Open main menu

Commons talk:Featured picture candidates


A new (?) recordEdit

Due to the influx of new nominators, the Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2019 is now so full that the page can't display any more nominations. It just bunches up links to them at the end of the page. I don't think I've seen this before (I may be wrong). --Cart (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The 7 last nominations don't display at the bottom of the page and are not listed in the menu of the top. Is it possible to split these 251 nominations into two separated lists of different pages like 200 nominations in one called April 2019 (1) and 51 nominations in another one called April 2019 (2) ? With a link at the end or bottom of each page of course. I think it's better than cutting & pasting these 7 nominations from April to May, that may lead to confusion sometimes in researches -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think any of that is necessary. It's just a log page and we are perfectly capable of clicking on the links to see the noms. I was merely commenting on the number noms these days, most of them failed and many withdrawn. --Cart (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but in the past there used to be heavy months like this one, see for example 10 years ago 299 nominations in April 2009, and the display seems okay. In my view it is better if all the nominations have text and images, since it helps when we want to perform a visual research -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The reason that month is displayed correctly, even though it has more nominations, is that the debates on each nom were not as lengthy back then. We can wait and see if this month was just an anomaly or if we are entering an era of many more noms and more talkative participants, before we start doing changes to the log system. --Cart (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Places/Natural subgalleriesEdit

Since some time now, we have subpages in addition to Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural, including Austria, Germany, Spain, U.S., and several others.

From my experience, nearly no one is using them -- nominators still use Places/Natural, as well as those who close nominations. So, my question: maybe I am missing something and we don't need these subgalleries? Maybe they were just created for testing or so? Maybe it has become too complicated for the folks and all files should be placed back in the maternal gallery, in order not to make things more complicated than needed. I don't know -- for my part, I tried to sort all new FP's properly so far, but if no one otherwise considers it necessary, that's losing any sense. --A.Savin 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

From what I can see, we really do need those subgalleries. Otherwise the main gallery page would become too large and it could be impossible to open or it could suffer the same complications as the QI galleries (and the above mentioned log page) with images not displayed. People don't use them because most users are not involved with sorting their photos, some even skip stating the FP category on their noms. Too many users think things are done by bots, something that is far from the truth. The subgalleries are for countries with most active photographers (or most photographed places) and I think it would be best to skip those completely in the main category and just place links to the subcats, just like we do with Vehicles or Plants. That might also make people more aware of the subcats. --Cart (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I think people are not really motivated to sort those galleries out. It's quite a lot of work and I'm not sure if it's worth it. If you look at some stats, you can see that your own user page, A.Savin, has more views this year than Places/Natural. So the question is, if it's not the time to replace the galleries with categories and leave galleries only to show that we've got some nice pictures here and link categories for folks who want to dig in properly. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
With categories there is the same issue -- people don't know, don't bother,... whatever. --A.Savin 12:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I started to create those subpages because I thought at that time that there was a very very big lot of images in the single former gallery "Natural", see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Sub-galleries. My criteria to chose the countries that have a sub-gallery was the same that I used almost every time that I created a new gallery, when there is more than 40 or 50 images for a specific topic, in this case by country, so a new gallery can be considered. Though I did not remember the exact number of images that I have chosen. This can of course be considered as a test and we can of course postpone the images in the original gallery, it's not a problem at all, at least for me. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Categories for set FPC nomsEdit

When a set nomination is closed, the closer has to find the right category for it since it is not specified in the nomination by the nominator. This is a remnant from the old days when sets were just placed in their own "set category". It hasn't been used in ages, and sets now go into the normal categories. BUT, it would be very helpful if there was a way to add the fill-in-form for category when the sets noms were created, same as with other noms. There is also the sometimes trouble with actually having access to the set noms. Time and time again users have been asking about where the link to the nomination page is. On the set noms, there is only the "edit" button to click on. It is of course possible to click on the edit and then just cancel, the you end up on the nomination page. I think it would be better if the link to the mon page was displayed on the nom same as in any other nom. I think Christian Ferrer is the right person to ask if we can add these two helpful things to the set nom creation system. Please, --Cart (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Great, Thanks Christian!!   That was exactly what was missing on those noms. Of course it will only be for noms from now on, but better late than never. Thanks again, --Cart (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A bold suggestion about films - DiscussionEdit

Back when FP was created, online films were very few and media on the web was more of a novelty. Those that existed fell under the aegis of FP. These days, films and animations online are part of everyday life and just about anyone can make them. Films are also very different from photos since judging what is good about a film or animation, involves things like storyline, cutting, music, well, all the different things they give out Oscars for. Most users participating in FPC are dedicated to photography, very few have any deeper knowledge about, or interest in, film-making.

