details right, and the image can be copied without ever seeing the attribute or licence details. It is this that sites like Pixsy make their CC money from, and Wikipedia imo should take responsibility for enabling the copyleft-troll business model to exist. If the images explicitly had "© User:Colin Licence: CC-BY-SA-3.0" on them, there'd be less excuse that one didn't know it wasn't free and didn't know what one was supposed to do to reuse it. Wikipedia could also help by having a little "reuse this image" button on each image that took you to a page that explained what you need to do. Currently the Media Viewer is an example of how to do it right but there's no Help Page link explaining what is necessary.

If Commons images were all self made, we could impose conditions on uploading them wrt pursuing individuals for incorrect attribution. But most licenced images on Commons come from elsewhere, and as long as our model is hoovering up whatever appears to be free, we are susceptible to abuse.

I suspect Wikipedians will not be interested in correct explicit attribution. The text-based project they spend most effort on is collaboratively built and they accept their contribution is a drop in a hidden list of many. They also don't really view themselves working on a free-content project, vs just writing Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia is free to read; they don't realise it is also free to reuse). And the collaborative model that discourages any ideas of ownership of articles, also discourages a mindset that gets terribly upset when people copy the text without getting licence details right. Our single-creator free-to-use-anywhere image model is alien to them. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to end this important discussion, but as this goes far away from the deletion request itself so we should move this to another place. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, you are absolutely right. Since I was the one who derailed this thread, I'll copy-paste the last bit of this to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where I'm sure the discussion will continue, and fold up that part here. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Please suggest another place, or as requestor I am fine with keeping the discussion going here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course by "here" I meant the original location Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. Yes, I think that if we can get the WMF to add attribution for every licensed Commons file used in mainspace on every WMF project in a standard unobtrusive way, that would be great. Adding it for the PD files would be nice, but I don't think that's necessary on talk pages. Also, if we can get the empty "link=" parameters removed from the recommendations in the last paragraph at en:H:PIC#Links (and other language versions), that would be extra special. I managed to soften that recommendation in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

However the "link=" parameters serve a purpose here on Commons, where some of the FP design is built on using such links. See for example: Template:Natural scenes FP galleries top. I'm sure there are similar uses on other WikiProjects. --Cart (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I propose the development of an interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer. This system would include an additional panel in the image display interface that clearly and accessibly displays the license information and author credits at all times. Additionally, I would implement a "How to reuse this image" button that guides users through an interactive tutorial on the necessary steps for the legal use of the images, including how and where to properly apply the attribution and license Wilfredor (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Those would be nice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a software developer with 14 years of experience, I work on several mediawiki things but that is not my specialty. It could be a month at most. Although the philosophy and politics of WMF are all extremely slow, we still have an uploadwizard that works "well" (just reviewing the countless bugs in the phabricator). We could have another open letter similar to the one that is currently being heard against the media viewer and that is the only real thing that occurs to me Wilfredor (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I happily support this idea. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And who is going to develop an "interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer"? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, all of this is a pipe-dream. But we are allowed to dream from time to time. Right? --Cart (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, Cart. I'm all for providing attribution in the caption – actually, very much so. I just don't think waiting for the Wikimedia Foundation is the best first step (for the obvious reasons). Let's instead go back to our language versions and start a conversation about implementing this new rule. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Can you mock up how you would want it to look on paper or in your favorite drawing program, and upload that or post it somewhere public?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It has always been disappointing and astounding to me that there's no way, on Wikipedia, to automatically get metadata from a Commons image: a technical issue that has probably wasted tens of thousands of hours of people's time (retyping captions, for example, when an image could just have one default caption that seldom needed modification, and almost always only ever needs a single alt text). On the issue of Wikipedia's stupid attribution system, obviously this is not a place where that can be decided, but I have always thought it was godawful. It combines the worst of all worlds. On one hand, it goes way too far (it ruins the UI of reading Wikipedia -- all images are forced to be gigantic surprise hyperlinks to a different page). On the other hand, it does not go nearly far enough: virtually nobody deliberately clicks on images in Wikipedia articles to see the credits, and they're often reused without the hyperlinks (not to mention they present an accessibility hazard)... so the default way to display Wikipedia pages just completely lacks any attribution for the images! It's really, really bad, and I think it might have made sense to do this in 2004 but I am strongly in favor of replacing the stupid hyperlink thing with straightforward normal image credits (which is what almost every normal website uses). JPxG (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Modeling correct behavior is obviously the right thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Neptune Full.jpg status

What is supposed to happen to File:Neptune Full.jpg? There was a vote in January to delist it, yet it is still a featured picture. Has a decision been made elsewhere? Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As a side note: This may not be relevant, but the argument in one of the votes that this one doesn't even pretend to be natural color [...] so I don't see that as a problem was not true until the file page was edited two minutes earlier, and I am not sure the image would have been chosen as a featured image in the first place if this had been common knowledge. Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well Renerpho, we've had a few strange things happening here at FPC over the years, but this is the first time I've seen something like this!

