Open main menu
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.



I understand that every sunset is beautiful, and therefore they're probably not acceptable. But what about moonrises? In particular, this one:

None of the other images in Category:Moonrises have such a vibrant star field

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckyba (talk • contribs)
Yes it is indeed really beautiful, and it even includes Jupiter. But sadly, the field is very noisy. It depends on how the voters will view it, though. Some may focus more on the wow and the beauty, while others will comment on the noisy field. --Graphium 04:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure that it's possible to do much better regarding the noise on the ground - at least not without having much longer star trails. It's a full frame camera (D3) opened to f1.4 at ISO 1600. In the sky, much of the "noise" is probably actually faint stars. But I guess that's for the voters to decide, not me :-) Ckyba (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Strike that, it wasn't a D3. But still, it's a "not perfect" image of a very difficult subject (no other moonrise photos in the commons have such a vibrant star field)Ckyba (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
it seems the photo was taken by Alejandro Sanchez de Miguel and the license is granted by Christopher Kyba/Ckyba even in the blog. So probably an COM:OTRS is required. Jee 05:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I will get Alejandro to send the COM:OTRS email this afternoon, thanks for your help! Ckyba (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Alejandro has submitted the emailCkyba (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal new rules

It seems that it is a number of users who want a harder selection of the finest. I agree and during my job this morning, I had an idea, why not change the rules : 9 supporting votes instead of 7. It seems reasonable because a very good image has at least 10 support the same day and the page is enough frequently, there is a lot of participants!

Proposal 1

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least 9 supporting votes
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


  • I have issue with the opening statement, as I don't think anyone is asking for higher standards just an application of the existing ones. Moreover, I am not certain just raising the bar on !Vote would achieve the aim of ensuring standards of excellence are maintained. Particulaly since we have been having good participation rates recently. This isn't always the case. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Saffron. Recent problems haven't been because the minimum bar of 7 support is too low. We have a current nomination with 17 supports that has so many flaws one might reasonably expect it to fail QI, and which manifestly is not among our finest because there are better pictures of exactly the same subject. To me, this suggest something wrong with the way some people are approaching review, to the extend even that I wonder if they have even clicked on the preview. Or done any analysis of the category of images the picture is in, or our body of existing featured material. Nothing demonstrates the power of peer-pressure more than a run of supports coming crashing to a halt when someone opposes. Sure, some of that is basic human psychology, but also I think many voters here are very unsure of their own assessment abilities and so go with the crowd. When you couple this with the fact that a lot of people just plain never vote oppose (life is so much nicer) and you have a process that can run away with over-enthusiasm for weak pictures. This lack of confidence about assessment is also demonstrated by people opposing great pictures because of some tiny flaw, like CA or where a huge multi-megapixel image has a bit of noise or softness at 100%. Such objective and easy-to-find flaws are easier to use than a deeper more subjective analysis of whether the picture works and why.
So I encourage everyone to look at each nomination with eyes that are not biased by the previous review comments. Be bold if you want to support a picture with three existing opposes. Be bold if you believe an image is not "our finest" and vote oppose regardless of what has gone before and regardless of being outnumbered. Ask yourself, and find out, if this is among our finest work and worthy to stand alongside others in our collection. Finally, I repeat that I think our guidelines page(s) are over-long, badly written, and need a complete overhaul. But that's a job for another day. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have always defended, during the many discussions we have had since 2007 or so, that becoming a FP should be much harder than it is. As far as I remember, the present seven-vote bar was decided in one of those discussions. However, everybody probably agrees that the number of support votes is not really the issue. The quality of the reviews is! Many times we raised the problem of 'careless reviews' in this discussion page, yet no effective solution has been proposed. Rather than raising the vote bar maybe some of us should go regularly through the nomination list and write a couple of longer comments on why some pictures don't deserve the star. I was involved in this kind of crusade in the past and it seemed to work for a couple of days. But everything went quickly back to the normal: that is, to blindly support a picture just because it looked nice or there was already a long stack of supports. Please check here: User:Alvesgaspar/Opposing rules -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not as old as Joaquim here, but I remeber very well when we decided to raise the bar to seven votes instead of five, it changed nothing. Rules are something serious, it is not a good idea to change them often, and surely not by increasing the number of supporters. Saying that if there is a problem, it is because of the rules is thinking in the wrong direction IMO. What is a featured picture ? A featured picture is a picture which received at least 7 pro, and less than 3 contra. And nothing more, nothing less. "The finest of Commons" is not what one or two of us decide (no need of names...). Quality has to do with "featuring" only if REVIEWERS agree ! I'm 100% with Joaquim: the problem is the reviewers and the reviews, that's all. No need to change the rules. Just make the reviews more serious, but, again and again, there is nothing to do because we are humans. And yes, please check Joaquim's "opposing rules", it could be a good start. And yes, the guidelines need to be cleaned... But who really reads the guidelines ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with KoH below; increasing the minimum support vote requirement will affect subjects that are "not of my tastes". I don't care increasing the ratio to 3:1 from the current 2:1 though. Jee 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


Please state whose proposal your vote refers to.

  •   Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This will exclude some images from FP, but picture quality is only one aspect of failing to achieve the minimum 7. For example, some image classes are difficult or less popular with reviewers (e.g. artworks) and some images look unexciting at preview size yet prove their worth on closer inspection, thus missing out on many casual reviewer comments. Some times of the year are popular for nomination and reviewing, others are quiet. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose both. Non-photographic media struggles to achieve the 7-vote threshold, so we don't really want to be raising the minimum. I feel like #5 in Proposal 2 is a solution in search of a problem; so far we have not had much of an issue with excessive renominations. If we are to raise the standards at all, perhaps we can bring back my net votes idea, but with the minimum number of net votes set to 7 rather than my original 5. (Though I don't strongly feel either way about this; it's just that I would prefer 7 net votes to a system involving more than 7 simple supports.) -- King of ♠ 19:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least 8 supporting votes
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 3:1 (75%); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.
  5. All unsuccessful images that have only been nominated once, achieving a minimum support/oppose ratio of 2:1 will be entitled for a one-time renomination after at least 45 days have passed from the first nomination.


Firstly, I feel that 7 support votes is a bit too little, while 8 support votes is sufficient already. Based on my observations, there are usually at least 8 support votes if the FPC community in general is interested in an image. I also notice that images promoted with 7 support usually don't attract as much of the FPC community's interest. Secondly, I feel that the 2/3 majority is far too lenient, to the extent of being ridiculous. Why promote an image when 1/3 or 33% of the voters (half the number of supporters!) oppose the image??? In the last few months of my participating here, I have seen many images which 1/3 or almost 1/3 of the voters oppose and they are promoted with ridiculous margins like 8:4, 12:5 etc. IMHO, we should implement a stricter rule like 75% (3:1) support. That would make 8 support votes be countered by maximum of 2 oppose (down from 4), and 13 support votes be countered by maximum of 4 oppose (down from 6) etc, which I feel will ensure all future FPs rightfully deserve their FP status, and not just pass marginally. This, in return, also keeps quality in check and makes sure that all FPs are really "our finest work". Lastly, I have proposed a new rule on renominations. IMO, renominations should only be one-time for images that had a "close shave" in the original nomination. If I'm not wrong, this is how the FPC community in general feels as well. So, why not we implement a rule on this, and set a minimum requirement for renomination?

Regards, --Graphium 09:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


  • Determination of our "finest work" is done by reviewers, not by voting algorithms. If the reviewers aren't taking that responsibility seriously (but instead, for example, merely going "like" along with the herd) then no amount of tinkering with the algorithm will fix things. While there are some objective issues that may be wrong with an image, it is a subjective judgement as to whether these are bad enough when weighed against any good points. And there are plenty subjective aspects (such as composition, lighting, colour) that are important too. For those reasons, one cannot expect the community to be of one mind. A range of support/oppose views resulting in a promoted image does not represent a failure of the system (which your "ridiculous margin" comment seems to imply).
While examination of previous nominations is useful for working out what changes we should make, one must remember that the existing rules shape the review behaviour. Some examples:
  • Once an image has sufficient support some reviewers may choose not to examine that picture at all and focus their attention on other images.
  • Alternatively, in the above scenario, voters may be very reluctant to oppose in defiance of the prevailing comments. We get timid "comments" instead.
  • An image that has had just one oppose may attract no more votes at all.
  • Reviewers on a contentious image may be particularly sensitive to whether their vote takes an image over the line or sinks it.
On the re-nomination issue, I'm not keen on adding more complicated rules. Is there any evidence that the right to re-nominate an image is being abused?
So essentially, what we have currently is a reasonable system for ensuring a minimum degree of support and a majority in favour. Playing with the numbers may not make any real difference. Raising the threshold may well reject more bad images but it may equally reject more great images, which is also not good. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • BTW: I strongly discourage creating a "Vote" section when making a proposal. Our purpose should be to discuss a proposal and work towards a consensus. Voting, if necessary at all, should be done only after the discussion has reached a stable point. Early voting just polarises the debate and drives the community apart. See en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Changed 90 days to 45 days. Yet another math error. Graphium 00:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


Mediaviewer (or what is it called)

Is there any preference or script to turn off Mediaviewer? Clicking on an image now opens it up in another screen, and I would rather go directly to the good ol' image description page to view the image. To do that, I now need to click 2 times. --Graphium 10:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

See the reply at here. "You can disable Media Viewer by (while logged in) un-select your "Enable new media viewing experience" under Files. You have to do this for each wiki. After that you'll be taken to the file page directly. Hope that helps. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)" Jee 10:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
While the Mediaviewer might be great for passive browsing of Commons like one might do on Flickr, I would be interested to know if any editors at Commons actually keep this feature on. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Colin: Not me. It's a terrible, terrible new feature. You can compare it to Flickr's new look, which from what I understand, made you migrate to 500px. At least WMF made this new feature optional. And Colin, IMO I think ipernity is better than 500px. And I still stick with Flickr. ;) --Graphium 12:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I keep it merely for testing it; always right click on an image and open it in a new tab to bypass the media viewer.
I think such features are intended for readers and viewers; not for editors like us. Those users may not have not much knowledge about our interface; they simply want to see a larger image in one click with supporting information that are presented in a friendly manner than just like a database as in our "file page". The same applicable to the new Flickr interface.
Satisfying these two types of end-users (mere readers and editors) is a challenge for the developers; I don't think those (media viewer and Flickr new look) are complete failures. I know there is a friction; but it is common in the software industry. Reusers always complain even when we just change the position of a button; that is just psychology. Newcomers may not have such issues. :) Jee 02:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Graphium -- it may be OK for viewing, but even there, loading a big image takes time. I can't imagine how anyone with a dial-up connection could use it. As an Admin, it puts me an additional click away from where I need to be, and, worse, it requires loading the large image before I can make that click -- even on my 10 megabit connection that takes several seconds. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
No, no...I did not say what you say I said. You must have misunderstood what I meant. @Jameslwoodward --Graphium 15:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You said it's a terrible new feature and he agrees with you. The rest of what he says is not attributed to you. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, SB, that's exactly right. Although perhaps "terrible terrible new feature" is a little stronger than I would be, that is what I agreed with. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
...And IMO it has to do with the section above: this tool does not help for serious and detailed reviews. This is an obstacle, because it needs several actions to acceed to the full size view...--Jebulon (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Distortion through "serial opposing"

Firstly, of course I do not want to challenge anybody's right to oppose as they deem correct. I have however noticed that Alvesgaspar has voted 0/2/15 (or so) in the last hour. I can see that he is obviously a very established user here, even though I can not remember too many votes by him in the recent past (and certainly not in this form), at least since I started participating here at the beginning of the year.
I do not mind that users express their opposes against majorities of support (and, as Colin has tried to demonstrate over the last month or so, it might even be better for the sake of good judgement). I do however think that suddenly (re-)applying harsh standards after relative inactivity is fairly problematic as it creates an effect of bad luck due to timing. (I feel that it should make little difference if an image is nominated now or in two months so that users can expect to be judged on a relatively even level over time).
As I said, I do not mind the opposing per se, but find this sudden and rather extreme occurence somewhat unusual, potentially driven by this discussion. I would therefore be interested if you, Alvesgaspar, intend to keep voting based on that pattern (which would of course be fair enough), or whether this was an one-off situation. --DXR (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I agree with almost every one of his comments. They are to the point and provide a sound rationale for the oppose. Certainly he has put effort in his critiques and there does not appear to be any bias or politics behind his comments. If he had come here and provided 15 supports we wouldn't be discussing it would we? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
His reviews are very bold; but very genuine. More interesting is he maintains his standards since years! Jee 17:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the votes he made recently but the "discussion" you link to contains a set of personal guidelines that date back to 2009! -- Colin (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you comment just friday? My fault if this is completely unrelated but your additions (which have merit!) are very recent, aren't they? --DXR (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did, but you grant me far too much power if you think my comments influenced Alvesgaspar opinion on what makes an FP (which, as far as I can tell, hasn't changed). My point is his views on what an FP should be are very longstanding. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- @DXR: Thank you for direct approach, which deserves a careful reply. Let me then try to answer your (implicit) questions. First, and most obvious: Am I making a point with these reviews? Yes I am, as well as with all the others I have made in the past years. My point is that a FP is something exceptional (the best of the best, la crème de la crème) and that we - the reviewers - are supposed to recognize them among all the others in the list. In my opinion our reviews should go much beyond the primary effect of putting one more vote in the stack. They should serve to influence the other reviewers and, not less important, to give useful feedback to the nominees and creators: so that they will improve in the future and, in the process, add to the project. I have said many times here that most of what I know about digital photography was learned in FPC. Not from the appraisal of the reviewers but from their criticism. Everybody will agree that this model is deeply different from the Facebook-like popularity contest which FPC occasionally seems to slide into. Classifying my contribution as a rather extreme occurrence which may cause a bad luck effect is a symptom that things are not going well. Please remember that the objective of this forum is to choose the very best pictures Commons has to offer (while learning and having fun in the process, I would add), not to please or to socialize with the nominees. Second question: will I keep this pattern of review in the future? Yes I will, although I am no longer very regular here and my contribution will probably be modest. The reason for this particular burst of reviews was the discussion in the FPC talk page, which made me take a look into the FPC list. Obviously I didn’t like much what I saw! Am I trying to swim against the flood, as FPC will naturally evolve to something lighter and easier to everybody? Probably so, but I intend to fight against it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailled answer. Of course your points make a lot of sense and it was not my intention to attack you at all. You are certainly right that criticism is more helpful than support and that is why I do not mind reviewers like you doing what they do. My point really was with showing consistency in being strict and that might be missing if reviewers like you only vote occasionally meaning that an equally bad image that finished yesterday or is nominated tomorrow will be exempt. This is of course just a product of the process and will probably not be changeable. Naturally, I am in no position to demand you to participate more or on a more regular basis, even though it might be helpful to learn more. --DXR (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "consistency" is a goal worth aiming for in and of itself. An FP nomination has always been a bit of a gamble (well, there are a few people here who's nominated work is consistently outstanding, but for the rest of us mortals...). The more nominators realise that, the less tension their will be when somebody dares suggest their photographic baby isn't as perfect as they imagines it to be. I fully support a range of opinions freely expressed (and made explicit in vote form), rather than the idea that anyone who deviates from the majority is wrong or has upset things. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm expressing myself that poorly... I do agree with your statements, but I do also believe that the same image should receive roughly the same votes, regardless of the time of its nomination. That is what I consider consistency and I struggle how that would be at odds with your aims here. I want people to vote boldly and with constructive scepticism against peer pressure etc., but surely a lasting impact on the quality of promotions and candidates in general is achieved only if the same strict (or simply appropriate, if you wish) rules are applied for months, not just one point in time. --DXR (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of my comments weren't directly aimed at you. I can't see any way of achieving your aim of consistency over time other than having so many reviewers (many dozens, if not hundreds) that the presence or absence of any given reviewer or handful of reviewers would have no impact on the end result. The alternative, with the current relatively small population of reviewers, is that we all vote to similar standards. Which is what I wasn't keen on as a goal. And tere are so many human factors that influence results. Like how many other nominations are dumped on top of yours before it gets a chance to be supported. Or what the early votes are like compared to later votes. One could design a fairer system, but only at the expense of other factors. In the end, Commons doesn't really care -- we only need a system that mostly generates a reasonable result and rarely generates a stupid result. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