I think it could be time to branch off films, regular and animated, to an award system of its own where users interested in, and having knowledge about, such could select the best ones. We already have the Media of the day platform which could be integrated into that branch. All new ideas have to be started somewhere and this forum is a good a place as any. Thoughts? --Cart (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, Cart, but is there enough people interested to foster that idea and keep that branch alive? --Poco2 19:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Commons:Featured media candidates already exists, it just needs a bunch of people who are willing to put some work into it … --El Grafo (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, a good way of finding out if folks are interested in this is to start talking/asking about it. I had no idea there was such a project, maybe it's time to revive it. --Cart (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should consider what the purpose of featured content is. Partly it is to highlight the finest material on Commons. Partly it is to encourage folk to produce that material for Commons. Partly it is to encourage folk to seek out and upload material hosted elsewhere. Duration is a distinguishing feature of these videos. I'm not aware of anyone uploading feature-length material to Commons, or even film of "TV Documentary" length. But there is a difference between a brief clip (for which animated GIF is sometimes abused, *sigh*) and a film of several minutes length. I think it is possible for FP to judge brief clips and I do wish we had more such for Wikipedia (e.g., File:Plasma globe 23s.webm, File:Wheelchair basketball 4.webm, File:Rowing boat racing 8-man + cox.webm, File:St Botolph's Bell Ringing.webm). These all illustrate something that is not really possible to do with a still image, and yet don't require narration, backing music or a script. They are all immediately usable internationally and multilingually, which is I feel important to Commons. They can all be relatively easily produced by Commoners (or Wikipedians with a camera or smartphone). Anything longer than that usually requires a budget, is produced by some commercial or Open Source team, and typically these get a CC licence long before anyone eagerly uploads it to Commons. Many of the CGI examples have no educational value beyond demonstrating CGI -- we appear to be hosting them because they are entertaining and free, which personally I don't think represents Commons at its finest. So I'd be quite happy for Commons FP to focus on still images, and brief video clips only. The longer videos don't need any encouragement from us, and can easily be found under various categories. Many of them have had awards at external competitions already. -- Colin (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It will be hard to draw the line between "long instructive clip" and "short film". I can only imagine the discussions about if a clip is within the rules to be judged at FPC or not. Much easier to have film/movie/media formats in one place and keep only image formats (including those much debated gifs) in FPC. --Cart (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you think it is that hard to define "video clip"? No cuts, no narration, no backing music, no script. I think with a clip we can still apply some of our "still image" quality criteria about good lighting, good composition, high educational value, combined with decent audio (if present). -- Colin (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been here long enough to know that lines will be crossed and rules will always be stretched. And what would the "do not feature films" mean to all the short films we have featured as FPs so far? People tend to like competing and nominating things, it might be a step back if we suddenly gave up on anything that doesn't fit your narrow definition of a video clip. If films, short or long, are not to be welcome at FPC, I think it's only right to provide an alternative. --Cart (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have any problems if folk want to create an alternative forum and get enough interest in it. I'm just saying that I'm not convinced it is vital to feature such material (and very doubtful it would be a self-sustaining forum), and that "video clip" could still be assessed at FP. If you move "video" over to the other forum, would you move all the animated GIFs? -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you are doing some good work there.   I don't know very much about pure sound files, but I will probably become involved if you fix up the video-thing. Is that a rename of Commons:Featured media candidates, or will it be a new project? I think it's time videos got their own place. --Cart (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cart, The Featured sound candidates or FSC is a stand-alone project, It will take much more time to write a bot to sort Audios and Videos. On the other hand we can just replace (picture to sound), (image to sound) and (FPC to FSC) in the source of the FPC bot and that's it we have FSC bot ready. I will do the same for Featured video candidates or (FVC). -- 🇪A〒ℂ🇭A  💬 17:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Cart, Poco, El Grafo and Colin, I created the Commons:Featured videos and you guys can now nominate videos at Commons:Featured video candidates ( FVC ) -- 🇪A〒ℂ🇭A  💬 19:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
You need to make these projects known to a larger audience, not just the rather few FPC people. I suggest you compose an inviting "advertisement" (for lack of a better word) and post it at places like Commons:Village pump, Commons:Photography critiques, Commons talk:Graphic Lab. You should also check what users are most active in uploading videos, sounds and animation and post invitations on their talk pages. It takes a lot of people to keep these projects going, so you need to get in contact with like-minded users. --Cart (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Per Cart, I supported this idea because I don't indeed feel that I've the experience and skills to judge this kind of works and to be honest, I wouldn't participate in the new video FP site as I don't feel that my opinion is much worth, at least for now. I may start creating videos somewhen and then things would change but right that's not the case. One user with experience in creating videos I can think of is e.g. User:Matthias Süßen (FYI) Poco2 07:06, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