Yes, on 23 January 2024, Nrco0e created Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Neptune Full.jpg. BUT, the delist nomination was never added to the FPC page list, Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, like it says you must do on the instructions for making any kind of FP-related nomination. Adding noms to the list doesn't happen automatically when you create a nomination page. Because of this, the nomination never became public knowledge, it never entered the FPC delist system and only the users pinged by Nrco0e on the delist sub-page knew it existed and had a chance to vote. Since the nom wasn't declared in the right way, it could not be closed either and it's not a valid delisting.

If you still think this FP should be nominated for delisting, you need to create a new delist nomination (you have to use the /2 marker like it says on the info page) and be sure you follow the instructions properly this time. Add the new nom to the list and the right process will start.

This is not the first time that a nom has been misplaced like this, but they usually just end after the nomination time is up, since no one knows about them except for the nominator. Here we had a case of 'pinging' a lot of users when the nom was created. That is also outside the rules for noms, since this can be seen as canvassing votes. Letting only those who might be in favor of a delisting know that the nomination exists, is not the right way to do this. --Cart (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking further at the voters on the nomination page, I see that some of them do not even have the necessary 50 edits on Commons, that allow them to vote on FPCs or delistings. They only came here since they were pinged. Had this been a normal delisting, their votes would have been struck. --Cart (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks W.carter! If that doesn't sound like a good mess, I don't know what does.

I won't start a second attempt myself, but I encourage Nrco0e to think about it (following proper procedure this time). Should the other users who tried to vote in January be informed? Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, yes they should be informed since Commons value transparency and they unknowingly voted on something that wasn't ok. On the other hand, I can't endorse canvassing votes... Do as you please. --Cart (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It does make me question whether they should still hold autopatroller rights, though it was given to them on March 15, well past that improper (and canvassed) delist nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are at the stage were those rights need to be removed yet. This was one small mistake (a lot of people have missed adding noms to the list) that combined with one bad call (that would have been corrected on a normal nom) that this time coincided to create a "perfect mess/storm". Shit happens. Having rights removed should be done when things happen again and again or when the rights are intentionally abused. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again to Cart for answering this and explaining things! – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It does look like a genuine mistake and I hope Nrco0e learned from it, but I would still keep that option open if future canvassing occurs. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Parks and gardens gallery

Per what Aristeas wrote here, a new gallery pages for 'Parks and gardens' might be a good idea. While reading that comment, I got the idea that we could go up one level and make the page 'Recreational areas' or something like that. It could then include sections like: Parks, Gardens, Sports venues, Hiking paths, etc. All outdoor areas that aren't covered exactly by the usual 'Places' categories. With the 'sports venues' I was thinking about places that are temporarily used for some sports event (example), and 'hiking paths' sometimes end up in 'places other' since the track is not completely natural. Just some thoughts. Sorry to jump in here on Aristeas' idea, but I'm going to be away for a while, and I wanted to get these thoughts down on the forum before I went offline. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we want to distinguish manmade parks (e.g. city parks) from natural parks (e.g. national parks). The latter should still remain in the "Natural" category. But I do agree with the general sentiment, because it is hard to classify city parks under the current taxonomy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with King, yes. Kritzolina (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to Cart for opening a discussion on this; I fully agree with her statements. Also many thanks to King of ♥ for the clarification. Yes, by ‘parks’ we mean man-made areas, not the national parks and similar nature preservation areas; photos from the latter naturally (no pun intended) belong to the ‘Natural scenes’ galleries. Let’s keep this discussion open for some time in order to collect further remarks; if no serious objections are raised, I will have time to create the new gallery page in about two weeks. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We should explicitly state "Regional parks and gardens", because park on its own to me implies a natural one (like national parks). --SHB2000 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"Artificial recreation areas" as opposed to the sexist "manmade recreation areas"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable with using normal English words like "manmade", there is also the neutral term "Landscaped areas". "Artificial" brings to mind AstroTurf, fake trees and plastic flowers. Also, Commons is multilingual, and far from all languages share the constructions with, and meaning of, "man" that English has. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cart: "Landscaped recreation areas", then?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

All suggestions are welcome here, we are still at the brainstorming stage. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I really like the "landcscaped area" thing, because it also includes all green spaces that might not officially be a garden or a park - just this bit of green between two rows of houses. And yes, we usually don't get FPs from such informal green spaces, but who knows ... Kritzolina (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)