On this topic I'd just like to add that I support this kind of initiatives. Challenging each other will be a benefit to all of us and also to the project. So, opposes with a solid argumentation are always welcome. Poco2 13:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

New Media Viewer

As you probably have noticed, the new Media Viewer has become the standard way of viewing images in Commons. I consider the initiative detrimental to those working (and not only viewing) with images. I know that some of you, regulars in FPC, QIC and VIC think the same way. We now have the opportunity to say so in the Discussion page -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Propose to update CC license tags to comply with the new wordings in CC deeds

I made a proposal to update license tags here. As this is more related to photographers, your opinions are highly appreciated. Jee 12:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Kungsträdgården Metro station

Change the way we count the two-nominations-at-a-time rule

Maybe instead of set nominations we could change the two active nominations rule to something like two active themes at a time? Like you could nominate three images of nebulae and they would only count as "one" toward the two-nomination cap. But instead of having all the pictures in a gallery with one nomination page, each element in the set would stand review individually, and would gain FP status individually.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I prefer the current system. I think what we need is clear criteria on what constitutes a set, rather than trying to modify the nomination rules. -- King of ♠ 00:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I fully agree with KofH.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Same opinion like KoH, Poco2 19:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Per KoH, this would essentially remove the rule of two active nominations at a time, and I don't see why. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking to bring it to a close

I consider the secondary proposal passed. There's a strong tendency on Commons for people to vote something should happen, then expect everyone else to do it. We're shutting it down in order to fix it a bit, but this should not mean a permanent end just because people are all too willing to say something should change, but not want too put any of the work in on fixing it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Adam, I closed this to speed up the new proposal below. We can't talk about it until this is closed. Hope you understand.
I hope the FPC community itself can get in to a consensus about how to handle sets. If not, I'm happy to add a {{Rfc}} on it to attract people outside. Jee 03:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Are sets required???

Most of the discussion here is about how sets should be handled but how is it decided what constitutes a set and when are set nominations preferred/required? Can FP sets be added to? Evidently from Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Another Neptune diagram.svg there are some who think that certain images must be nominated as sets & cannot be supported individually. Does that make any sense??—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing about the Neptune diagram is, if you renominate it in three months, it'll pass. The FPC process is not entirely based on merit, you do have to play psychology a bit - and that's where sets can be useful. For example, all the Gustave Doré images of Dante's Inferno are extremely widely used - and, as such, all could easily be featured, and, given appropriate quality, probably should be.
But there's 70 of them. Given the rule of the fifth day, and the two nomination limit, that's between 70*5/2= 175 and 70*10/2= 350 days of Doré to get them all promoted. I'd expect reviewer burnout to set in very quickly; indeed, I think, in the past, "too many engravings" has been given as an oppose reason, even if the engravings varied wildly in time, subject, and artist. [Reviewers seem better about that nowadays]. Even if they weren't widely used, we support Wikisource, so would be an obvious thing that commons would want.
As I have said before, a certain highly productive user told me that she didn't think one should ever work on a subject for more than a few images, because FP reviewers would get bored, and they'd stop passing. Instead, she encouraged a selective, light dip of the toe in the waters of a subject.
This isn't what we should be encouraging, obviously, but it can actually be fairly hard to go against where the obvious rewards are set up for people. Further, even if your motives aren't self-promotional, the reward setup can easily lead one down certain routes. Let's say I want to promote Doré, because he's an amazing and underappreciated artist (which I do). If I scan and clean up an image from Holy Russia, one from Don Quixote, one from Inferno, one from Orlando Furioso, one from his Bible, and so on, all will pass, and all will, at least potentially, go to the main page, giving me, say, ten times with Doré promoted there. If I instead scan and clean up everything from Bible (about a hundred images), not only would that be about an order of magnitude more work, but the main page appearance will end up limited to one day, so around a hundred times more work for a tenth of the value to my goal of sharing his art with the world. However, given the way Wikipedia uses Doré, having illustrations from a highly noted engraver for a highly acclaimed edition of the Bible would be, potentially, incredibly widely used, so the value of each image in the set would be very high.
As such, there's a very, very perverse incentive towards lightly dipping your toes, which we need to figure out how to avoid. And I say that as someone who always forgets to schedule his FPs to go on the main page here, as it's a manual process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity, I never used the word "must". I don't appreciate my intent being mischaracterized just because the message was not welcome. I really don't give a fuck whether images are in sets or done individually but don't be surprised when I get bored of seeing the same stuff time and time again. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Omg in the current FP candidate list, there are literally three photos of northern European dirt roads (surrounded by semi-arid vegetation) but nobody ever complains about getting tired of seeing the same old brown track curving around a scrubby tree over and over again. You seem to have a problem with planet diagrams. At least I don't draw the same planet over and over again—we have seven FPs of Saturn!. And two of those are from the same exact angle.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Kelvinsong, people don't generally complain about being bored, they just stop reviewing. The most common reaction to any marginal picture at FP is meh. It takes quite a lot for someone to actually oppose. FP reflects the interests of nominators and reviewers. Adam gets a hard time because there are damn few like him and who share his interests, and since all his work is of the highest quality, it gets a bit boring to review. Sorry, but often the subject matter is a bit worthy for a Friday evening. That isn't fair when he's spent hours polishing his images and someone else uploads a holiday snapshot that rapidly gets 15 supports. Or someone uploads a blurry photo at 6MP that is loved but someone else uploads one at 36MP which gets torn to shreds for not being sharp at 100%. Landscapes get a remarkably easy time whereas portraits get picked on mercilessness (which is odd, considering we have essentially zero experts in that field). There's all sorts of unfairness and often the random nature of opinions, expertise, maturity and ability isn't offset by a large enough review pool. So the result is FP is a pretty random game. One thing I do detect in Adam's comments about Durova and your own comments at the Neptune FP is that FP is driving/motivating and the flaws in FP hurt your motivation or select what might be worked on. Well there are good and bad things about being motivated largely to achieve recognition of one's peers. I'd suggest you aim for most of your good work to achieve QI and regard those that make FP as a bonus. -- Colin (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then do away with the whole >7 votes required thing. Maybe that would spurn more people to review. Seriously it's really unfair to let pictures fail just because nobody bothered to review it (probably because nobody here knows how to review anything but bird pics and Scandinavian roadways). It is ridiculous that a picture can get the orange box with six supports and no opposes. Or that my chloroplast division image failed with no good reason given. Apparently this is nothing new. There's something wrong with a system where the goal is not to make the best, most useful image, but to make it shiny and eye-catching enough to attract attention. Some lessons I learned from FPC—black backgrounds (space) do better than white backgrounds (biology), stuff that glows does better than stuff that doesn't glow, & always stick an aurora in there somewhere bc people love auroras (with no less than thirty-five votes cast on this one). Ughh. I can't even.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, the 7 vote thing is essential. There is nothing you can do to motivate reviewers other than to make an engaging original picture [and even then, if it is too original, well, hmm, conservative mindset, enough said]. Supporting every damn picture in the list prior to making one's nomination is a sure way to make friends if your one's intention is to game the system and win gold stars :-). If you removed the 7 quorum standard, you'd just trash FP and people would leave -- it wouldn't make them go "Gee, I really must spend more of my free time reviewing images on Commons". That image with 6 supports got lots of hidden "meh" opposes by people not inclined to say so. Lots of people don't want the hassle of justifying their negative feelings. Or they aren't confident enough to express their negativity (consider how the opposes pile on after one person dares to say so) or feel their subjective negative feelings aren't as easy to express as objective ones (consider how an image can be trashed for minor technical flaws). Non-photographic images are hard because there aren't many peers who feel comfortable judging. The things that make a good diagram FP are more than just artistry and expensive equipment. I feel your pain wrt NASA images -- Commons and en:fp go through phases of giving them an easy time and then realising that technically they are shit because the NASA website has compressed them to mush. Although the FP review is flawed, it seems you are viewing it as a system for generating images. It certainly does that but that isn't its purpose, which is just to select (albeit imperfectly) the best images on Commons. And they might be images from some random Flickr account. Only QI and Photo Challenge are actually set up with the aim to motivate Commons editors to produce good new content. Many participants at FP do get motivated by this forum, but if it causes you to despair then finding another reason for motivation will be easier than changing FP to motivate and reward you. -- Colin (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well there is a difference between a nonvote because the reviewer didn't like something about the image but couldn't put it into words (I get what you mean, I've been there though I usually vote anyway) and a nonvote because the reviewer didn't feel qualified to review the image. && I don't think the review system really captures that.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think what often gets missed is the difference between en:FP and COM:FPC. I don't care so much if the picture has high EV here at FPC. I just want to be wow'd. How much effort it took to get there is also irrelevant. Nobody cares if I spent hundreds of dollars and the many miles of hiking to capture a shot from one of my travels. Either the picture wows or it will not get supported. Putting up essentially the same drawing four times, albeit in different colours, is not a recipe to be wow'd each and every time. However those same four works presented as one set would likely get the same appreciation as the first of the four did in the other scenario. Complaining about other subject matter isn't helpful, besides those banal countryside shots are not getting such an easy ride anymore... people are getting bored of them too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe I should put you on Venus and see how you fare because it is basically the same as Earth, just in a different color 😉. But seriously refusing to support an image of Neptune because there is already an FP of Saturn is like refusing to support a photo of a bald eagle because we already have an FP of a burrowing owl. "Yeah it's the same bird of prey (???), just with different plumage". To some they are the same thing—two photos of birds of prey, but any bird scientist would tell you otherwise. The same goes for the planets. No planetary scientist would see Saturn and Neptune as "the same thing just in different colors". Though they might about Uranus and Neptune && I would probably understand if you wanted just those two to be nominated as a set. But since set nominations are currently banned (remember?? scroll up a few sections!!) your refusal to support because of them not being in a set sounds a lot like a Catch-22.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
An owl and an eagle look significantly different even at a glance as they have completely different forms. Two coloured spheres don't. Again you confuse EV with visual appeal. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I think yes. When several pictures together show something that one picture alone doesn't, a set is a useful nomination. Yann (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Marking your works

We have noticed that many of us (including me) are using custom tags to mark our work. It is perfectly OK and acceptable as far as it will not be contradicting with the original license terms.

I agree that our current tools are inadequate to mark the parameters properly and to advise the reusers about the requirements. The inbuilt "use this file off wiki" options in "file page" and "Media Viewer" are not same; both of them failed to handle parameter we had given in "creditline", etc.

So I've started a discussion to update our license tags, CC tags, as a start.

Now the issue is many of our custom tags contains additional restrictions beyond the license and the community consensus is to discourage it. I've encountered some similar discussions earlier, and tried to clarify the points with many admins. This is one discussion now going on. In that discussion Jameslwoodward stated "I don't for a minute propose going on a crusade against license templates. It's funny. at User_talk:Ellin_Beltz#Couldn.27t_we_just_ask_for_description_to_be_added we are having a discussion about a different name for "Deletion Request", to emphasize that what is needed is a discussion, which, to be sure, might end up in a deletion, but also might end up with a change. That would certainly apply in cases like this."

So I am bringing this to your attention and requesting to double check your custom tags whether they are perfectly inline with the license terms you are using. In case of CC licenses, always check with original legal codes; deeds are just a brief representation of them, having no legal value.

Feel free to ask any questions if you have any doubts. Jee 03:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward appears to contradict himself at Commons:Deletion requests/File:İzmir - 01.jpg. HelenOnline 11:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

May single purpose accounts be allowed for voting?

I have detected Fotoriety to be a pure voting puppet with 0 uploads and 0 usefull work edits. This is just an account being used for voting and discussion. Sadly here in a mobbing and destructive style. From the beginn Fotoriety's intent was to be so because he started first commenting the FPC and collecting on this way the required nummer of edits.

In my opinion such pure voting accounts should be banned from FPC and the rules have to be redefined. The reasons to exclude such behavior are be obvious:

  • Anonymous voting is okay, but it isn't if you want to cover your origin account. The chance that you are engaged at FPC without "working" here is very small IMO.
  • Such voting accounts just stimulate to make someone lose his inhibitions as we see here in this case. Fotoriety attitude is also to other users disputable.
  • We have a potential danger of socket puppetery and unlegal multiple votings.

