File talk:Bufo bufo 2009 G1.jpg

Preferred version?

I have copies the following discussion from my talk page:

Guten Tag, H005!

I have considered Your variant of the file File:Bufo bufo 2009 G1.jpg. Yes, the left bottom edge is better, but quality and colour balance as a whole is worse for me. If You prefer Yours variant, then:

1. Keep Yours variant on the Yours computer.
2. Return my file original.
3. Upload Yours variant with diffirent file name.

Absolutely free licence allows to do it. The order of operations procedure matters.

I too try to editing this file, but original IMHO better.

With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, George, this surprises me, if I compare the two versions the colors are absolutely the same, it's just lighter on the left side.

You can always restore any previous version by pressing the "reset" link left of the version in the table at the end of the page. But before you do so, please check again, load your version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/3c/20090709224857!Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg and my version http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg in two separate browser tabs and change forth and back between the two tabs: do you really see any other difference than the light? Even on a close-up view I can't see any difference. in colour balance or quality. -- H005 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it is common practice to add new versions that are meant to be an improvement to supersede the original, this is what this function was made for. -- H005 (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For me my self variant more preferably. However, I do not wish to spoil Your work. I know, that itself I can return the old version. At first I should be assured that Your version is not spoilt.

Example:

• File:Western tent caterpillars Malacosoma californicum in Joshua Tree NP.jpg and
• File:Tent caterpillar original.jpg

• File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC_8260-Hotel-Hafen.jpg
• File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC_8260_retouched.jpg

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to suggest continuing this disussion here with a broader audience.

IMHO it does not make sense to duplicate the image. Actually I deprecate the practice to add improved versions under a different name, as in George's examples above, I think it's better to agree on a version that is deemed better and keep the history under the same name.

Questions:

• Which of the two versions do you prefer?
• Shall the two versions bes stored under different names?
• Which of the versions should keep the FP status? (I changed it during the nomination procedure).

-- H005 (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, H005!

After your editing awards QI and FI should be removed. It already other image.

Editing during a nomination - an error, wrong way.

I understand Yours personal good resolves and consequently there is no personal insult. However I am afflicted by a situation. For me original variant better.

With best regards, -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi both. This is not an ideal situation. The original file got its awards before the altered version was uploaded. Normally a file should not be changed significantly during or after FPC or QIC processes. In this case the modification was IMO rather significant. I am not judging the quality of either version but the awards were given to the original. So I suggest you revert the upload and upload the brightened version under a new name. Regards. Lycaon (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to say, but my impression was that the original shows the adaptation of the animal to different light-situations. Second problem is the changing of QI-material. IMO the change should be reverted. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ack Lycaon, the changes are significant, the new version should be uploaded with new file name. -- smial (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As others, yes without question if the change is at all contested then revert it and upload as a new image. Even if the new version is greeted as better it needs to be submitted again to the FP or QI processes to let others make a judgement. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As per the unisono response, I have reset the image and uploaded Bufo_bufo_2009_G1_editH005.jpg as a new version. -- H005 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Some remarks however:

• It is common practice to apply improvements during the nomination process; although I agree that this may cause issues in some cases, as it happened here, mostly it does not.
• @ Mbdortmund, how can the toad adapt to the shadow? The shadow darkens everything, the toad is no exception, so just keeping the colour is the best camouflage. --
• If someone improves an already approved FP or QI, is there a process for changing the FP status from the old to the new version if no one doubts that the new version is an improvement? Just nominating the 2nd and, if successful, keeping both images as individual files each with FP status is not a good solution IMHO.

-- H005 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes changes are often made while a nomination is under consideration, but usually by the nominator or after discussing with the nominator. Otherwise alternative versions are uploaded as seperate files so the differences can be easily discussed.

If changes are made after it has become an FP we need to decide which version is better. For FP only one version will retain the FP stamp. So it is easier if they are seperate files so they can be compared during a new FPC nomination and delisting process. There can be an unlimited number of QI versions of the same image. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

rem

add brown animals category--Pierpao.lo (listening) 06:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)