John Cotton's NotebookEdit

I just created Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/John Cotton's Notebook, yet the description text I entered:

“44 images (samples below) of sketches of the birds of the Port Phillip District, NSW, Australia, made in the notebook of the ornithologist John Cotton between 1844 and his death in 1849. Kudos to the State Library of Victoria, who have digitised these and made these high-resolution tiffs freely available, recognising that no copyright in them exists.”

is missing, What's up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • No idea, but I'll guess that the text entered into the 'description' parameter is treated as meta text in some way. The best way is to just copy and add it to the nom now, so that everyone can see it. I'll do that for you. --Cart (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

FPX tagging and working around FPCBot bugsEdit

We've discussed that FPX tagging can be not that useful in certain situations and how the FPCBot is malfunctioning here. I've recently FPXed a few noms and after the 24 hours replaced the {{FPX}} tag with {{FPC-results-reviewed}} and placed a comment below that this was done. This was so the FPCBot will not ignore the nom and archive it as usual, and it has indeed worked the last few times (one example). Please let me know if this isn't OK to do in the future, there is an obvious downside that the FPX will not be directly visible anymore in the archive. Cart, I see you resorted to manually archiving this nom instead. Ideally, in my mind, the {{withdraw}} or {{FPX}} templates should be enough to trigger the archiving without an additional {{FPC-results-reviewed}} required. – Lucas 07:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bot was originally designed to handle all templates and situations you mention: {{FPX}}, {{FPD}} and {{withdraw}}. Unfortunately, this doesn't work anymore for some reason. I have told the Bot-people about this several times and asked them to fix it with no success. In the meantime I have more correctly "resorted to manually archiving" hundreds of nominations during my time here. I do what I can to keep the list nice and tidy, just like A.Savin, MZaplotnik, Basile Morin and a few others. Perhaps someone else can have better luck in getting the FPC Bot fixed. --Cart (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think writing the text about the nom being a former FPX takes about as much time as it does to archive it. And you also have to wait for the Bot to come and (maybe) collect it. Another way of making the FPX "invisible" to the Bot would be to just 'nowiki' the text and place the closing tag after it. Like this:
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Some good reason. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC) 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.
  • Becomes
{{FPX|Some good reason. --[[User:W.carter|Cart]] <small>[[User talk:W.carter|(talk)]]</small> 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)}}
But maybe it doesn't look as good. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