I'm curious about other opinios. Regards --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe the only reason you are reacting this way is because your ego has been wounded. For your information, i am mainly a contributor on English Wikipedia, but i have an interest in photography, which i like to manifest in constructive criticisms of FP nominations such as your own. I am no sock puppet and you are acting like a spoilt child who can't accept not getting their way. Please behave in a more mature manner.Fotoriety (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
And I belive you are just interessted in provoking here. There are sufficient examples that giving me serious feedback doesn't "wound my ego." So please do not assume and refract from your own manner. Your editwaring is a good proof about your actual intentions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Do you have no shame? You are accusing me of edit warring when you are removing my comment because it doesn't suit you and i am merely trying to restore it and you then accuse me of edit warring. If anyone is resorting to unethical practices it is your removal of my response.Fotoriety (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please check out the rules of discussion here. Personal insults and assumtions are not tolerated here. Maybe it's your manner to talk, but it's not wanted here. Talk factually and nobody will remove your posting. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring, both of you. Pleclown (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wladyslaw, you need to stop personally attacking those who oppose your FP noms. Fotoriety's voting pattern is mostly to selectively Oppose, occasionally Comment and rarely Support. He always gives a reason for his vote, either way. His reasons are far more often concerning composition and lighting than the disheartening pixel-peeping opposes we sometimes see. This seems to me far more healthy than those who always support with no comment, and are rather generous with their supports. It should be tough to get an FP. Wrt bias: yes Fotoriety is free to oppose without fear of a revenge vote on his own nomination. Yes, it is possible to pick fault in nearly any picture, and one could do that if inclined. But I think the opposite is far more common: nominators supporting other pictures in order to win friends, or never opposing pictures in order to avoid making enemies. That said, it would be good, of course, if Fotoriety contributed and nominated his own images, both because image creation is the most important activity, and also because it is healthy to get the nominator's point of view now and again. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Colin: stop malicious gossip I would attack those who oppose my FP noms (latest counter evidence). I question those comments that are not argued well (as your's are very often). I asked Fotoriety to explain what he means with "poor lighthing" and do this without insults and allegation. That he could not is not the topic of this discussion page. That Fotoriety single purpose account is critical I already gave give reasons for. BTW: your thesis (nominators supporting other pictures in order to win friends, or never opposing pictures in order to avoid making enemies) is hardly permissible and by the way not attestable. We'll never will totally prohibit abuse but we can avoid obvious gaps and this one is such a gap. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I have very clearly explained myself, but some people cannot handle criticism. Is that why you have repeatedly removed my explanatory comment?Fotoriety (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

1.-Wladyslaw, per our current rules, it is not a requirement that a user is also a contributor. So to call Fotoriety a voting puppet seem both rude and unjustified to me. If you think F is a suckpuppet account, ask a CU to consider investigating that. (I doubt though it passes the threshold of suspicion).. Until then: "Innocent until found guilty."

2. F has recently opposed an FPC of mine, and I did not fully understand why and asked for further details in a civilized manner. I got a qualified and detailed reply. I appreciate that. I do not have any problem which such kinds of reviews.

3. Regarding the comment you are edit warring over, may I propose the following to Fotoriety: Could you shorten the comment such that it just contains your detailed comment about the photo and strip off the comments about the behavior of the creator? Then I am sure W will leave the comment there. And W: consider striking out some of your personal comments in the review as well. They are not particularly helpful, nor do they add to a constructive collegial atmosphere. Thanks, --Slaunger (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an unhealthy conversation. The answer to the original questions is obvious: of course sockpuppets are not allowed to vote, but that's not the reason the thread was opened. If you seriously have evidence of socking, I'd be happy to review a bias free case at COM:RFCU. Outside of that, this thread is closed. Tiptoety talk 15:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no reason to archive a thought-provoking impulse just after several hours. Also other users should have the chance to discuss about this. Thank you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Nodal Ninja 3 Mk II panoramic head

I've just listed my old panoramic head on Commons:Equipment exchange. As explained in the listing, I was originally going to sell it, but then I realised that there may be someone within the Wiki community has an interest in panoramic photography and would be able to make sufficient use of it. If you are interested, or know someone who may be, please comment on the listing. Diliff (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a pity, I have ordered a nodal adapter just three days ago :) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! :-) I actually wanted to ask before Wikimania, as I could have given it to someone (or even so that they could give it to someone else locally who didn't go to Wikimania) but I didn't remember. What exactly did you order? Diliff (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No problem, shipping from England to Germany would be expensive I guess. I have chosen a cheep one, called Panosaurus 2.0. It`s advertised to carry also my Nikon D800 (max. 2,5 kg) and have good ratings. We'll see if I will be happy with it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Diliff, what's your new pano head? @Taxiarchos228 from my experience the best (and cheapest) shop for the NN is one in Austria specialized on NN products. Shipping to Germany is inexpensive. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The new one is a Nodal Ninja Ultimate M1-L. Basically a bigger and beefier version of the NN3. But the main reason I wanted to upgrade is that I'm doing so many panoramas now and the ability to use an Arca-Swiss quick release clamp makes setting up and packing away much easier. I also attach an Arca-Swiss plate to the bottom of the panoramic head so that I can put the camera or the Nodal Ninja directly onto my ball head and switch between them easily. It's not possible to do that with the NN3 unfortunately, because it requires a special screw-in plate attached to the camera. Diliff (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggested mass nomination of User:Chensiyuan's panoramas

I suggest one mass nomination of User:Chensiyuan's panoramas. Section open to opinions.  ArionEstar (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The quality and compositions vary too much. Some are spectacular while others quite mediocre. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Some of them are indeed spectacular though. The panorama of Toledo is great. Diliff (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the night panorama of Toledo. Nice find, Arion! I think it's good if images of less FPC-active users are featured as well if they are deserving. --DXR (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

My nomination

My nomination has not come onto the page (yes i have purged the page). The nom page is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Martins Cross on Iona.jpg. NickGibson3900 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Fixed by me NickGibson3900 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured sets

When it was being voted on to "temporarily" remove sets from the process, I suggested that we should set a time limit when they should come back.

This discussion was closed prematurely, with majority support, but few votes, with the closer claiming it would be irrelevant.

Well, it wasn't, was it? Like many things on Commons, noone cares to do the work.

As such, I propose again that we set a limit. Sets will be back at the start of October, with whatever criteria we can come up with before then. We did not vote to permanently remove sets from the process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with your thoughts. It is disappointing if most of the people who voted for a new procedure ceased from participating in that discussion. If the majority of opinion is "no sets"; then it should be stated loud/bold. Jee 14:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's summer, many of us are on vacation... But october will be a good date for a new start. Adam, do you will have already some set candidates ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I do. ;oD Yann (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer

Dear FPC colleagues,

I wonder if all of you know about the present conflict involving the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and some wiki communities (especially the English and German Wikipedias), concerning the recent roll-out of the MediaViewer. This is not probably the best place to make the announcement (I have already made it in the Village Pump) but I want to make sure that the FPC and QIC people (who are mostly concerned with image editing) are aware of it. The specific objective of this post is to make you know about this open letter addressed to the WMF, which can be signed by any logged-in editor: [2]. This is a serious matter and I am concerned with the impact the conflict may have in our volunteer collaboration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree with the content of the letter, I'm not sure this is the place for such advocacy. Pleclown (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I think any place is suitable for this type of information involving serious management problems --The Photographer (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is certainly not the best place. But I wanted to make sure that this small community, which is deeply concerned with image editing, was aware of the subject. I suspect that most of the people here doesn't check Village Pump regularly. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes; many of our photographers are not very active in VP or AN; so it is good to make such notices here too. ;) Jee 15:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling UK photographers: the Wiki Loves Monuments contest starts on Monday 1st September

Hi all. I thought that contributors here might be interested in the notice about the Wiki Loves Monuments contest that I have just posted to the Village Pump. This year, we are particularly interested in increasing the quality of submissions, and no doubt many people who are part of the FP community here will have images of the UK that might make good entries. Also, don't forget that similar competitions will be starting in many other countries on Monday. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Plants

Hi, maybe you saw it but I started to revamp the FP galleries. In summary I worked on the layout of these galleries by putting a colored background, an enlargement of the images and a more precise classification. (orders and famillies for plants and animals, classifiaction by countries for the bridges). I also create this navigation template Which is present at the bottom of every galleries.
I have already made these galleries:

I started this and I shall go at the end of this job. And although it is not the purpose of my intervention here, I am opened to quite suggestion to improve these galleries. My problem is that I am working on this gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods, and I find there is a lot of images, too much IMO for a only gallery. I ask for the consent of the community to create subpages for the Arthropods orders (or classes (like Arachnida)) whitch contains more than 50 images. To be precise, I want to create these subpages :

And the navigation template would become :

Extended content

The potential numbers of the images of these supbages can only increase in the future. In an esthetic concern for to give a positive image of Commons and of our finest pictures, I hope you will understand me and you will approve the creation of these subpages for our FP galleries. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 07:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Christian, you have done a fantastic job restructuring the gallery pages you have already worked on, the new navigation template is IMO   Awesome!

and professional and worthy for highlighting our very finest work.  I also think that your proposal of a further subdivison of the Arthropods as you propose makes very much sense. --Slaunger (talk) 08:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • +1. Jee 14:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. --El Grafo (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1, beautiful work. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1, Well done, I can´t wait --The Photographer (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 great job! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 This is a wonderful work, thank you! A nice and useful improvement to our galleries, which will facilitate much the access to the pictures. Now we all need to help finishing the job and facilitate the classification by inserting the relevant information in the nominations. What about requiring that all nominations identify the correct drawer where it should go, like in WP:FPC? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar: I agree; it will be nice if the nominator state the intended gallery too. I (as a closer) struggle to find the proper gallery, especially for pictures under "places". In many cases, I have to read all the articles where they are used to find the suitable gallery. (for plants and arthropods, it is not an issue for me as the topics are familiar to me.) Jee 15:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Alvesgaspar:, @Jkadavoor:, yes when we create a new nomination, there should be automatically and necessarily a section to be filled, exactly like in WP:FPC. Exemple for an arthropd:

FP category for this image:Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
-- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • -1 Nice idea but very arbitrary organisation. Why pick out some orders of insects and lump al other insects withe rest of the arthropds? Plants and fungi have nothing in commen. Etc... You couls as well group perfume bottles with the whisky casks...  Biopics 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Biopics:Yes indeed Plants and Fungi have nothing in commen but when I started I did not know by where to begin and I was inspired by this page : COM:FP, where these two kingdom are tidied together. But now you point this, I agree and I will modify the navigation template in consequences very soon, maybe this evening, the galleries are already separates. Thanks you very much for to have help fixing up this mistake. And for the arthropds, as I already say above only a few orders have enough images (50 images) to have their own galleries, so yes it's arbitrary (50 images for an order = a new gallery) and no it's not arbitrary because the order (or class) classification is not of my fact, it is scientific. @Jkadavoor: Yes indeed Arachnida (Arachnids are arthropds, so for now there is no problems) can also have their gallery because we have 49 FP images of theses little friends, I'm the fisrt agree with that and I didn't quote about Arachnids because I did not counted yet this Class. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
      Done now on the navigation template Plants and Fungi are separate. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    I also added the "Class : Arachnida" to the list above and in the exemple of navigation template -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
    @Biopics: If I understand properly, I think your question is why splitting insects while keeping "Class : Arachnida" and remaining "Class : Insecta" together under arthropods. Good question, and we can move Arachnida too as it seems big enough for a separate gallery. Other classes seems too small for separate galleries. Jee 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 I like the structure. Not all insects are much enough here (yet) to have own subpage. Most of us aren't biologists so they will wonder if plants and funghi really have nothing in common. Comments like straight above are somewhat disrespectful for any voluntarily working Commoner anyways. --A.Savin 14:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is disrepectful at all. I'm sure Biopics will help fixing up the mistakes and inconsistencies. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can also separate the Arthropods classes, like this :

Extended content

-- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FP New galleries

Hi, dear colleagues,
Seen the enthusiasm which you showed for my request above, I have the pleasure to announce you that our collection of FP images grew rich of these five news galleries :


The navigation template was modified and these fives new galleries are there present in it.
Thank you very much for all your kind words. :)
-- Christian Ferrer Talk 14:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't speak yet. Good job Christian, it is a needed and user-friendly step! Poco2 11:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Great work, Christian! --Slaunger (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!!! Jee 07:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Content creators may be interested in the discussion regarding the legality of removing watermarks/copyright notices from images uploaded to Commons. This discussion arises from a legal opinion delivered by the WMF. It is not definitive but raises the stakes even when using CC licenses. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Photo Challenge for Featured Picture photographers

I'd like to encourage our Featured Picture photographers to take part in this month's photo challenges. This is an opportunity for you to select or take photos you might not normally offer at FPC. There are three themes this month:

  • The Holidays theme is looking for images that focus on the act of going or being on vacation (rather than your holiday snaps of scenery).
  • The Big and small theme wants images with a pair of subjects that contrast in size.
  • The Light on the move theme is looking at long exposures (relative to the light movement). Here's your chance to try taking those traffic trail photos or do some light painting.

I hope you are inspired to grab your camera and try something new and challenging! -- Colin (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I entered something, thanks for the reminder. I guess that some of us are quite busy with WLM, I am at least. perhaps that might be a reason for the relative lack of entries in the light challenge. --DXR (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I thought the light challenge in particular was a fun theme and definitely plan to have a go at creating something -- but I'm also busy with WLM. Perhaps we should extend that one to give more time. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama question

I'll be going on a trip to Lithuania soon, and I noticed that there is no freedom of panorama there which is quite annoying. I'm a bit rusty on what this actually means for my photography as I've usually lived in and visited countries that DO have freedom of panorama laws. As I understand it, their copyright expiry is the death of the artist + 70 years, which probably makes many or perhaps most architecture and art from around 1900 onwards not photographable as far as uploading to Commons is concerned. Is that right? If so, how do we explain images such as this, this, this or this (these images I found as examples on the Lithuania article on the English Wiki but I'm sure there are many more)? Are these also FoP violations that have somehow slipped through our nets, or is there another reason for hosting them such as fair-use (there are no templates on the image page to suggest this however)? I'm not trying to stir up trouble or get them deleted from Commons but I'm confused. :-) Comments? Diliff (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi David, in my opinion those images are copyright violations and should be deleted from Commons. I believe there is a way out, which is uploading them to Wikipedia only and use them in the artciles under the concept of "fair use". But I'm not absolutely sure that is so. I think MichaelMaggs is an expert on the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Alves. That's what I thought might be possible, but as I understand it, fair use images are usually only allowed at very low resolutions which is frustrating. It would be a shame to lose these images completely from the Lithuania article(s) though so low resolution is better than no image at all. Diliff (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I guess that's of little worth for you, but you can upload most of these images at (at full size) since German law appears to include FoP for every location as long as the image (not the building) is located in Germany (kinda the case on --DXR (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • That's interesting how Germany can have such strict laws on privacy but such relaxed law about international copyright. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Good job you spotted this before you went. It would be extremely frustrating to create your multi-megapixel stitched images and then have some fair-use compliance-bot downsize them to 200px. I suppose you might as well just take your camera phone now :-( -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, it only applies to modern architecture. There's still plenty of historical sites that fall outside FoP laws anyway, but yes, good to know what is fair game or not in advance. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • It is possible to upload high resolution pictures to English Wikipedia too using en:Template:FoP-USonly. But do it on your risk. Only WMF is protected as their servers are in US; the photographer is really doing a crime when violating the local law. Jee 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
            • If he doesn't upload them while in Lithuania, he'd only be concerned about US and UK law, both of which allow FoP. :) -- King of ♠ 07:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
To be precise, Lithuania was part of the Russian Empire, so anything built there before 1918 is {{PD-RusEmpire}}. --A.Savin 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it really? There is no FOP in Russia! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Just hearing about non-FOP frustrates me. The other day a friendly IP started a DR for 3 of my FPs due to missing information about the FOP terms in Montenegro. So, since nobody really looked into Montenegro's copyright law, in order to be on the safe side everything is deleted. I addressed the topic to the advocacy colleagues from the WMF in London, but they don't care.
I do have great pictures of many countries (like Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Qatar or UAE) that I cannot upload (a bunch of them from Lithuania were also removed). I am though keeping them with the hope that this stupid regulation in some countries changes some when. Actually one of the reasons for me to go or not to a country is their FOP status. So, neither they get income through my visit, nor promoted via posting some nice pics on the web.
The funny thing is that the lawmakers, at least in the EU, have no clue about this topic. Hopefully our new "lobby" in Brussels can change things. These guys had a meeting in Brussels about FOP, and thought that they have made their point. The EU gave them a picture of the EU parliament as a proof of good willing, which is under FOP, and a certificate that the picture could be used in Wikipedia. Doing that they were authorizing something that they are not eligible to, since such and authorization can only come from the architect office that designed the building. And those guys where the EU experts on the topic. Poco2 16:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
These copyright laws probably made sense to law-makers at the time and they believed that protecting the rights of the architects and copyright holders was an honourable thing to do (in theory it is), but they obviously failed to see the consequences that it would have for photography, tourism and freedom of information in the 21st century. But the frustrating thing is that most visitors to these countries will be completely oblivious to the FoP restrictions and will take photos and publish them as normal and will most likely never be contacted by the copyright holder asking for the photo to be removed (or worse). It's mainly an issue for us as law-abiding Commons contributors that are screwed over by it. And given that each country would have to update its laws on an individual basis, I can't see this FoP issue changing in a hurry, which is a real shame. Diliff (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Russian law has changed. Until october 1st, there IS FoP in Russia for buildings !--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You rather mean from October 1st on, right? Otherwise we should organize a Wiki Loves Buildings in Russia until end of the month :) Poco2 19:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
) Yes, sorry. "from". "del 1 de octubre".--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually in Lithuania at the moment, and as a general rule I've been avoiding anything that could give me problems with FoP, but then a question occurred to me. At what point does a photo go from being a clear FoP violation to being considered 'de minimis'? Is this actually clearly defined anywhere? I assume a skyline shot that contains landscape and some old architecture as well as modern buildings could be considered ok, since the modern buildings are incidental to the scene rather than the focus of it? But what if the scene is almost all modern buildings? Couldn't you argue that you didn't WANT them to be there or to photograph them, you wanted a photo of a non-copyrighted building in its surroundings, and those surroundings just happen to be copyright protected? Here's a practical example: I took some photos from a vantage point over the city. In one direction it is mostly old buildings and should be fine. In the other direction, it is the 'modern skyline', a view very similar to this. Would this qualify for de minimis since no one building occupies the bulk of the frame, so each one is essentially incidental to the scene, even though as a group, they comprise almost all of the frame? It becomes absurd if an entire chunk of a city's skyline becomes off limit to photography simply because there are modern buildings in it... Diliff (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hope this will give you some vague idea. :) Jee 07:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It does seem to be almost exactly the same question (but with a different country, the laws could be slightly different) and with the answer I was expecting. Thanks Jee. I'll work with the assumption that as long as I am taking a photo of a 'city scene', it will be ok that there are some copyrighted buildings in view. As I said above, it would be ridiculous if it were possible to prevent any photography of an entire cityscape just by placing one copyrighted building in view. As a consequence, it would allow the copyright holder(s) to carry out a Mafia-like protection racket. "You can only take photos of the city if you pay us lots of money". Diliff (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Preferred FP gallery

Could some body add a line "Preferred FP gallery: <!--select appropriate gallery from {{Commons FP galleries}}-->" at {{FPCnomNewerPreload}} which makes the life of the "closer" much easier? Jee 06:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Voting requirements, how to handle in special cases

New FPC list

I see that Steinsplitter has introduced a new table that replaces the candidate list on the main FPC page. While I appreciate thought about possible improvements of the page, I'm not sure that the new table is really helpful, at least in its current state. Personally, I feel that the images presented here should be the focus, yet the thumbs are pretty small. Since this is quite a significant change, I would prefer to have a more open discussion here before the final adaption.
Perhaps Steinsplitter would also like to present the motivation for this change (I guess that it might relate to performance issues). --DXR (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I have approached Steinsplitter on his talk page regarding the bold introduction, where he confirms, yes, that one of the objectives was to decrease the load time for the COM:FPC page. The initial table had no thumbs, which I then requested to ease navigation. It agree it would be a good idea to discuss the change. I think the table is helpful and works like a "smart index". If you are just browsing the candidates list subpage, I think an includeonly of the table supplemented with a NO index on the subpage could also give an improved navigation experience. Larger thumbs would be fine with me. I guess it is a tradeoff between load time of the FPC page and the size of the thumbs. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The table is not complete. Currently, it does not include Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt September 2014-1.jpg. Any idea why that is so, Steinsplitter? -- Slaunger (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure, mabye cache. I am atm not at home, therfore i can't look into it. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not that I do not like the table as such, because I do, but it is worrisome if some entries are missing as then they will not get the same attention as the others. So, maybe it is important to weed out such 'bugs' until it is deployed. Maybe we should revert for now until it is fixed? -- Slaunger (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
My script is stable and i do not think that this is a bug in my script. I go to remove it from the page now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry you perceived it as drama in your edit summary that I reported that the table did not contain all nominated entries. :-( It was an objective observation, which I believe was reported constructively. Clearly it is an operational problem for FPC if the overview table is not complete whatever the reason may be for its incompleteness. But good that you have reverted for the time being. --Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Drama was the wrong word, sorry. Mabye i was too bold with this table. :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't feel the table was particularly useful. The thumbs were very tiny. One thing QIC needs is much bigger thumbs so having tiny ones at PFC is the wrong approach. If you don't have the bandwidth to download the PFC list then you'll probably struggle to view the images full size. -- Colin (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion: Why not put the table on a separate page - Commons:Featured picture candidate thumbs, say? Then we can work out the bugs, and it's available for those for whom load times are an issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree, for sure the new version has its merits, but I presume that most will prefer the current state. --DXR (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't plan to rewrite or change the script - it is not a work of a few minutes. It is in the template namespace - if you like it you can use it, if you don't then just ignore it ;-). If you think it is nonsense we can delete it :-D. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
A possible utility for this table would be to show a summary of the number of votes to draw the attention of the potential voters on the nominations which arrive at terms but the result of which is uncertain.
Exemple : 7  Support/4  Oppose
And even to put the oldest nominations in first or/and to put the possibility for the visitor to sort the table ascending or descending -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The table itself is ok, you can sort everything you want (oldest first/last, here we can discuss forever), but PLEASE larger images! -- -donald- (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
How many px? --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, I liked the size as it was before. ---donald- (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't actually know how large the images where before, but why do they need to be anything more than tiny thumbnails? As long as you can recognize the photo if you have seen it before in full size, it should be enough, no? Nobody should draw any conclusions based on the thumbnail anyway. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 05:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
@-donald-: Errmm... on the template was no thumb before... The template is a overview, and not a page to evaluate pictures. It is a new template in the template namespace and it is atm not used on the FPC page. I removed it from the FPC page some days ago because there was some disagreement, but it is still in the Template: namespace if someone like it. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Featured sets

Is no featured sets still a thing or not…?—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Volunteers needed to help pre-screen Wiki Loves Monuments UK entries

(Hi all, please excuse the slightly off-topic posting, but I know that this page is a good place to find the skilled volunteers we need).

As you may know, the Wiki Loves Monuments competition closes tonight, and over the next couple of weeks we need to decide on the winning entries. In the UK, we expect to have around 7000 entries, from which we need to select the 500 best for formal judging by the jury.

I'm seeking volunteers to help out with the pre-screening process, which we have to complete within the next two to three weeks.

Can you help us, please?

To help, you’ll need the following:

1. A minimum of few hours free between now and 14th October

2. A good level of ability to distinguish high-quality photography from lower quality (guidelines will be provided)

3. A fast broadband connection for downloading to your local computer several hundred high-resolution images (we’ll tell you how to do it)

4. Suitable software (eg Adobe Lightroom or some other photo-review software) for reviewing the images at full screen size.

You don’t need to be based in the UK to help.

If you can help, please get in touch now! Either reply directly to this posting, or contact me directly by email.

Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll volunteer so long as it's understood I shan't be the single judge. Loads of free time at the moment. I Can offer say a couple of hours a day before 13th October (but not as it happens after that date) and I would enjoy the task. I'm only an entry level photographer myself ( example here) and I stress I would need mentoring and that I shouldn't be the sole judge. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Struck per this. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you felt the need to strike your kind offer of helping out with the Wiki Loves Monuments contest. I'm also a bit confused, as the competition has no connection whatsoever with FPC, and Jebulon has no role in its organization nor any connection with it at all so far as I am aware. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination error

I hope this is the trivial case and you can help. My friend (User:KAlexey) asked me - why his nomination is not visible on the page COM:FPC? Please, help him. Thank you! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Animated

This gallery looks very unprofessional. Any suggestions? Jee 04:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think the first step would be to actually make it a gallery instead of a list of thumbs. I was bold there, revert or improve at will. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 18:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; looks better. Jee 03:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Delist? Delete?

Hi! I was working on subcategories of Category:Featured pictures of birds and I came across these three pictures: File:Jacky_winter_nesting.jpg, File:Rufous whistler.jpg, File:Superb lyrbird in scrub.jpg. When I saw the first one I doubted whether to start a delisting nomination here on FPC or not, because of the small size (and because I rarely start one), but then I also saw the license. Is that a suitable license for Commons?? --Kadellar (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is double license: GFDL 1.2 (OK for Commons) and CC non-commercial (not OK). As one of the licenses is OK, so is the image (I believe). --A.Savin 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A.Savin They are OK, but not for the reason you specify. Our guidelines regarding licenses were changed in October 2012 to
Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses."
If one looks at the closing comments to this rule change, it was clearly stated that the rule should not be applied retrospectively to images uploaded prior to the rule change. The three photos you mention were uploaded 2008-9, and thus the current licensing rule does not apply to them. Thus, @Kadellar: if they are to be delisted it should not be because of the licensing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
But even if such images were uploaded today, they would be OK for Commons in general (as GFDL is allowed as a free license) independent of that it is combined with a non-commercial CC license (which actually makes the files easier to re-use for non-commercial re-users), they would just not pass the criteria for FP if nominated today. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Kadellar wanted to know if they are OK for Commons in general. --A.Savin 21:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see your point. It could be read that way indeed now that I re-read it. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I thought they might be "candidates" for a deletion request, but if you say we can keep them, that's better. Now they'd only be candidates for delisting. Thank you for the info! --Kadellar (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Kadellar, we are not keeping any license tag that is not suitable for Commons. And some bots or volunteers add {{No license since}} to any file which will not have a license tag, and such files will be deleted soon. So, if you have doubt about the suitability of a license tag, the best option is to discuss about that tag at COM:VPC. (You can see the advantages of multi-license tags at Commons:Multi-licensing. This matter recently discussed at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/10#Is_this_CC-NC_custom_license_acceptable.3F.) Jee 02:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Images with size~2mpx

I agree with @Kreuzschnabel: and @Colin: to some extent, however, this issue makes FP section elitist, think of a solution for images of other cultures, especially from poor countries (I'm not talking about me). Here, unfortunately, there are not many pictures of entire continents like Africa, or Asia. What can we do to help these users without sacrificing the quality of this section ?, however, I want to get out too much of the issue, for the moment, I think it is a good topic to discuss on the talk page of this section. --The Photographer (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There is indeed a lack of images from some countries. We also lack good-quality images of people and images of everyday objects, places and situations too. There's a strong bias towards the famous buildings, beautiful locations of and plants/animals in the places where we live and go on holiday. Well, that's what people here take photos of and are willing to upload to Commons. Would lowering the size/quality threshold for third-world countries really make any difference to contribution levels? A second-hand four-year-old DSLR with 12 or 14 MP is certainly capable of creating featured pictures, as you and I know from experience. Perhaps WMF should spend some of its money on schemes to donate basic a DSLR with a cheap but good prime lens. I know some chapters have bought cameras, though there's a difference between a photograph taken by a Wikipedian who merely wants to illustrate an article, and a photographer who wants to take a great picture with the talent to do so. The Photographer, if you know anyone who would benefit from a DSLR but can't afford one, and who would be an active quality contributor to Commons, let me know. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
SONY dslr A550, 14mp, 4 years old, is my camera today. More than 100 FP with it, and the next is to come soon....--Jebulon (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Consider two situations. The chapters do not consider them to be the right way, some incredibly large countries with significant resources dont have even a user group (as in the case of Brazil). Some chapters in troubled countries have shown problems when using the funds efficiently, some cases of corruption. I think you should go directly to the people of these countries, these users exist here but with many difficulties. The way to obtain high economic quality cameras must be objective. A good way to achieve this might be the Valuable images, a user with 500 valuable pictures, from these countries could be a good deserving user of a DSLR. I think we could do this with the help of the Wikimedia Foundation, is an objective way to donate a cheap camera that has been paid to these 500 valuable photographs, if the user decides to continue taking important shots, this should not be an obligation, without But after 500 valuable is a good start to trust this person. 500 is only one example. --The Photographer (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not keen to put any pressure on a forum to promote images when there is financial incentive -- that way leads to sock puppet accounts or flooding. I don't know how to objectively solve the "chicken and egg" problem of identifying photographers who would do great work if only they had better kit, other than personal contact and knowledge. And from the WMF point of view, they might actually be happier with 500 mediocre photographs of subjects that lack images than 20 featured pictures. So it may be that for WMF, a DSLR is not the best use of funds. -- Colin (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Only reviewers VI users active in the last year, users who work promoting VI of other candidates from other users who do not participate in this program shall be valid ratings will have a valid counter VI. --The Photographer (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Colin: Maybe the way more easy is low requirements depending on location, taking into consideration if the country is underdeveloped or not. What do you think ?. I believe that this measure will stimulate the amount of outstanding images taken in these poor countries --The Photographer (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean lower requirements for equipment donation, or lower requirements for FP? I wouldn't support the latter. There are surely rich people living in Brazil who earn more than me. And there are plenty European nations that are underrepresented here and have poor people of their own. Photography is an expensive hobby and there are plenty people I know who could not afford a DSLR or would not consider owning one a priority. I think coming up with automatic rules would be complex and difficult to get right. Could some kind of informal personal system work, where people at FP/QI vouch for another's talent and enthusiasm but where their results are limited by funds? -- Colin (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Brazil is not the best example, this country has the most unequal countries in the world that make up the G20, with a population like India of poverty. Obviously there are particular cases, however, can not ignore the lack of African content. The HDI is not a good indicator because it can be the equal distribution of poverty as in the case of Venezuela. I'm trying to make an objective definition of a mechanism insite to collaborative commons, the camera is an end and not necessarily the beginning, the user demonstrates that truly deserves the camera with an objective assessment, not intrude all this mass of trolls and puppets. Valuable image does not require a good quality is additionally these underdeveloped areas that need most valuable images. I think that could add countries to the list as appropriate by voting, for example, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Somalia, Burundi, Haiti ... Surely in these countries will be people with lots of money, however, the common denominator, European countries are better. Well then, you could start with this list and we could reduce the FP requirements to 1 megapixel?. FP has become an elite section seem increasingly more tourist postcards, however, especially many cultural aspects of human reality are not being documented, these realities present in poor countries and war. The WMF should help to promote such projects would help enormously to improve the quality of the articles, for now we only see events that encourage many photos and not the quality, supported by the chapters. --The Photographer (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Interesting discussion, but I think that you confuse two things: helping people from countries from the Global South to contribute is one thing, and creating very good pictures in another. And more than the equipment, understanding photographic technics is often what is missing to produce good pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment The quality of photographic gear is just one the components deemed necessary for producing a featured picture. Probably not the most critical if we also consider technical knowledge, hard work and talent. What I can say from my own experience is that having expensive equipment helps a lot but doesn’t replace the other three components. My best picture ever was taken with an analog cheap camera (The Photographer) and my older FPs were shot with a bridge camera (Konica Minolta), which would probably be considered below par by present standards. For certain specialized fields, like macrophotography and panoramas, it is true that the quality bar has raised much in the last years making the use of a DSLR almost a necessity. But Photography goes well beyond those fields and I believe that some of our creators would still be able to produce extraordinary pictures with the cheapest equipment. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree in the aspect that a camera is only a part of all those involved in the creative act of making a composite photograph, however, in my case, I only started taking fairly good pictures when I was in the ability to own a camera DSLR. Having a good camera stimulates creativity and desire to learn. for a 17 year old boy have a bridge camera in these countries would be useful, we need pictures of these places. A child or older boy awaken interest in good compositions. I have some friends in Cuba who do not have Internet access, however, a bridge or mirrorless camera that hides the cost (for reasons of insecurity) could be a good option. --The Photographer (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment In my opinion, there's no hard and fast rule (beyond the 2 MP), but rather a sliding scale. I pretty much demand any 2 MP photo to be tack-sharp with absolutely no visible unsharpness, whereas I regularly support D800 pictures that are quite blurry at full size as long as the problems aren't noticeable at 50% (which is still 9 MP; imagine if you had to upsample a completely sharp 2 MP image over 200%). For images with low "true resolution," for me there needs to be some mitigating factor, e.g. action/wildlife (which most likely requires cropping), underwater (inherently unsharp), tripods and/or DSLRs being prohibited, etc., or simply it should have so much "wow" that I'd be willing to vote for it at POTY. -- King of ♠ 03:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

CC BY-SA-4.0 and FAL 1.3en now compatible

See (Thanks Christoph Braun for the link.) Jee 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have an advocate report for this statement? And as "german user" I only see the FAL 1.1de version. How about this problem? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
We have only layman point of views. See the VPC discussion and the original FAL announcement. Jee 02:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I failed to find any 1.1 version. I read 1.2 and 1.3. Both allows "you always have the choice between just you of the provisions contained in the version under which the copy was issued or when you invoke the provisions of later versions." But we have only {{FAL}} pointing to FAL 1.3 without that restriction now. So you need to create and use Template:FAL 1.2 only if you want to restrict to your license to that version only. Otherwise FAL 1.2 is compatible with FAL 1.3 and then to CC BY-SA 4.0. You may not change the license of your existing works as the license once granted are irrevocable. Jee 06:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for permission to overwrite a Commons FP with a completely reworked edit by another editor


This photo was promoted as a Commons FP on 2014-10-04 with 19 supports and no opposition. The same image is currently nominated over at en:FPC. In the nomination process, Diliff has pointed out that the workflow used in the original is suboptimal. This is acknowledged by the original creator (me), and he has on the basis of the original source files nominated a completely reworked alternative using a more correct workflow, which has increased the picture fidelity. Moreover, he has improved the aspect ratio by adding some content-aware fill in the sky, and the colors of more realistic. It is very likely the edit will be promoted at EN:FPC.

As the creator of the source files, I agree the edit is a clear improvement. It has been suggested over at EN:FPC to gauge the opinion here at COM:FPC to simply overwrite the COM:FP with Diliffs edit, such that it is the same (improved) file, which is promoted on both projects. So, could I get a few 'nods' that this would be OK?

If some see it as controversial, cf. COM:OVERWRITE, I can also initiate a replace and delist process to more formally gauge the opinion here. No problem. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I always thought that the original looked phony, in fact I was not far from opposing. The new version is so much more natural! --DXR (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
DXR Do not hesitate to oppose another time. A 'looks phony' comment could have triggered me to re-process it using a more healthy workflow at the time  . I like observant opposes (and pedantism)-- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
You're right. However I have been outvoted strongly on (imo) overprocessed HDR-Skies before, so I actually wondered whether it was just personal taste... Still your comment makes sense for sure and I'll keep it in mind :) --DXR (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If it's personal taste, it's my personal taste too. ;-). For me, especially for images on Commons, HDR should be used to enhance the dynamic range and recover shadow and highlight detail, not to create a hyper-vivid artistic piece. Accuracy is just as important if not more important for HDR images, because it is so easy to lose a sense of the reality of a scene with HDR processing. Like a nuclear bomb, it is a tool that should be used carefully. :-) Diliff (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Every time HDR is overdone, some person disappears and only their shiny clothes are left ;-) --DXR (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a lot better. I wouldn't mind a fast delist and replace with a note that the file would be overwritten in the (pretty certain) case of success. But I'm more than fine with a simple overwrite also. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • IMO, a delist and replace process should be the best way to go, that's why it exists. For the future history of this picture in "Commons", it seems to me to be more clear. I'll support in this case.--Jebulon (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • After thinking about it, Jebulon, your view on this makes perfect sense. If the file is overwritten, the whole history of what happened becomes much less transparent. Let us follow the process and also keep the two wikis de-coupled. If the old is delisted and replaced with Diliffs edits here on Commons, (which appear likely), and it is also Diliffs edit, which is promoted on EN:FPC (which is likely), we also end up with the same file page being FP on both projects based on a sound and transparent process, albeit with a little more tedious process than the shortcut, I proposed. I will initiate the process a little later - maybe this evening. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal pages (edit)

Hi! I'd like to modify the default text of the removal nominations to add a link to the nomination itself (now there's only a link to the file or to directly editing the nomination, but not to the nomination page). Compare this two kinds of nominations:

File:Kongensbro gravel pit 2014-09-17.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2014 at 22:16:36

  •   Info This upper image was promoted with overwhelming support (19/0/0) a little over a month ago: (Original nomination) However, meanwhile, Diliff has restitched the image from the original raws (lower image), using only non-destruvitve editing in Lightroom. This has resulted in higher image fidelity, more faithful colors and better tonality in the sky. Moreover, by using content-aware fill, he has been capable of extending the sky, thus managing to produce an image with a less extreme aspect ratio. The process is described in detail at the English Wikipedia FPC process. I am very, very gratefull for and impressed by this edit, as the raws do not appear promising at first sight.
  •   Info Since we do not have replace-and-delist nominations very often, just a reminder, that the only allowed templates are {{Keep}} and {{Delistandreplace}}. (I had to look it up). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Strong delist and replace Per FPC talk --DXR (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace As promised in FPC talk. It is the good solution, don't worry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per Slaunger. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Speedy! -- Ram-Man 00:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace I liked the more colorful sunset, but the newer one is more realistic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace - Per EN Wiki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace but keep the annotations --Kreuzschnabel 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Thanks Slaunger, you've been very gracious throughout the process. I'm just glad we ended up with a better image that all parties could be satisfied with. Diliff (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • And I am grateful for you being willing to invest your time in these piles of gravel in Denmark and spare the time to explain your superior workflow.  -- Slaunger (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • "Very gracious", Slaunger ? Oh yes, he is. I think we are lucky with such a guy among us.--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I find the image notes/annotations of the old version very interesting. Would it be possible to copy them to the new file? --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Yann (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Result: 13 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. Yann (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

File:WLM14ES - Molinos La Mancha - Hugo Díaz-Regañón.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2014 at 17:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Windmills of Consuegra, Castilla La Mancha, Spain. Created by Hugo Díaz-Regañón, uploaded by Superzerocool, nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kadellar (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose It's a beautiful scene, but I don't like how the two or three structures on the right intrude on each other. Hurts the composition. Even were it impossible to get the shot from a different angle, I don't think that's enough of a mitigating factor for me. -- Ram-Man 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course different angles are possible !--Jebulon (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I think this composition is nice because it compresses the windmills in the image, so they don't appear too loose. The obscured windmill is so obscured that there almost seems to be six instead of seven, so it's not a problem for me. --Kadellar (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Would be even nicer if the mills on the right would not obstruct each other, but lots of whow and still a very great and perfectly done shot. --Kreuzschnabel 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Beautiful scene. Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment PD is very obvious, or they are built so ? Otherwise very nice image. --Mile (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    •   Question Sorry, what do you mean by "PD" ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
      •   Comment Perspective distortion. Some windmills are leaning. --Mile (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah ok. Thanks for explanation. As I remember, they are not leaning in real (see above)--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

*  Oppose I havent see upper link, windmills are leaning. And there already is FP of it. Wouldnt mind to plus it, just some corrections. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  •   Done Hi, Mile, I have uploaded a new version with the perspective issue corrected. I hope it's fine now, I couldn't do it before. --Kadellar (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now, and year 2009 shot. Nice ligth, simbioze of cold tones in air and on the ground. --Mile (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support and 7 for 9 minutes   --LivioAndronico talk 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wow!!! Thrilling ending!! Thank you all very much for your support and comments. I'll tell the author that it's been featured. --Kadellar (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

Just below the file title and the voting period there's the link to the nomination (in the FPC, not the delisting one). Can someone change that and add the line "Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes" with the links?? Thank you. --Kadellar (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


I just stumbled across this page for the first time today, I wasn't actually aware it existed until now. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if it's supposed to be featured pictures on any project, or specifically featured on Commons? I ask because my statistics are way out of date (nt updated since 2009). I can update them, but I wanted to know if I should be removing images that were featured on the English Wikipedia and only add images that are featured on Commons, or if I should be adding more that were featured on the English Wikipedia since 2009.... Not that it's the most important thing in the world really, but it would be nice to have an update to day category for my featured pictures but I want to make sure it's the same what others are doing. Diliff (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Daniel, those are only Commons FP and not all authors are represented; only those who cared to create a sub category with their names. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It's David... ;-) OK, well in that case, my category is wrong, because it contains mostly images that are featured on the English Wikipedia (some are featured on Commons of course, but not as many as I haven't been as active on Commons FPC). I did notice however that Poco's featured pictures category also states "This category is a collection of pictures by Poco a poco that were promoted as featured in any Wikimedia project.", as does mine (but my category wasn't actually created or maintained by me!). Diliff (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I have only one image which is FP on English WP, but not on Commons, and I included it in my cat. I don't see the point to create a cat for only one file. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        • "Commons" is "Commons ", and WPs are WPs. Here, it is "Commons", and we should not mix the projects. I strongly oppose to the FP in WPs, it does not add anything, only confusions, see the question. I have some pictures featured in WPs, but not nominated by me, and not by my will My own category includes only my "Commons" FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I agree. I don't see a problem with a category that includes FPs on any Wikipedia project, but it should have a different name. I don't think it should be a competition to see who can get the most FPs, but it would be nice if it could be compared properly between people. At the moment, it cannot, because different people use different criteria for adding images to their "Featured pictures by User" category. Diliff (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry to mess up your name ... David, and also for the wrong info. I had no idea that the category was used to also include other wikis' FP. But I agree with you, To Caeser's what is Caeser's and etc. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
            • No problem. I think the issue is that there was never any guidelines on how the category should be used, and different people had different ideas. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Jebulon, I just re-read what you said. Are you saying that you disagree with the Featured Pictures projects themselves, on each language Wikipedias? I don't understand that. They are not really the same projects, because they are not just about the photo, they are about how the photo contributes to the article and an understanding of a subject. A Commons FP does not have to do that because it stands alone and isn't tied to any article. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I understand. But again, I think this is just confusing. I'm happy there is no FP contest in frwp...--Jebulon (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
                • It's not that confusing. FPs on Commons are great images. FPs on English Wikipedia (and others) are great images that also contribute to the understanding of an article - they are encyclopaedic images. A Commons FP isn't always encyclopaedic... There are plenty of good images that add nothing to the understanding of the subject in the photo. Like reflections in a puddle. ;-) OK, so I opposed that one, but there are many Commons FPs like that. Diliff (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • As for me, I try not to support non encyclopaedical pictures in "Commons " FPC. Encyclopaedical value is one of the criteria of the FP in "Commons", if I'm not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • Jebulon, "Educational value" is a criterion, not "Encyclopaedic value". The latter limits WP:FP to images that are appropriate to illustrate an encyclopaedia article. Educational scope is broader. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • Mmmmh, if we were in QICpage, I'd push this statement in CR...;)--Jebulon (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • Jebulon. You would get an oppose vote from me then in CR ;-). In the guidelines for FPC it says "Value – our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others.". It does not say anything about encyclopedic value, and if you look in Commons:Project scope it is pointed out that the objective of Commons is to provide "educational" media files. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". This is a broader scope than merely encyclopedic. For instance, the instructional series of photos in Rickenbacker 4003 (SN 9951807) repair are educational and clearly in scope of Commons, but do not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm with Colin there;-) Years ago I also could not see the meaning in the local Wikipedia FP projects, but I must say I have learned something else by sometimes participating in for instance EN:FPC, where the focus is more on the faithful, and less on the wow, to get further perspectives. The very latest example is my recent gravel pit photo which was promoted with overwhelming support on Commons, but when I nominated the same photo on EN:FPC it was found that the image could be improved and made more faithful. Going back to Commons leading to a unanimous delist-and-replace of the Commons FP with the Diliff edit. So a Commons FP was improved due to EN:FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                          • Sorry, may I continue to disagree ? I think we could have a nice encyclopedic article about the repair of a guitar... And I'm not sure your own example is accurate. Anyway it is not convincing for me. Everybody could re discuss your picture in "Commons", especially Diliff who is a regular here (fortunately, I would say!), now or in the future.--Jebulon (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                              • Sure, Jebulon, you may continue to disagree! We just see the two terms differently. You see encyclopedic as such a broad term that it covers what I see as educational as written in the Project scope. This means, we actually agree on what is in scope! ;-) We just do not agree on the term to use for it. The latter is a minor detail:-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                            • To be honest, the Gravel pit example was more due to Diliff spotting it and reckoning it could be improved than anything much to do with the difference between Commons and WP. In fact, I'd say your problems with the sky should have been less important on WP since it was illustrating an article on gravel pits, not sky. But more eyes reviewing does no harm. EN:FPC isn't what it used to be, though, and if one's photography is motivated by creating "article lead images" then that's a big constraint. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                              • Colin: You have a point with the specific example. It is really the "more eyes on it" I was thinking about, and seeing it in use from different perspectives, which I often find useful. I agree technical aspects are usually best reviewed on Commns, but sometimes in local FP projects aspects about useability or value get another perspective, which is useful. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • My cat: "FPs by Alchemist-hp" are only for FPs on Commons too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The same for FP in eswp,enwp,frwp,arwp..... We need categories of that too? --The Photographer (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, FP in frwp does not exist.--Jebulon (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I guess we would need individual categories for that, yes. Either we don't consider each project's FPs as separate, or we have categories for each language Wiki. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if actually, the FPC bot should automatically (or perhaps it should be done manually by the closer if that is too difficult?) add the "Featured pictures by User:xxxxxx" category to every featured picture that is promoted here. I notice it is not currently being done, so it relies on individuals to update their images with the category, and it therefore makes the statistics completely inaccurate. Of course, until everyone goes back on their historical images and adds it manually, the statistics will never be 100% accurate but it is surely better to start now than to give up entirely. Diliff (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I doubt that could be done automatically. Who should be credited? The photographer, the original uploader, the last uploader (not necessary the same), or the nominator? Or all of them? Personally, I regard as my FP only those where I added a significant input, either as photographer or restorer (see my home page). So actually, I should create several categories: FP images created by me, FP images restored by me, FP images nominated by me, etc., and this for each project where there is a FP contest? You see that it quickly becomes unmanageable... Regards, Yann (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it can be done. Since in the vast majority of the cases, the category "Featured pictures by ..." refers to own photographs or drawings, it should continue to be that way. I see two other relevant categories to be created: "Featured pictures nominated by ..." and ""Featured pictures restored by ...". Three steps to make the adjustements: i) manually purge the presente category as to contain only own creations"; ii) Manually (or not?) feed the new categories (this should be done by the interested users); iii) Adjust FP bot to automatically insert the relevant categories in the just promoted images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And how the bot will know who is the photographer? It would need to be able to eventually read the EXIF data, parse the Info template, or the OTRS permission, etc. There are way too many cases for a bot to get the right information. Yann (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that this all is much unimportant for commons! A photographer can add hes own category or not ... I do it, other photographers do it too, and some other photographer don't do it. All of that are OK for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree that it's not that important, as we don't really need to know who has the most featured pictures. This is not a pissing contest after all. ;-) But if statistics are important, then it is important for the category to be accurate. Diliff (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, people can add the category when needed. Statistics may be interesting, but not by photographers. Statistics by place, time, camera models, etc. could be interesting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed, those statistics could be interesting, but it relies heavily on complete EXIF data, which is not always available. Still, it could be implemented by someone I suppose? Anyway, I've updated Category:Featured pictures by User:Diliff by removing all photos not featured on Commons, and added images that were featured on Commons since 2009 (the ones that were previously missing), and I've ended up with virtually the same total. ;-) Of course, there are many featured pictures on the English Wikipedia which I think could be featured on Commons, but I'm limited to 2 nominations a week. Diliff (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would propose to rename the category to the unambiguous Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons by creator. It appears most agree the category is intended for Commons FPs only, although it has never been explicitly written anywhere. Moreover, such a rename would align with the fact that all Commons FPs are in the category Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I would be very much against putting responsibility on the bot to categorize promoted FPs into user categories such as these. Some nominators have no interest in these user categories and perceives them as unnecessary self-promotion, other find they are convenient containers for themselves or for users who want to find additional FPS from the same creator. And for those who have user categories by creator there is no fixed syntax used by all users. Some use the (recommended) 'User:' prefix, some not, some use a creator name, which is formatted differently from their username. Let users maintain their own user categories. Also, I do not think we should police what people put in their user categories. We may drop them a note to point to the fact what the consensus is for the meaning of the category, if FPs from other wikimedia projects end in the same category. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Technically, the categories do not belong to a user. It's a free-content crowd-sourced wiki. Those who have no interest in them don't need to maintain them, but can't really object if someone else or a bot creates it or edits it. I don't think we should include other WP in these categories (some have really low quality thresholds). I'm surprised Yann thinks categories by camera are more useful than by photographer. People take featured pictures, not cameras. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Statistics by photographer may help some ego, but has little educational value. Statistics by camera may show the evolution of technology, or the preference of some brand or model among photographers. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't think it's necessarily for any individual to say what value statistics might have, and it's short-sighted to say that it's primarily about ego. Someone mentioned on the Indiegogo campaign (intenting to generate funds to replace Poco's stolen camera equipment) that Poco was the highest contributor to featured pictures on Commons, and they used the statistics to justify the claim. That's a very useful and philanthropic use for of statistics. But it's just one use. We can't even conceive of all the potential uses yet, as 'Big Data' advocates like to proclaim. :-) Diliff (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Diliff: It is a user category; so relying on COM:USER policy. They are good to arrange our works based on assessment, camera used, subject depicted, etc.; but not intended for any formal use. We can't say which user has more FPs or QIs from it because not all users are compelled to maintain them. Further, we can't force one user to maintain them if he don't want it. I think the claim you mentioned above (Poco is #1 in number of FPs) is correct; but we can't use that category for an official statement.) Jee 16:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Jee, I agree with what you're saying, except that you're describing what is currently the case, rather than what would be possible in the future if we actually maintain the categories better. If we were to actually keep a more formal account of featured pictures by author, I don't see how it would conflict with COM:USER... Nowhere does it say that the category can only be maintained by the users themselves, or that it cannot be used for statistical purposes. It is more of an issue of whether we decide that it's useful, and if so, what is the process for maintaining the categories. As I said, it could be maintained as part of the closing process, but someone would have to additionally go back through existing FPs to categorise them also. Diliff (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Then it should be moved out of usercats. Now users can full freedom what to do with them. And, I may delete mine any moment soon. :) Jee 16:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Out of interest, are you considering deleting yours because you don't want your featured pictures to be categorised under your name, or is there another reason? Diliff (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Diliff: I didn't decide so far; but not happy to give much priority for it. When I started here; I created it as most of us doing here. I lost my enthusiasm as usual after a while. But I'm not against people maintain such statistics as far as it will not affect the spirit of this project. I think there are many people here who are not making much self noms (eg: Archaeodontosaurus, JJ Harrison). JJH has more than 100 FPs; but not maintains a statistics here. (I was active in fpc maintenance for one year (from October 2013-October 2014), silently watching all nominations; have a good idea what is going on here. There are many good points; a lot of evil too (like revenge votes and pity politics). But overall, this is a good project.)   Jee 03:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Jee, our COM:USER guideline does not say users own the categories pertaining to them. Nor indeed does one own one's user page, though we are usually polite enough to leave that alone -- ultimately, we may wake up one day to find a block notice on our pages :-(. I am sad to see talk of ego seems to have encouraged Poco to remove his stats. Please folk, consider that when you say these things are just ego stroking, you are making a judgement about someone's else's values which may simply differ from yours but aren't wrong/immoral/weak and this may be interpreted as boasting one's own ego is big enough that it doesn't need any external help. This information can be useful (so I know where to go to help identifying butterflies or with taking night-time panoramas or simply want to locate a great photographer). If folk want to collect statistics and categorise these things, let them be. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Hi Colin, to be honest it was rather this discussion (sorry, it's in German) that moved me to edit my user page. I will do the same with the FP, QI and VI "by user" categories as soon as the campaign is over (end of January), otherwise the links there would make no sense, and I think that it would be disrespectful to do it now (it wasn't me who set all that up including the links and statements there). Poco2 18:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • @Colin: Ego motivations are not always that bad. ;oD There are ample studies showing that ego is one of the main motivations behind free software. And I believe this also apply to free content. So without ego motivations, Wikimedia, and Commons, would probably not exist as they do today. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • Maybe this is true, but you just said above that statistics on FPs may help someone's ego but has little educational value. You seem to have contradicted yourself by then suggesting that ego-stroking actually helps Commons. ;-) Anyway, regardless of its effect on ego, I think there are benefits to the statistics that go beyond it. Diliff (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • I don't think this is contradictory. I maintain that "FP by user" is mainly useful for helping ego (including mine ;oD), but if that encourages photographers to upload nice images, then the result is positive. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • It's contradictory because you said it has little educational value, but surely if it encourages photographers to upload nice images, then there is educational value in it? I guess you were referring to the educational value of the statistics themselves, whereas I interpreted it to mean that having the category has little educational value so it doesn't benefit Commons (which you agree it does, hence I saw it as a contradiction). Diliff (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                          • Then we agree. ;oD Yann (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • I'm glad we agree on this (though there are of course cases where competitions and ego can turn nasty, and selfish motivations harm the comminity). -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • OK, so I see the point raised by Diliff that the statistics can be useful, but I also agree with Jkadavoor that really, then these categories shall be moved out of user space then to align with the objectives of user categories outlined in COM:USER, which says "In general: you are welcome to create things for your own convenience, as long as they won't disrupt other people browsing in a normal way." Although Colin is technically correct that anyone can maintain the user categories, it is not in the current written intention of the user categories to do that. You could do it, but probably not without upsetting a lot of users, who follows "the for your own convenience" idea, meaning they are primarily for the specific user the category is about. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding "...created by" categories for other Wikimedia projects, I would propose to make categories like Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Persian by creator and Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Persian by User:John Doe as it aligns with the corresponding Wikimedia project-specific category Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Persian here on Commons.-- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I pretty much agree with Diliff on this subject and consider that the usefulness of categories like “Photographs by user”, “QI by user” or “FP by user” goes much beyond any ego purpose or even a mere personal statistical or archiving convenience. Remember that some of our creators are top level experts in their fields and having a quicker way to access their best works certainly adds to the project’s usability. Yes, I know that keeping a low profile is part of the wiki culture for editors, even when they are notable in the real world. But if living artists like the cartoonist Carlos Latuff can have their own categories in the system, why not Richard Bartz, who is an extraordinary macro photographer, or even David Iliff, an extraordinary panorama specialist? Knowing that Feature Pictures and Meet our Photographers were created with the explicit purpose of being Commons’ showcases why should it be considered politically incorrect to have there a shortcut to access directly the best works of our best creators? I agree that only Commons FP should be considered and see no need for using long names such as "Category:Featured pictures in Commons by some_user". In my opinion the short version "Category: Featured pictures by some_user" is the best solution. And yes, I still believe that the FP bot could do the job of categorizing the new entries. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alves, nobody said they are politically incorrect. But, as far as they are under user cats, they are upto users choice whether or not to maintain them. Our policy to restrict user cats as hidden categories is a different point. But due to that restriction, they are not available in Google search, etc. (if I'm right).
  • Regarding bot update. It will be nice if FPC community make some initiative to to talk with Daniel about the possibility to update the bot scripts. There are a lot of known bugs; delist, D & R need to be closed manually. Jee 15:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I know that nobody used the expression "politically incorrect", Jee. But the culture of low profile and inclusiveness (which I believe you share - please thake this as a compliment) is strong among some users, and that fact may contribute to make an open discussion on the subject a little more difficult. What I wanted to make clear with my comment is that the ego-feeding and personal convenience are not, after all, the most important components of the category!. Maybe we should discuss further if the "Featured pictures by user" categories should be taken out the user cat group (however I realize that this discussion is dying, probably owing to the influence of the sexier ones below...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining your POV. Got it. :) Jee 02:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Great images are not necessarily maximally educational

The first image got a hard time here on Commons FP. No precedent. We have so few low-key images on Commons that this actually ended up illustrating the WP article on the subject, despite this being an important style of photography. I was told an educational photograph needed full lighting. Why would anyone, wanting to create an educational image, bathe it in shadow? And surely photographing a black subject on a black background is just a no no? Well it got promoted. And one might think the folk at Wikipedia FP would have even more conservative tastes on what was encyclopaedic/educational than the free thinkers at Commons. Not so: they loved the entire set of three images. But perhaps it has no use in educational publications outside of Wikipedia? How about the front cover of the textbook on the camera written by Gary Friedman, the top author of Sony camera guides.

I set myself the lighting challenge of a low-key image, a dark object on a dark background, and built my own homemade softbox with which to take it. If someone here wants to create and upload a fantastic black and white image, I'd love to see that supported rather than opposed merely because the colour is missing. If I wanted to take a merely educational image, I'd shoot the second style of image below. Which would come in very handy when I want to sell my camera on ebay, but doesn't raise my heartbeat one jot. Did anyone here take up photography as a hobby to create merely educational images, or to (attempt to) create fantastic images? Let's not discourage creative ambition with conservative voting. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Colin: are you always immaculate? Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gary Friedman didn't use your image because it was educational though, he used it because it was a nice, pleasant, sleek promotional image to sell his book. Which is fine. Not every educational publication uses every image educationally. They all still have to sell copy. The thing is, I see this low key image as a good example of how it can be used well. And there are situations where B&W can be used well too. But not every instance of either will be done well or be appropriate for the scene, and because by its very nature you are consciously withholding information, the value of the artistic expression must be greater than the value of the lost information. I think that's really what it comes down to, and I think that was probably the reasoning behind the opposition to your nomination, or near enough. Diliff (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think you do simply have a very limited idea of what constitutes educational are are confusing it with "precisely illustrative" or something similar. And you can dismiss my argument as "just words" or reject my suggestion that folk here should read some books over Christmas, but it isn't really my job to supply a full education on all the basics of photography in order to win some argument. I guess all the reviewers who supported Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg were wrong because that isn't illustrative of reality nor is it more educational that a straightforward fast-shutter-speed photograph. Those light trails don't exist folks. Vote oppose. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That last response seems more like a bit of a rant, as opposed to a systematic response to what I've said. I feel like I'm spending a lot of my time here defending things I haven't actually said. I never dismissed your argument as 'just words', I said that if we cannot actually agree on what basis we describe an image 'educational', we're not actually on the same wavelength as far as the discussion of the merits of B&W photography goes and it becomes 'just words' because we think we're taking about the same thing but it transpires afterwards that we disagree on those fundamentals and have made incorrect assumptions about each other. And I have no idea how you extrapolated my last reply to suggest that your image of Big Ben was not illustrative of reality. You may not have noticed that I actually supported it! Long exposures can indeed provide more educational value in some situations, because they can describe the path of lit objects over time. Please don't take one nuanced argument and try to pretend it was being applied to other separate situations in order to rave and ridicule it. Stick to the points raised and respond to them directly and we'll have far less confusion and frustration. Diliff (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The best examples of highly educational recent B&W pictures we have are the portraits by Claude Truong-Ngoc. Professional quality, no doubt, but also little chance to get FP here with the attitude against B&W images prevaling on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

For me that's not the best example; I find that regarding standard portraits of people, B&W is rarely preferable to color. I think it's best for scenes where there is a lot of contrast and texture and not much color to begin with. -- King of ♠ 03:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The future will tell us about our B&W images on Commons ... I think we can close this discussion here. I don't wrote "all" B&W images are good only for opposes! I individual decide me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

When Wilfredo asked you about all the existing b&w FPs, you said "I was not there, for a voting. But old B&W images are OK for me" and earlier wrote "I'm not a fan from BW images." Your prejudiced voting seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps you can provide evidence of supporting a contemporary b&w image for FP? -- Colin (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"Perhaps you can provide evidence of supporting a contemporary b&w image for FP?" why? Do we have a rule for this? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Colin was noting that you said "I don't wrote "all" B&W images are good only for opposes! I individual decide me" which I think, if you'll allow me to paraphrase for simplicity, means that you don't vote oppose systematically, and that you decide on a case-by-case basis. He then asks, if this is true, then do you have any examples of where you have actually ever voted anything but oppose. I think it's a fair enough question. But of course you are entitled to say that you've never supported a B&W image but that you are open minded enough to consider it in the future. Diliff (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll explain it differently when I'd like to vote with an oppose for an B&W image and don't with: "the world is colorful". I promise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Black and white photos and Alchemist-hp

Alchemist-hp opposes nearly every contemporary black and white photograph: "the world is colorful". This is letting one's personal tastes and prejudice intrude onto judgement over whether a photograph is any good and valuable. While b&w can sometimes be used to try to rescue an unexciting colour photo, or to give an undeserved impression of artistic talent, it remains a valid photographic choice in contemporary photography both in the documentary and artistic domains. There are excellent reasons for choosing this technique and, far from being just a loss of colour information, it has a powerful ability to present aspects of a subject that are not appreciated in colour. Excluding it from FP, as Alchemist-hp votes, is as arbitrary as opposing headshot portraits because one prefers to shoot environmental portraits, or nighttime cityscapes because daylight is clearer. I propose the community ask Alchemist-hp to abstain from voting on this issue. He may comment, of course, but unless the FP rules are changed to disallow all contemporary black and white photography, this should not be a valid reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a valid reason for opposition. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sir. IMHO It is important to assume good faith, it is likely that some votes may be meaningless because there is no knowledge requirements for voters. --The Photographer (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that if his opposes are systematic then perhaps he isn't open minded enough to judge fairly, but I do see his point to some extent. We've already established in the thread above that, as per the guidelines, Commons FPs should be educational. In most cases, B&W images can of course be educational, but I think it would be very rare that they are more educational than the equivalent colour image, unless it could be argued that the essence of the educational value is amplified somehow by the distillation of the image down to its mere luminosity. In most cases, additional information would be gained from a scene by seeing its colours. But to be clear, that doesn't mean I agree with Alchemist's systematic opposes. I'd still consider the merits of each image on a case by case basis. Diliff (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you are assuming that the colour pixels are educational. For example, by your measure there is no educational difference between a photograph taken on an overcast day and one taken in beautiful or dramatic weather (unless the subject is the weather) and night shots are nearly always less intrinsically educational than daytime. But their educational value is increased by being attractive or indicating form rather than colour or by removing distracting aspects. Publishers choose pictures not because they are simply an in-focused & well-exposed/lit image -- they choose them because they are fantastic images with an educational feature. Diliff, one mustn't oppose simply because personally one would have done it differently (in colour, say) or because someone else (with a better camera, say) could have taken a better picture. The nominator puts one image up for review and should be judged on its own merits, not against what might have been. Again, this is like opposing a headshot portrait because there is more educational value in seeing the person's whole body -- the whole-body shot isn't being nominated. I'm sure we (one person excepting) can all agree an b&w image can be educational (as someone who grew up with newspapers in b&w and must have learned something during that time) so really that isn't in any doubt. One might prefer a given image to be colour, but there are lots of things one might prefer that aren't reasons to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Is this colour image more educationally valuable than this original image? Would File:Allie Mae Burroughs print.jpg be more educational if the photographer used colour? -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Colin The process of colorizing an original B&W has IMO little to do with the reverse (and irreversible) process of 'projecting' a color photo into B&W. When you colorize a B&W photo, it is guesswork. In that case the B&W is the most valuable of course as the colorized version may be completely wrong. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't saying that colourising a B&W photo is better than the original B&W image. I was suggesting that when you remove the colour from a colour image, you are removing information from the image. The less information about the subject, the less educational it is (generally speaking). It's not a hard and fast rule, and Slaunger mentions a good example of an exception below. I'll reply further in that part of the thread. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
That was a bad example, I was just trying to find a colour equivalent. Colorization is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, those are both fantastic portraits. Full stop end of story. There isn't anything you or I could have done to make them more educational by shooting with a colour camera. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) If you create a B&W photo merely from luminosity data from a digital image, one will most often get dissapointing results. It is far from trivial to do it right. If you work in, e.g., Lightroom, there is a series of controls, which helps you map luminosity and colors in a raw file into a B&W image. Photographers who do B&W on film often use color filters to achieve certain effects. I have read about it in "The Digital Negative" by Jeff Schewe, but it is not something I have a lot of personal experience with. I think that B&W in modern photography on Commons is not normally the best choise, only if the switch to B&W somehow amplifies the educational value, e.g., by adding a mood or 'roughness', which may be justified - or if the colors distract from the essence in the photo. A good example where B&W is justified is for me is this FP, which is from 2010 and on a film medium. The B&W and the grain amplifies in this case the sentiments expressed by the arrested refugees. For the specific cityscape, which has triggered this thread, I do not see B&W as a justified choise, and I am also not convinced that it has been converted optimally to B&W in the specific case. I do not necessaily see the oppose vote from Alchemist-hp as a systematic oppose to all B&W images, but I guess this is better explained by the 'accused' in this thread. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I just checked the original nomination page of the FP I referred to above. Here, Alchemist-hp also opposed as one of two reviewers, but the oppose reason ("yes, a simply perhaps valued snapshot, not more for me") did not refer to the B&W character of the photo. Thus, I see no evidence that Alchemist-hp opposes nominations just because they are B&W. Alchemist-hp is, as I see it, just a tough reviewer, who sets the bar high for FPCs, and I see no problem with that. It is only recently I got my first support vote from Alchemist-hp ever (after seven years) on an FPC of mine, and all my nominations have been in color;-) I do not always agree with the oppose reason, but they are explained and reasonable IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree again. I think the main reason why B&W works for the photo of the incarcerated immigrants is that we don't care what colour the buildings in the background were, and we can imagine what colour their skin is. What really matter is the emotions of the people, and the barrier between them and freedom. That's the essence of the image. Everything else is a distraction. But that's not the case for 99% of our featured picture candidates. We're mostly evaluating buildings, landscapes, etc. The essence of these subjects is the details. the colours, the textures, the architectural flourishes. Accurate colour, good resolution and a attractive composition is vitally important for these images to reach their educational potential, and to stand out amongst the crowds of other mundane photos of the same subjects. A black and white photo of a building may accentuate the contrast of its lines (as B&W tends to have boosted contrast), but at the expense of other useful information about the building. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A few of our black and white (or desaturated/low-colour) featured pictures.

I strongly suggest reading The Complete guide to black and white digital photography by Michael Freeman, to anyone who thinks b&w is simply a loss of educational colour information. That's really like saying our still images are simply videos with all the movement and sound removed (the world moves and makes a noise -- didn't you capture that?). -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Colin: Thanks for the book tip, I've ordered it right away. I've just finished Freeman's "Capturing Light", which I found very inspirational. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over these individual B&W/low-colour image candidates. The point is the refrain that b&w is unacceptable for FP because "the world is colorful". -- Colin (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As you've started a new thread with some bits that I had already partially addressed in my reply to you inline (edit conflict when I tried to submit), I figured it might be simpler to just put it all together. Bear in mind that it's primarily a response to your comment where you mentioned night photography: I'm not suggesting every photo must be taken in light that maximises the ability to discern the colours accurately. Of course a night photo will have different qualities and colour detail will often be sacrificed somewhat, but it's a compromise and it stills hows what a subject looks like at night. A B&W photo will never show what a subject looks like with any real accuracy, because the photographer has decided to remove the colour - useful information - from it. A photographer that takes a photo at night has not removed anything, he has still portrayed it reasonably accurately as it is at that point in time. Every photo involves some sort of compromise. I'm only suggesting that we should think twice about removing information that is useful, and in most cases, colour is indeed very useful. If at some time in the future, we could capture the sounds and the smells and a 360x180 degree video of a specific slice of time, then I would still be arguing that we should do our best to ensure that none of it is lost. Removing any of those aspects of the capture could indeed be an artistic choice (perhaps commentary on what it's like to be missing a particular sense), but it would not have as much educational information embeded, would it?
As for some of the black and white photos you've listed above, I would say that some of them do indeed suffer somewhat in educational value by being black and white. You say you don't want to get into an argument about the individual images, but I think it's important that if you use them as your argument, we're entitled to actually respond. Let me just use one of the photos as an example. If you were to ask me whether the train station in Sao Paolo is colourful or monochromatic, I wouldn't have a clue! I believe the same photo could have been taken in colour, and would have had the same impact on voters. I just don't think it benefits significantly from being B&W. B&W is an artistic choice. I know that FPs should elicit some emotion in people and that bog standard captures without any artistic endeavour tend to be less interesting, but I just believe that we can achieve that without having to sacrifice colour. Many of the photos above are very good, but I believe they could have been just as good, and more educational, in colour. Diliff (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
David, if you think black and white photography is simply removing the colour, then with all due respect, you have a lot to learn. Some of our (my) own attempts lack great talent but that partly reflects the gene-pool here and prejudice against artistic choices like this really don't help foster a community where that talent can grow or new talent is welcome. I disagree that many of the FPs in the gallery would have been improved with colour. If the train station was the sole/lead image in the WP article, then a colour version would be more useful to indicate what, in reality, the colours of the station are. But we are not WP and have no requirement to try to include all the information that one image could possibly contain in a lead photo. That is perhaps something you try to achieve with your indoor cathedral photos, but it isn't Commons mission to provide lead photos for WP. File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg shows the texture of rain on the ground and drops falling from the sky, the pattern of the chairs and the new silhouette of the couple. It has educational value (rain, lovers, etc) but is also beautiful in black and white. -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If you think that B&W photography is not removing the colour, then you need to open your eyes and show me where the colour is. ;-) I'm not suggesting that it's merely desaturation though. Obviously there are ways to convert to B&W using different blends of the colour channels to create a scene that is more nuanced than mere desaturation. It comes across as a bit disingenuous and condescending for you to suggest that I wouldn't know that already. But no matter what conversion methodology you use, you are removing the colour from the image and you are removing the colour information which can never be recovered again from that file. It absolutely is a loss of information about the scene. Only the tonality of the colour channel(s) remains, not the colour itself. I never suggested that Commons FP exists to provide lead images for articles. It's a bit of a misconception that FPs on Wikipedia need to be lead images anyway. It helps because it shows that the image is considered useful for the article, but it's by no means a requirement. Anyway, that's irrelevant though, since I'm aware of the difference between Commons and En FP. I just think we have a duty to convey as much information as we can in our images on Commons. This may just be a philosophical difference between us though. I'm not saying that every FP image must be the definitive image of a subject. Of course there are different views, different lighting conditions, different weather, different seasons, and each image would have its own merit. But if we have the choice between a B&W image and a colour image, and there is no reason why B&W is educationally superior, then I think it's a no brainer that we should retain colour information. To me, it's the equivalent of looking at the same image in low resolution and high resolution. A low resolution image might be capable of becoming FP, but of course we'd prefer the higher resolution image, because it contains everything the low res image has and more! I know it's not a perfect analogy, because it could be argued that a B&W image has qualities that a colour image does not, and I would agree, but not to the extent that it overrides the benefit of colour information, at least in the majority of cases. The exception for me is where the emotional and isolational benefit of B&W to get to the essence of the subject is the overriding quality that makes an image featureable. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Diliff says "we have a duty to convey as much information as we can in our images on Commons". No. Absolutely not. There is no requirement and this is very unhelpful thinking. Educational value is a property, a necessary property, but just a property that an image on Commons has. This is really important but if you consider that maximum potential educational value is a necessary condition, then all sort of ridiculous arguments can be made, such as cropping is terrible, that all shadows must be lifted to midtone, etc. And "if we have the choice between a B&W image and a colour image, and there is no reason why B&W is educationally superior, then I think it's a no brainer that we should retain colour information" again no we do not and must not judge images solely or even mostly on their educational value. If the black and white images is fantastic and beautiful and the colour image is ordinary or distracting, then I'll pick the fantastic over the educational any day. -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've no comments about "current case"; but would like to mention my thoughts. 1. Alchemist-hp is not a native English speaker; comments of such people are too short to convey their thoughts. "The world is colorful" is much like Alvesgaspar's typical comment "let the poor thing breath". 2. COM:IG has a point "Quality images must have reasonable colors. Note that this does not necessarily mean natural colors." I think it should be elaborated to explicitly accept B/W themes. (In Wikipedia, there is a known hate to B/W themes; But here in Commons they can be acceptable as a artistic choice.) Jee 15:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that Wikipedia hates B&W images, but it surely does detract from their encyclopaedic value, for the same reasons I've mentioned above. My only issue with B&W images as an artistic choice is that I still do not see how they can be considered more educational than a colour version of the same image. I don't disagree that B&W is indeed an artistic choice, but when they remove relevant information about the subject, should we encourage that? I'm not sure. I believe there are situations where B&W is appropriate and indeed better at isolating the essence of a theme or subject, but those situations are rare for images that Commons attracts. I'd like to see more arguments about precisely why an image is better in B&W than in colour. So far, most of the arguments in favour have been along the lines of "they just are, go read this book if you don't believe me'. The problem I have with that argument is that although these books will no doubt provide a lot of persuasive reasons why B&W has artistic merit, it won't necessarily provide persuasive reasons why it have educational merit, which is what we're primarily discussing here. Also, I would disagree with the guideline that states an QI does not necessarily need natural colours. Natural colours is a concept that is rather difficult to be entirely objective about, but to not even strive for natural colours is a terrible precedent to set IMO. 'Reasonable colours' is such a nebulous concept that it's virtually useless as a way of guiding evaluations. One person's 'reasonable' is another person's 'absolutely unreasonable', as is regularly demonstrated here on Commons. ;-) And just look at the HDR photography on Flickr to see just what some people consider reasonable HDR processing! ;-) Diliff (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2014
        • "educational merit, which is what we're primarily discussing here"' This is where you are going wrong, Diliff. We're here to celebrate fantastic images, that have many excellent properties, one of which is their educational value. We aren't here to celebrate educational images, some of which are fantastic. And you've got a narrow view of what "educational merit" is, if it only includes the information presented by the pixels on screen. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Regarding my narrow view of what educational merit is, can you give me a single example of a digital image that has educational merit that goes beyond the information contained in the pixels? What could you learn from a photo that you didn't actually see in the photo? I honestly don't understand what you mean, because a photograph is by definition and etymology "drawing with light". Everything that a photograph is, is contained within it. Diliff (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Playing "Devil's advocate" I'd say, that educational value is not maximized by maximizing the information content, but by making the point you want to deliver most clear. In the case of B&W one could argue that color may be a distraction in some cases, for example if shapes should be emphasized. --Dschwen (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • In that case, you are reducing information of one kind (colour) in order to increase information of another kind (shapes), which I don't think is the right answer. I don't necessarily see it as a zero sum game. Why not strive to increase the informational value of the shapes without sacrificing colour in the process? That could be achieved in so many different ways. Diliff (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • @Dschwen: Wow, I wish I had the scientific mind of Daniel and could express my ideas on this subject as succinctly and accurately as he did... Two examples of mine, where removing the color emphasizes the particular message I wanted to pass: a gloomy ambience (the original is BW, only the contrast was enhanced) or a stylized silhouette -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Alves, not to disparage Daniel's scientific mind or your artistic endeavours, but if you're impressed with his argument but not mine, I can't help but think that you are unable to see that the artistic decisions you made in the images you cited might distract from the educational value of the image. How does emphasising a message or mood help someone to understand the subject of the images better? Other than it being an artistic concept in your mind's eye, which I can understand and appreciate (art for art's sake is great), what were you trying to convey in those images? Were you trying to describe the tunnel, or the building, or were you trying to describe the artistic style itself? I know another one of your similar images currently illustrates Contre-jour on the English Wikipedia, and that's great - that's an educational use for an image of that kind that I appreciate, but beyond that? The tunnel image is categorised as Category:São Martinho do Porto and Category:Tunnels. In my honest opinion, it does a poor job of illustrating either subject. A tunnel image that shows more texture and colour will tell me more about what a tunnel, or the tunnel inquestion, might look like than a stylised B&W photo. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should never have contributed them to Commons. Anything is better than nothing, but I think more educational images could have been produced that didn't include your stylised 'message'. This is where I think people are creating art but convincing themselves that it's educational. One is often at the expense of the other IMO. Not always, but often. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
            • @Diliff: -- Let me explain. For me Photography is a means we use for interpreting reality, not necessarily to represent all its details. And the way we do it depends very much on what particular component you want to emphasize or what message you want to pass, depending on our sensibility and purpose. That is true for artistic photos as well as for strictly illustrative ones. For example, in a photo depicting some insect we often clone off (when we can) the elements which we consider to be distracting. Why are we so often pissed off by the cars, the wires or some other technological structure in front of the fifteenth century castle we want to photograph? Because they are irrelevant, anachronic and distracting. The same goes for details of the tunnel in my silhouettes or the color in my gloomy mansion. Analogous considerations and choices are made in map making (I am a cartographer), where the quality of a map is not measured by the quantity of information it contains but for its accuracy and clarity. A map intended for supporting military operations in some region is very different from another one constructed to help farmers or tourists. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Hmm. I don't really think that cloning some background details is the same thing as using B&W though. You're right that a branch that upsets the composition of a macro photo is distracting and irrelevant, so it's not a problem to clone out. And I agree that cars, wires and other distracting elements are annoying when all you want to do is reproduce the historical subject in isolation. But I think it's important to present a subject as it is, even if it does include modern distractions. You can choose an angle or crop that minimises distractions, but I don't think you should remove things that are permanently within the scene by cloning or darkening them out of existence. That's deceptive, because the physical space that an item permanently exists in is absolutely relevant to the subject. And I understand your analogy with maps, but I also don't see it as the same thing as using B&W in photography. There are an unlimited and arbitrary number of items could be placed on a map in any given region, so it's assumed that you have to be selective and target it to a particular audience. But colour is a fundamental aspect of our visual perception, and part of what we expect to see when we view something. Obviously we can cope with viewing B&W images, and for many years there was no choice because colour film didn't exist. But now that it and its digital equivalent exists, I think it is a shame if we don't take advantage of it to best describe the subject in our photos. The colour(s) of a subject is something that has educational potential regardless of what the target audience is. I ask again, how does the understanding of the subject benefit from your choice of B&W in the images you mentioned: a gloomy ambience and a stylized silhouette? Yes, it adds mood, but can you honestly argue that it adds extra understanding to the subject in any way? Diliff (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Some thoughts. I'm really shocked by the personalization of this topic. It just lacks "lets crucify him". @Alchemist-hp: is absolutely free to dislike wb pictures, and to oppose for this reason (and only for this reason) if it is his opinion, and even if it is a "wrong" (?) opinion. All the rest is "words", as for you, you are free too discuss indefinitely the comparative merits of wb or color pictures, I doubt you will convince each others, as it is just a matter of taste and circumstances. I've read above : perhaps he isn't open minded enough to judge fairly. Hey guys, do you know you are talking about one of our fellow colleagues here ? I strongly disagree with such public discussion, which are just under the limit of personal attack, and " Oh look how Alchemist-hp is a bad guy !". Again, he did not do anything against nor the rules neither people. Maybe a message on his discussion page should have been a better way to do, because less a public stigma. As for me, I'm able to oppose a bw nomination only because of a bw artistic choice I dislike...--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Please stop diverting attention to drama. This conversation is interesting from an artistic point of view, have been taking note of Colin and Diliff. I probably misunderstood your comment because I'm not a native speaker. --The Photographer (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Per The Photographer, you misinterpret. I don't wish to crucify or ban Alchemist. He has openly stated he is not a fan of b&w and repeated opposes such images. Yet somehow, outside of Commons, the world continues to take and admire such images for their unique qualities. We have no policy against b&w so opposing always simply because the image is b&w is disruptive. And sorry but reviewers need to just as thick skinned as nominators/photographers. The Photographer has nominated a black and white photograph and (leaving aside its own technical issues) has been told such photography has no place on Commons because the colour information is missing. This is, I have to be blunt here, ignorant and disrespectful to our image creators, which I value above anything on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't divert to drama. You all divert a personal accusation to another debate, all right. Nothing forbid to oppose in FP because a picture is BW, this is not disrespectful and no disruptive, this is a matter of taste.--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Don't worry @Jebulon:, no one will be lynched this time, because we have already left the initial subject and have departed to more theoretical grounds!   But yes, I fully agree with you in that Atchemist has has all the right to deslike B&W photos and oppose a nomination for that reason. What is amazing in this discussion is the so different opinions people have on the subject despite the fact that we are all informed and cultivated people... Or maybe our opinions are not so different after all and we are just playing (a bit of) the "Devil's advocate", like Daniel. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, Diliff has taken it off into information theory, but I find this voting just as disruptive as if someone regularly opposed images for being < 36MP. After all, cropping or failing to create a megastitch image is information-loss. If that happened, I'm sure I'd not be alone in telling that reviewer to change their ways. The word "right" is used rather a lot these days for things that are not fundamental at all. I think it very sad indeed if our creators can be discouraged by longstanding reviewers simply on grounds of prejudice. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
            • It's not really about information theory though. 'Information' is just a word I was proposing as one way of quantifying the educational value of an image. Otherwise it's difficult to argue that value is gained or lost by B&W conversion, it just becomes subjective opinion. And cropping or not creating a megastitch again is not the same thing. We don't expect perfection from an image. Not everyone has to go to as much trouble as I do to create a panorama. And cropping is ok because it still represents what is in the scene accurately and completely. B&W photography does not do that because information could be (and in my opinion should be in most cases) within the scene is missing for a fairly trivial artistic reason. Diliff (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Is it really so surprising? Informed, cultivated people rarely agree on anything. ;-) Well, from my point of view, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, but perhaps my real feeling about it is less extreme than it might appear here. I don't really care that much if a photo is black and white - it can have genuine merit. My honest belief is that it would still probably serve a greater purpose in colour, but a B&W image is not something that is going to enrage me. ;-) However, if we're going to debate this topic rationally, I will stick to my beliefs. Beliefs are still beliefs whether you believe them strongly or half-heartedly. I'm only likely to change my mind if a genuine persuasive argument is presented and to be honest, I haven't seen much in the way of arguments. Really, the only person so far who has actually challenged my position and tackled my questioning is Colin and it seems that we simply have a slightly different idea of what a Commons FP is supposed to be. I see them as educational, primarily. He sees educational value as just one aspect of a FP, no more important than the others. It could be that I'm truly in a minority on that, but not enough people have actually commented. I'm happy to bow down to the majority if that's what decided, but it does seem like we need to come to some sort of consensus about it. Does B&W photography detract from an equivalent colour image, and if not, why not? Explain in detail. And if not, is it indeed true that artistic merit should be more important than educational merit? If so, why? Again, explain. Those questions are fundamental for me. Without clear answers to them, the rest really is 'just words' because it appears we're not actually on the same wavelength. :-) Diliff (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WOW, a very BIG discussion about me :-) I have no problem with this (we are a big Commons-photographer-family), but: I have my opinion about new actually B&W images. I also asked: "why a B&W image?". I'm still waiting for a valid answer?!?, perhaps for a new opinion from me. So you can discuss about that how many you like, my opinion remains as it was! Best wishes to all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Images on this common repository should have value, not necessarily just educational value. Insisting on educational value is just pandering to WP's academic values and not Commons' artistic ones. Certainly FPC should be more about the latter rather than the former. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I support Alchemist-hp's right to oppose on these grounds - even systematically against all B&Ws if he feels strongly about it. I have opposed BW images in the past, and that is my default position unless the (usual) loss of (educational) value is IMO sufficiently compensated by increased artistry/wow. FP is ultimately based on the judgement of the voters, and it's important that the rules do not to boss the voters around too much. This is why the rules should not say colour only, but also why voters should not be harrangued because of how they balance the many factors involved in evaluating a picture. Even Colin agrees that most of our FPs would be better in colour if they were for WP pages, so maybe Alchemist's judgement simply aligns more with WP than it does with Photographic-art style competitions. That's perfectly fine, and I don't think he should be criticised for it. --99of9 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The way I see it Commons FPC is what its contributors and reviewers make out of it. There is no point in writing down a detailed itemization and mathematically weighted list of educational vs. artistic criteria to bind all the reviewers. Who would decide on those criteria anyways? The contributors... with a !vote. FPC is a !vote, so we might as well have the criteria be something organic that emerges from the voting behavior. As such the Alchemist should be free to downvote BW pictures, because this is ultimately an expression of what he thinks commons FPC should be. People who think that BW images and artistic aspects of images should be emphasized are free to cast their support votes. --Dschwen (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a certain irony to this discussion given this week someone paid $7.8 millions for a black and white photo, which happens to be the highest price ever paid for a photograph. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Saffron, see discussion below (There is some doubt as to the authenticity of this "sale", or its relevance to the worth of anything). I'm less concerned with some print only fit to be sold in IKEA for £10, than the thought that educational masterpieces like that produced by Sebastião Salgado might meet the same ###### response if anyone with even a fraction of his talent nominated their work here. It seems to me Salgado's work sums up exactly the difference between Wikipedia and Commons, and how a concern for coloured encyclopaedic images is deeply unhelpful to this project. But from the comments below I suspect it would be regarded as "art, nothing more, nothing less". -- Colin (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 15".