A lot of PeopleEdit

The "Portrait" section of Commons:Featured pictures/People is getting very large and I think it's time to give it a page of its own. Once again I turn to Christian Ferrer and ask if he could be so kind as to help out with this. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose any further division into sub-galleries, after it recently turned out that nobody cares about that subpages anyways, not even you. Unlike the Nature gallery, he People gallery is still loading easily and doesn't need splitting. --A.Savin 12:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh yes I do care about sub-galleries. Just take a look the history of Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures. I am sorry I missed the sub-cat when I closed the nom you use as an example. It is easy to overlook when the nominator hasn't indicated the specific sub-cat. Mea culpa. The reason I ask for sub-galleries is that most of the normal pages are becoming increasingly difficult to open and edit for people with not so powerful computers (like me). This problem is easy for many FPC contributors to overlook, since their advanced photo editing programs require very powerful computers. I think the galleries should be easy to access to anyone, not just those fortunate enough to afford really good computers. This might be one of the reasons the galleries are not so frequently visited. --Cart (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Btw, people use the galleries/categories based on the list at COM:FP and the {{Commons FP galleries}} since that is what they are instructed to do when they create nominations, per: <!-- See the list at [[COM:FP]], please do not use "panoramas" anymore -->. If the sub-galleries of '/Places/Natural' were listed in the template (and mentioned on the page), people would know they actually existed and would probably use them more. There are no problems with the sub-galleries of 'Objects' (such as the new 'Sculptures') and its cropped off gallery 'Vehicles', since they are in the lists. --Cart (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is confusing that we have Commons:Featured pictures/Places containing images as well as five sub-pages (Natural, Interiors, Satellite images, Architecture) and one unrelated (Industry). That way the sub-pages are listed at the top "Other galleries containing featured pictures of places" doesn't really stand-out and can even be completely missed if you start at the top and see a huge contents page, and then just click on a country. So it isn't surprising that nominators aren't aware of the more specific lists. Why are we listing any images in Places if they are meant to in a sub-folder? I'm totally confused how Places is supposed to work. Are there images that should go in Places that don't fit in one of the sub-folders? Looking at Commons:Featured pictures/People we have the same "Other galleries containing featured pictures of people" header but this time the linked pages are not sub-folders of People, but separate groups. The Objects page works the same way as Places, but again it isn't obvious to find that there are three sub-folders. I think for Objects it would be much more obvious to include the Vehicles, Sculptures, Rocks and Minerals pages as sub-headings that appeared in the TOC but those sub-heading's contents just explained that the gallery was in a sub-folder page. A similar thing could be done for the Portrait sub-heading. -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of things in the Commons category and FP sorting system that doesn't make any sense. We have to work with what we got and try to make images easy to find and easy to access. --Cart (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I do believe the pages are editable! I would like someone to explain what images should appear in Places. And I think we could do a better job of highlighting/indicating material that is in a sub-page than the current system of very very subtle set of image-links after the TOC. It obviously isn't working at present, since many people do not pick the best page when nominating and that also harms the efforts of reviewers to compare. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

So A.Savin and Christian Ferrer, how do we make the sub-galleries more visible and how do we split up the heavy pages so that anyone can open them and enjoy the photos, any ideas? This is a problem that will only get bigger if we ignore it and we will get the same crash that has happened with the QI galleries. My proposals can be seen above. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick idea: I think that ideally each sub-section like "People at work", "Events" etc. would have its own page like "Commons:Featured pictures/People/People at work". At the current "Commons:Featured pictures/People" page, only 10 latest images from each subpage would be displayed. That would be done automatically, even though I don't know how to do it or if it's even possible - but I reckon it is. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know... That would only make the page a larger version of COM:FP where the latest four photos in the main category can bee seen. I don't think we need another layer/level before getting to the gallery pages. --Cart (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you asking me. The user who creates such sub-galleries, is actually responsible for the maintenance. If other users ignore that galleries, the creator should move files there himself. I'm not the creator. And I already do lot of maintenance with the categories, which are much better usable than the galleries. --A.Savin 11:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I asked you since you are one of the more active users on the galleries and you usually have good ideas. I value your advice very much. --Cart (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will comment during this week end, or in the next days. I had the spirit elsewhere. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's ok, please follow your spirit. :-) For now I have tweaked 'Natural' and made the sub-galleries more prominent, moved photos and started to sort all the sub-galleries. It will take some time though since it's a lot of photos. 'Natural' is loading faster now. --Cart (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: yes of course I can create Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait (note that you can create it) and after I list it in all the places needed. As A.Savin publicly said he was not in favor of that, I personnaly will wait a fortnight to see if that reflects the thoughts of several other people. Without further significant objection, we will do it, and maybe other subgalleries too as suggested by Podzemnik.
@Colin: I agree with several points, firstly Industry is indeed unrelated and I made a mistake, I will move that gallery from "Commons:Featured pictures/Industry" to "/Places/Industry". The main reason being that the BOT currently don't add the last Industry images to the "featured picture, list" of places displayed in Commons:Featured pictures. I will fix that.
I also agree with "I'm totally confused how Places is supposed to work", I always thought there was anything and everything there. Maybe we should start to think at what subgalleries are missing, and to create them. Note that we can also think on how we can harmonize (or not) the categories/galleries that we uses here, with the categories used for the POTY (or vice versa : the FP community can make suggestions the the next POTY categories, the only constraint being that there is enough images in each categories). Example in the POTY there is a category Settlements that we don't have here, and that almost contains the images from our Cityscape gallery + the images from "Places". In order that "Places" be empty maybe should we have a Places/Settlements subpage and to move into that subgallery all the images that can't be put elsewhere.
For "...can even be completely missed if you start at the top and see a huge contents page", ArionEstar removed my scroll box there and also in other places, the result is that some tables of contents are now big. But I don't own the pages and every one is free to modify what I done.
For "Other galleries containing featured pictures of people" it was my arbitrary choice to add that sentence because sport is practiced by people, and I though it was a relevant info. Note that I had the same logic in {{Commons FP galleries}} and "people" and " "sport" are quoted in the same line. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

On en-wiki, when we split a category, we add an "Other" subdivision, then just redirect the main one to, say en:WP:FP#People, say, meaning only the subgalleries load. Of course, we'll need to make sure the bot knows how to handle that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Christian Ferrer, thank you for your answer and your advice. Of course I can create it, asking you about it is more of a courtesy since you have created much of the rest. :-) I agree, that we should wait a while and see what reactions there might be. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

“Doesn’t work for me”, “not a featured picture for me” and similar oppose votesEdit

I'm seeing these oppose votes occasionally and certainly have used these arguments myself before and I surely will feel the need to use them again, but ultimately I think they convey more of a feeling and no objective critique about the photo at all. I don't see them contested by the photographer/nominator, so maybe they all understand the reasoning behind or don't dare to question the opposer. I'm curious what others think about writing into the Guidelines that such comments should never be left alone, but always be accompanied with more context why the opposer thinks that way. Alternatively other voters should be encouraged to comment below such oppose votes for clarification. – Lucas 09:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

So basically you want to remove the "wow-factor" from the reviews? As Colin has noted several times, it is unpleasant for many users to 'oppose' a photo. This would only make it even harder for them. I suspect we would get more people abstaining from voting or just leave the usual "per XXX" once someone speaks up. --Cart (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
People don't have objective reactions to art, so why would anyone want them to pretend they do? Our reaction to art is about how we feel, not just what we think consciously. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree that assessing an image will always be subjective. Even things one could imagine are objective, like the tilt, degree of noise, or amount of CA, has to be weighed subjectively to decide how much it matters or even if it is a flaw at all. Many people find it hard to put their feelings about art into words, particularly if they have no training or have not read widely. There are no rules to guarantee a great composition (rule of thirds is a myth), no algorithm to decide how to light a subject. I think you are welcome to ask, in good faith, for a reviewer to explain more if they can. I don't think it needs written into rules. Remember, we don't (generally) pester supporters to explain why the image is great. We require an oppose reason out of courtesy, to allow the nominator to fix or defend their work, or to learn what to do better next time. If you think the rationale is unsatisfactory, just ask. -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that there is the language factor too, for some user with another mother language could be easy just write not wow that try do a long google translator explain. IMHO each user should write on their mother language and mediawiki should have the option to autotranslate languages in a easy way. --Wilfredor (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Does this help? It's amazing how much time has passed since this! I wonder if similar principles still apply. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Good principles applicable here and elsewhere. By the way say hello to Ines. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Christian, nice to hear from old FPC colleagues! Regards have been given to Inês, who is now a young woman and still pretty! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not export all the videos at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated to COM:FVCEdit

Hi there,

We are considering to export all the videos which are FP to FV. What are your opinions about it ? After all it's Featured picture not Featured everything. Please vote on the appropriate place. Many Thanks, -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 11:01:47

Export Videos to FV and de-list themEdit

  •   Oppose What is done is done. Those past noms should not suffer for what we do today. They are just being moved to another space. --Cart (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per W.carter Ezarateesteban 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Why would promoted videos be suddenly delisted? I can't think of any good reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Vulphere 15:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I guess "delist" was a poor choice of wording on my part below. What I'm saying is that Commons:Featured pictures/Animated should contain only animated GIFs from now on, and featured videos should be on a separate page (whatever it is called). Newly featured videos promoted at FVC should have a status equal to that of old videos promoted at FPC. -- King of ♠ 00:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Export Videos to FV (without delisting from FP list)Edit

  •   Support They are just being moved to another space. --Cart (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 14:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - In other words, just rename them FVs instead of FPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and Ikan – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't move videos to FVEdit

  •   Oppose Good videos belong in FV. --Cart (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Move Animated GIFs to FV (without delisting from FP list)Edit

*  strong support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 18:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Makes perfect sense to me – Lucas 21:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This was not the heading I originally supported. Animated GIFs are still an image format so should remain FPs. – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

*  Support per above. -- King of ♠ 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC) I had to remove your vote as it was not the heading that you voted, but if you support this add a new vote below. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

*  Support Sounds like a good idea. --Cart (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC) This was not the original heading I voted for. --Cart (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Move Animated GIFs to FV and de-list them from FP listEdit

  •   Support in the case of animated GIFs only. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose GIFs are an image format so IMHO should stay in FP. – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't move Animated GIFs to FVEdit

  •   Support (please don't change headings in poll/votings) --Cart (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry I actually forgot about the GIFs when I created this poll -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support GIFs are an image format after all even if they can be video-like. – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 16:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the key distinction is whether a file is fundamentally an image (which may happen to have moving parts) or a video. The former could technically be a video, but GIF is a better format with more seamless inline integration in Wikimedia projects (e.g. the Pi animation). The latter could technically be a GIF, but it would be a very inefficient storage mechanism and the quality would be compromised. In short, FPC is for images and should contain appropriately formatted GIFs, and FVC is for videos and should contain appropriately formatted video files. Choosing an unsuitable format is grounds for rejection of a candidate. -- King of ♠ 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss hereEdit

  •   Comment We should also delist all FPs which are videos, and add to the FPC criteria saying that videos are not eligible (animated GIFs are still OK). -- King of ♠ 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm ok with exporting all the video FPs to FV, but they should not be delisted just moved. We don't alter past assessments for what we do today. That would be like delisting all old FPs with 5 support votes now that we have a 7 criteria. I'm with KoH that GIFs should remain among the FPs since that is an image format. --Cart (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment King of Hearts, why retain animated GIF at FPC? It is the "poor man's" video format. There isn't anything you can do in a animated GIF that can't be done better in a video. You can even loop video, should you wish. I don't think we should encourage this at FPC in 2019. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's put it another way: Does FV want the GIFs? If not, where should they go? Plus, should non-animated GIFs stay at FPC while animated should be at FV? Not saying that we are getting a lot of static FPC GIFs, but that format is allowed at least. --Cart (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I'm starting a poll, whether GIFs should stay at FP or should they be de-listed and moved to COM:FV. Discussions never ends and are often too long to read. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahem, that heading change doesn't look quite right. The above votes were made about moving animated/videos/anything that moves from FP to FV, now it is changed to moving just GIFs. Please revert this. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Non-working too big mass ping
  • @Cart, okay now ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    What about creating a mass ping list ? Might help users who don't know to scrape a page ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ...ok... a bit messy. No, no mass pings yet since this thread is so messy! And I don't know what you mean by "users who don't know to scrape a page". Slow down a bit, please. People are at work now (just like me), these things take time. What happened to the poll about moving FP videos to FV? Did it just disappear? --Cart (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't want this poll to run for more than 9 days, so I created this mass list by scraping (Web scraping) the candidates page. Everyone is now aware that there is a poll going on, so I guess 9 days limit is okay. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eatcha the software doesn't let you ping that many people. I didnt' get a ping. I think the above poll is very confusing and, one again, I plead with folk not to open polls until you have established a consensus. Discuss first. Then the poll just confirms your assumption that consensus has been reached. I'm not sure many people will understand what is meant by "delisting" if they are moving to FV. And by "export to FVC" do you really mean to export as new candidate nominations or as actual featured videos? -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean to move them as actual featured videos --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinged users
  •   Comment Eatcha, it looks as though you are using FV and FVC in a bit of a mix, thinking that they are the same, but they are in fact two different things. Exporting FPs to FV, means they will keep their established Featured status. Exporting them to FPC means they will be exported to FV Candidates to be tried again in new nominations. That is why things can look a bit confusing above. I hope this is just a typo, so could you please check and sort it out. --Cart (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - GIF is an image format. If any non-animated GIFs are considered FPs, why would anyone want to move those to FVs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, the voting should really refer to "Animated GIF". Though I don't think we would have any non-animated GIF, and if we do then surely that's a candidate for delisting anyway. Static GIF was superseded by PNG years ago. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      I didn't noticed any non Animated GIF on the page I referred to(in the level 2 heading), I'm adding it nom. Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates".