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.

Contents

For those who want to justify their choice of B&W on Commons...

... Please feel free to use this artist statement generator. Just copy and paste the generated statement on your userpage and nobody will be able to question your artistic choices or integrity ever again. ;-) Diliff (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

lol --The Photographer (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine-art photography has a long tradition that includes respected artists/photographers one would only mock if one wants to look as ignorant and foolish as someone mocking Shakespeare. It includes images one would certainly regard as fully educational and others that are clearly not. (One only has to look at recent POTY winners to realise the community value wow over educational -- exploding lightbulbs?) Contemporary art (photographic or otherwise) does have its fair share of bollocks-merchants and talentless fools. Flick though a copy of Contemporary Art Photography if you want a full dose of art-curator bollocks-speech. The taste for colour vs b&w images varies over time (once a necessity, now a choice) but the argument for using that medium is absolutely nothing to do with arty farty bullshit. Dismissing it makes as much sense as dismissing pencil or charcoal when there are coloured paints and pastels. Or dismissing the still photograph when we can now take high fidelity moving images. Or dismissing the quartet as a musical ensemble when one could listen to an orchestra. If you don't appreciate it, and have to ask "why b&w" then perhaps the problem lies not with the photographer having to justify their artistic choice, but in the viewer.

 
Here, take some christmas sweeets my daugter and I made for you. Beware: They are three years old, so you may need an extra cup of coffee. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 
Diliff has stated the following about this B&W FP: 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. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't much care for rap music and can think of more entertaining ways to spend an evening than listening to Verdi's Requiem. Does my musical taste justify me to dismiss the artists producing those kinds of music and to judge their output as unworthy or even to mock them? Yet some here think that personal taste justifies opposing an image they are reviewing. It doesn't. If a photographic style or subject is not to your taste, then there are plenty other images you can review. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think Verdi's Requiem is the best either. "Ein Deutsches Requiem" by Brahms is much better: Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras und alle Herrlichkeit des Menschen wie des Grases Blumen. Das Gras ist verdorret und die Blume abgefallen. That is just so great! I love it, I love it! Mozart's (Kyrie eleison!) is brilliant too if you fast-forward the Süssmayr parts. That is FM (Featured Music) to me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"und mein Leben ein Ziel hat"...+1 Slaunger. But the trumpets of Verdi are not so bad. You should try the Berlioz too. But actually... Nah, read my user's page.--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Colin, you're attacking a straw man here. Just take the joke for what it was - a light hearted poke as a reminder not to take ourselves so seriously. Diliff (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes; I too sense the humour as Wilfredo above. Otherwise, will have removed your comment as posting such links are probably out of scope here. Fortunately Commons has no strong policies as in EN. :) Jee 12:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Diliff, I like to poke fun at arty bullshit as much as the next rational sentient being. But claiming "those who want to justify their choice of B&W on Commons" belong in that crowd of middle-class losers who wouldn't know an f-stop from an A-mount, is very unhelpful, whether done in jest or otherwise. You know the saying "Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows" -- you can all defend your "right" to sneer and mock b&w images and oppose them at FP if it helps you feel all equal, but its a shitty way to review images and a shitty way to treat content creators. -- Colin (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Again, a straw man. You have on a number of occasions taken what I've said and extrapolated it to something completely hyperbolic. Nowhere have I explicitly or implicitly stated what sort of character a person who "want(s) to justify their choice of B&W on Commons" might be. "Middle-class losers" are your words, not mine. Even if I did imply it, it was a joke for God's sake. It wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Despite your insinuations that I wish to sneer down on people from my high horse, I feel I've taken the debate above seriously and tried to be as rational as I can, presenting arguments and a line of questioning that helped us to understand why it was that we were approaching the same issue from different angles. As it turns out, from my point of view at least, it seems that we have slightly different ideas about the purpose of a Commons FP in terms of its educational value, and I believe the FP guidelines are not explicit enough to determine who is right. This is just two people with different opinions - a battle of ideas. There are still a number of threads that are waiting for a reply. I'm not saying you should feel obliged to continue if you feel that it isn't contributing to a solution, but at least don't suggest that I'm not taking it seriously. I just assumed you no longer wished to continue them. I'm more than willing to continue the discussion at the appropriate point in the thread, but ignoring the existing on-going discussion and instead starting a new discussion with a rant about something I never said or even implied isn't helping IMO. Diliff (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with every point you raise because I'm really not here to argue for argument sake. If folk here can't appreciate b&w then that is their loss, not something I'm going to try to justify or educate, and they shouldn't use their prejudices/tastes to oppose. We aren't voting about whether Alchemist should hang someone's b&w cityscape on his living room wall. We're deciding whether such an image is among the finest on commons. That should be as little about one's personal tastes as it is about whether you are Nikon fanboy or a love ornate cathedrals or have no interest in birdwatching. All this talk of less information == less education == oppose is just a ridiculous argument. Will I oppose the next image you crop? Or oppose Wilredor's 12MP camera because clearly it is less educational than a D800's 36MP. That, frankly, is the level of argument I see. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The points I raise and the questions I ask you are fundamental to my position though, and are not just arguments for arguments' sake. More than once, you've made (IMO) a rather bold statement and when I've asked you for an example to demonstrate that the statement is correct, you've fallen silent. You're more than happy to keep repeating your own position though, and tell people that they're rude, insulting, ignorant etc, but you're unwilling to debate the actual points I make in good faith? I keep telling you that what you think I'm saying is actually not correct, that, for example, I'm not suggesting that any form of cropping or tone curve adjustments or using a lower megapixel camera are the same thing as converting to B&W. I've explained why I think it is not the same thing, and still you keep repeating the same false argument. Straw man, straw man, straw man. It's rather frustrating. This is exactly the reason why we're not making as much progress as we could be. If you're not willing to consider a differing opinion and follow the reasoning through to its conclusion, you're unlikely to be open to changing your mind about anything. If this discussion has only been about shouting loudly and telling people that they're wrong, then I guess I didn't get the memo. Diliff (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Diliff, you keep repeating this straw man thing but I rather suspect it is you that has been attacking one the whole time. Read my comment to Slaunger below. If I haven't answered one of your questions it is because it either isn't relevant to the issue of refusing all contemporary black and white images at FP (which is my complaint), or is much like asking me to explain why an orange is superior to a grapefruit. -- Colin (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to collapse this from sight. It was just a joke. Are we going to police every single comment to check whether it was "productive" now? We are doing all this as a hobby... ...for fun, aren't we? --Dschwen (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This is the third discussion started within 2 days about the same topic. Why not people can spend there time for some useful purposes? No more policing or edits from my side in COM:FPC. Jee 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Jee, you might not find the topic important or useful but some other people do care so please don't delete it from view. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say that it's all part of the same discussion in a way. And I still think it has the potential to be constructive discussion if it doesn't keep degenerating to hyperbole. I think most people took it as the joke it was, and not a serious snide attack on B&W photography as was suggested by Colin. I got a number of 'thanks' for the joke from people who didn't comment (and probably preferred to avoid getting involved). Diliff (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Diliff, it is a very funny link. But the topic heading "For those who want to justify their choice of B&W on Commons" is insulting because you are making a joke of people who upload B&W images on commons and are then forced to explain that choice in response to an oppose vote. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Colin you can discuss and discuss and discuss the next 10km duration here on Commons, but nothing will be in the future others ... "I" (and/or other voter) can still say: "no wow" (an also "valid" voting) ... And now? A discussion for nothing! Please go better to out FPC side an write us "your" oppinions for all the images. It is more interesting and instructive. I'd like to learn more. Thanks and EOD for me here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Colin I do not think, that Diliff intends to make a joke of people who upload B&W images on Commons with that heading. Most see it for what it is intended to be, a joke, and a digression from a discussion, which was getting hyperbolic, with (sorry to say) especialy you not really interested in understanding the other partys viewpoint. (I was one of the users thanking for the link). And I must say the bullocks art statement generator is hilarious  . The serious side of this is there will always be an element of personal preferences, life experience, cultural and personal background, age, faith, you name it in how we evaluate images and determine what is the "finest". It is a non-exact science with no fixed "correct" answer. Both Diliff and now also Alchemist and 99of9 have stated stated they they do not oppose B&W categorically, just because they are B&W, but on a case by case basis. I opposed the nomination by The Photographer, because B&W did not work for me with the way the photo was made. It did not appear to be the optimal form for me for this kind of night cityscape, and it was not clear to me, what should be seen as the benefit in a B&W representation for the specific subject. That does not mean that B&W is never the optimal form for me. On the contrary I am very proud to have been able to help improve the photo shown from 2010, nominate it for FP and get it promoted, as I found this was the perfect way to portray the subject of that photo. Luckily, there are several voters on an FPC, which allows reviewers with a wide range of preferences to have a say on the final verdict. By and large, I do think the end result is normally that work is promoted, which we can be proud of using as show cases. Moreover, I think it is (very) seldom that clear FP material is being voted down because of one-sided or unreasonable personal preferences. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Slaunger, I suspect my opening paragraph to this whole thing was not completely clear on what I wanted to disallow. So several people, including Diliff, have argued against something I never intended. I agree with everyone that "This image does not work in black and white" is a perfectly valid oppose, provided the opposer gives some rationale why they think it doesn't work. There are many cases where transforming to b&w weakens the image educationally, not least Diliff's latest butterfly photo. But what started the whole thing, and is my point, is that "the world is colourful" is not a reason to oppose all modern black and white images. If one doesn't understand the artistic choices made, don't begin with an oppose and expect the creator to justify themselves to you. That's just rude. This is what the evidence says Alchemist is doing. And he says that the existing b&w FPs are simply ones he didn't vote on / wasn't there. Whether in future he supports a contemporary b&w image, we shall see. Can we not agree that point-blank dismissing an entire genre of photography is unacceptable? Wilfredo's city sky picture had technical flaws but guys, does anyone here really think black and white night city photos have no place on Commons FP? Just Google Image search for "black and white night city" and see some beautiful images that are just different to what can be achieved in colour. Or watch Wood Allen's Manhattan with New York filmed in black and white, and Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue playing. All I'm asking is that such images aren't dismissed out of hand. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Colin I can agree with you that general point blank opposes of B&W nominations, just because they are B&W, are critiziable. I think that with that should normally follow an argument of why it does not seem to the best choice for the particular subject. I also agree that sometimes B&W may be a good option for night cityscapes, although most of the hits I get by doing the search you suggest brings up images, where I find it was not the best choice (at least with the way the conversion to B&W has been done), at least not for educational value photos, but maybe more for the fine-art photography genre you alluded to initially in this thread. But please also note that Alchemist-hp above now has explicitly stated that in the future he will provide reasons for objecting to B&W nominations. Can't we close it with that? In the FP given in this section, Alchemist also opposed, but gave an oppose reason, which was not related to the B&W character of the photo. And finally, also recall the multilingual character of the project, where non-native English speakers cannot precisely express what they really mean in English, which sometimes gives apparently unnuanced review comments. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Slaunger, are you referring to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hong Kong at night B&W.jpg? I don't see "an oppose reason, which was not related to the B&W character of the photo". I don't even see an oppose reason that was related to the B&W character of this photo. Just absolute opposition in terms that I find unacceptable. I agree language difficulties are a problem. Does anyone need help translating " I feel somewhat discouraged by this type of vote". Let's hope things improve and move on. -- Colin (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Ah, I see you are referring to the refugee picture: I'm not sure that tells us anything other than he found another fault. -- Colin (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(EC) Colin, I was referring to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpg, but see also (from today) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bruno Doucey par Claude Truong-Ngoc décembre 2014.jpg. Completely justified oppose votes on B&W IMO. Time to move on? -- Slaunger (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Logically, those votes prove absolutely nothing and my original complaint stands. I am glad you at least are seeing my point about opposing all modern b&w. Sadly others seem to think taste can be regarded as an acceptable prejudice for genre-oppose voting at FP. Yes I think think this discussion has reached some conclusion and all we can do now is wait and see. -- Colin (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 
Not quite 'Phantom' but close - and in color

Peter Lik's photograph "Phantom" has sold for $6.5 million, making it the most expensive photograph ever. Johnathan Jones, art critic of The Guardian newspaper writes: This record-setting picture typifies everything that goes wrong when photographers think they are artists. It is derivative, sentimental in its studied romanticism, and consequently in very poor taste. It looks like a posh poster you might find framed in a pretentious hotel room. Phantom is a black-and-white shot taken in Antelope Canyon, Arizona. The fact that it is in black and white should give us pause. Today, this deliberate use of an outmoded style can only be nostalgic and affected, an “arty” special effect. We’ve all got that option in our photography software. Yeah, my pics of the Parthenon this summer looked really awesome in monochrome." Jones' opinion-piece generated 50 pages of comments and a follow-up piece by Sean O'Hagan, photography critic of The Guardian newspaper. O'Hagan doesn't much care for the photograph either, but kinda takes a different view on mostly everything else, especially the photographers can't be artists part. Just FYI :-) -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just in case anyone thinks I'm quoting Jones because his opinions have any worth whatsoever (and I'm not defending that deeply unoriginal photograph, or the stupid amounts people spend), I'm quoting him because he's an arse and his flatulence was relevant to our friendly little chat above. For those who may not be familiar with his writing: he's a troll critic. His comments on the Tower of London Poppies probably made him one of the most hated men in the UK, but also briefly the most discussed, which is what he, like any troll, wanted. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

He, it is remarkable that we have en entire category Crepuscular rays in Antelope Canyon dedicated to "Phantom"-like photos. None of them in B&W though;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the "phantom" is the image make of the dust in the ray. None of the other pictures have that. That's the $6.5m difference. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in none of the photos in that category did someone go and throw a handfull of sand in the air over and over again until it looked like a phantom.  Nice story and discussion though, Colin. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought this really got to the heart of the matter. It's very likely to be either money laundering (that one is for the Breaking Bad fans! And apparently money laundering is pretty common in the high end art world) or a publicity stunt to help justify the prices of his 'regular' work. Either way, Peter Lik is the man most likely to benefit from all the attention over the sale price. Diliff (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this stuff has as little to do with art as crystal skulls and preserved sharks. The PetaPixel article's conclusion is accurate: look at Sebastião Salgado for a real photo artist, working in... black and white, and who's photographic mission is ... educational. What does someone described as "the world's greatest living photographer" know about that? -- Colin (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could write a book with all these examples, quotes and opinions. But I'm afraid you will convince all those who are already convinced, and not convince nobody else anymore here...--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Jebulon, perhaps you should not be so bold to speak for everybody -- not everyone is speaking their mind here. I'm not really interested in changing closed minds by my own argument. I'm more interested in finding some spark to make us actually think and discover our own thoughtful response. Salgado said "I hope that the person who visits my exhibitions, and the person who comes out, are not quite the same". Is that not the boldest definition of "educational"? Does all this talk of coloured pixels suddenly seem utterly irrelevant when you stopone stops and thinks about what makes a picture educational? Are we really arrogant enough to think that the crowd of "point a camera at a building/landscape/flower/butterfly" photographers that most of us here are, are really qualified to stand in judgement of an entire genre of photography. Jebulon, I'm not expecting you or anyone to respond with "Yes, of course you are right". I'm asking youus to look around and to think. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Please Colin, don't try to accuse me to do (or to be) what you are trying to do or to be. It is a very well known rethorical process and I will not fall in this trap. "I'm asking you to look around and to think". What do you mean ? Do you think I'm stupid and not able for that alone, and therefore I need your help ? "perhaps you should not be so bold etc...". Who is "arrogant" ? I read, I watch, I look, I see and I think. Let me to remain free in my opinions (You don't know what they are, as I'm just talking here about your way to try to "drive" this discussion, I'm sorry, I know it is a little bit out of topic). BtW, as I've already said (and done !) I'm perfectly able to support in FPC a B&W picture, that's why I disagree with Alchemist-hp below about a supposed "colorful Commons". B&W pictures are VERY welcome in Commons, and the cream of the cream of them should be "featurable" too. No need of any quote for that. But I support Alchemist's right to think what he thinks, to say what he says, and to vote how he votes, even if "you" think his rationales are wrong. I hope I'm clear now.--Jebulon (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Jebulon, I'm not accusing you personally of unthinking (the word "you" is not always specific in informal English -- I should have used "one"), though up to now your contribution to the discussion has been simply to ask me to shut up. This is the talk page, is it not? If we can't discuss what makes a featured picture here then what is the point in having such a page? This has not been about opinion, but about prejudice. If one believes b&w has no place on Commons FP because "the world is colourful" then change the rules to say so or abstain. Repeatedly stating such a view is not a "right" but both disruptive and harmful to the project. With respect, Jebulon, I firmly disagree with your belief we have a right at FPC to say/vote whatever we like. And I don't extend anyone's right to "think what he thinks" to become "so never criticise anyone about it". I seem to recall a time when you asked me to stop voting because you thought I was being too negative. We are a community and part of that is making a stand when we believe members are not acting in the best interests. My reason for giving examples and quoting is because the discussion above used arguments (for disregarding all b&w at FP) I feel as unhelpful as trying to explain great writing by looking at sentence-length. No matter what arguments anyone here might dream up of why some style of imagery is more or less educational, if the experts in this field, and the rest of the world, disagree with that, then it's probably time to admit one hasn't thought about it or read about it enough. That's my point. -- Colin (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I understand. It is time for me to stop this personal debate between you Colin and me now. I'm terribly french, and therefore "cartesian". I don't ask you to shut up, I just read these three posts, and what ? Nothing new in arguments, and waste of time. But as I said: EOD for me. "Et le combat cessa faute de combattants" (Corneille, Le Cid, Act IV, Scene 3, Rodrigue).--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Colin you are right, but we are here on Commns. Our Commons is a colorful team of photographers. Your diskussion here is only a discussion about the arts. Not more, not less! We all have the liberty to vote about the nominated images (arts, also specially the B&W arts) with enthusiasm or without, we can like or dislike it. It is the risc of the nominator (author, photographer) to earn supports or opposes. The main: "There is no accounting for taste!" Do you understand all this too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Just on the subject of Johnathan Jones again, it was particularly interesting for me to read the article about Phantom where he states "Photography is not an art. It is a technology. We have no excuse to ignore this obvious fact in the age of digital cameras", and then find an article he wrote less than two years ago declaring the exact opposite: "Photography is the serious art of our time. It also happens to be the most accessible and democratic way of making art that has ever been invented.". A hulking, ugly troll indeed. :-) Diliff (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I see someone raised the spectre of people's rights. So tedious those concepts get rolled out in a discussion like this where what people are demanding is the right to pre-judge. Sure, images that are B&W carry less factual information, but the process may reveal, as others have noted, more important concepts or focus our attention on the important facts. Dismissing these images out of hand is just a form of prejudice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Project to foster the creation of spherical panoramas

Hi, hopefully this is not considered spam...After having had some discussions with a few chapters and some photographers, I have finally put together the idea on a page that I would like to share with you: Commons:Project to create spherical panoramas of important monuments. Why this? we illustrate today our articles with a few photographs, some better than others, but IMHO we are not putting the required attention to the possibilites of spherical panoramas, especially when it comes to document building interiors. We don't have many of these full spherical panoramas and the tools to view them can also be improved by the WMF (not planned so far, though, I already asked Fabrice and Gilles of the WMF multimedia team). Maybe we are in a kind of endless loop now: since we don't have many of them, tools are not needed and since tools are not there this kind of photographs are neglected. I am convinced, though, that rather sooner than latter this kind of media will be expected since there is no better way to provide to a viewer with a more interactive way to discover a place. The project idea is fresh, so there is a lot of room for discussion or even drop the idea if there is not interest in Commons. Please, drop a line there with your thoughts. Poco2 10:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion on this topic can be followed here. Thank you, Poco2 20:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Categorizing Feature Pictures

  • Very recently User:A.Savin categorized this feature picture as Category:Featured pictures of Porto Covo. I reverted the change because the image only shows a fly and a flower, and nothing characteristic of the Portuguese village of Porto Covo is depicted. For me this was quite obvious and I considered the edit of Savin as a mere good faith mistake. However my revert was reverted with the following edit summary: it has been taken there (according to f.descr.), so pls leave it there. Thinking a little ahead, I can understand that certain users might be interested in knowing where the picture was taken (e.g. for scientific purposes). However there is a much better way to get such information which is through geolocation. Even assuming that we should categorize our FP according to the places where they were taken, the correct way of doing it should be by creating categories of the type "Featured pictures taken at location X" rather than "Fictures pictures of location X", which is obviously misleading. I bring the subject here because this particular case involves featured pictures. However, the general principle applies to any other picture. Thoughts? - Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Featured pictures: "You can browse Featured pictures from all Wikimedia projects by subject or by country." This is how we are categorizing pictures for years. After Dschwen's Help:FastCCI, some categorization like "featured/quality/valued pictures by..." is in a moot now; but not abandoned so far. I think most this work is done by Thierry Caro for years. Jee 12:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the repeated making of a mistake doesn't make it right, at least in Commons. The work of Thierry Caro is certainly a useful one but shouldn't be carried out in autoamtic mode, that is, without a previous visual inspection. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It is very disappointing to see you are reverting without a single support from others. Are you going to destroy works that had be done by many people by years? Jee 13:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed categories from 25 pictures in my watch list (most of them uploaded by me), only those where such categories were obviously displaced. And did not touch none of these, which you present as evidence of my disrespect for the work of others! Please don't be demagogic Jee, it doesn't help. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry; it was not presented as evidence of your disrespect; it was a model category explaining this concept. It was edited by Foroa, an ex admin have great experience in categorization. I see admins like Jean-Frédéric also added such categories; so this seems a long time practice. So you need to make a wide discussion before unilaterally reverting them. "Reverted only my photos" is not an excuse as COM:OWN strictly prohibits it. Jee 14:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar, Flowers and insects Porto Covo are obviously not the only caracteristic of Porto Covo, of course, but are undoubtedly one of particular features of this place. This image is even less representative of Porto Covo, it may well be taken anywhere in the world yet it can be (should be!) categorize in Porto Covo since it was taken over there and it certainly shows one aspect of the place. In same goes with the fauna and flora. So I grant you a certain logic, the example I showed you did not categorize Porto Covo, however if I had seen this in QIC, it would not have been promoted before a correct and complete categorization. -- ChristianFerrer 15:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I added 2 categories for your image. Don't thank me, now it is properly categorized. Since the categorization is one of the promotion conditions for the QIC, I will focus on how you categorize your candidates. Once again, don't thank me, it's a pleasure to make you this service. -- ChristianFerrer 15:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Christian Ferrer but your arguments are not convincing. Using the same type of logic, we should categorize with "Porto Covo" all pictures taken there, and not only FPs, VIs and QIs. That would be, of course, distracting to the users because e.g. all insect, flowers, people, etc. pictures taken in Lisbon would be categorized as "Lisbon" (if not "Portugal" as well). The correct way of doing it, as I said before, would be to create categories of the type "Pictures taken in ...". @ Jkadavoor, never did I use the expression "reverted only my photos"; my exact wording was I have removed categories from 25 pictures in my watch list (most of them uploaded by me). Once again, you are using either demagogical arguments (the COM:OWN rules) or arguments of authority (Foroa, an ex admin have great experience in categorizationin did it), without adressing directly the subject under discussion (as Christian Ferrer did) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah :), I've just ask you in the QIC page for to categorize more precisely your images of plants from a garden in Lisbon. -- ChristianFerrer 16:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If you know the place, this must be shown as precisely as possible in the categories. I can understand that you do not consider it relevant, but others may find that relevant. There are insects and plants in Porto Covo, and it is very pertinent that we can find its by searching in the category Porto Covo, if you don't like that I suggest you to create a sub-category Nature of Porto Covo. -- ChristianFerrer 16:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Alves, I somehow understand what you are telling. So summarizing my reply one's again. We have two root categories (not limited to fp/qi/vi):1. Category:Photography by subject 2. Category:Photographs by country. "insects", "statue", etc are under subject; "Lisbon", "Portugal", etc. are under country. Every picture need both categories. That why File:Neorthacris at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg has two cats: Category:Neorthacris simulans and Category:Insects of Kerala. Now you will tell it is Category:Insects of Kerala; not Category:Kerala. Yes; because our mainstream categories are elaborate; so we have Category:Insects of Kerala and several other subcategories under Category:Kerala. But our fp/qi/vi categories are not elaborate; so we have only Category:Featured pictures of Kerala. We can create categories like Category:Featured pictures of insects in Kerala and Category:Featured pictures of landscapes in Kerala; but it is not needed now because we have only few pictures. But it doesn't mean Category:Featured pictures of Kerala is not suitable for insects.
To sum up. A parent category like Category:Featured pictures of Kerala is suitable for every types of subjects related to that place; not limited to a landscape view. But if there are subcategories like Category:Featured pictures of insects in Kerala and Category:Featured pictures of landscapes in Kerala exist under it, we need to use them instead of the parent category.
Removing the Category:Featured pictures of Kerala is equal to removing the Category:Photographs by country concept. Your concept Category:Kerala is only suitable for landscapes of Kadavoor is not true. Instead it is the container category for all subjects related to that place. If no subcategory exists, all pictures can be placed there.
Hope you understand what I'm telling. Jee 16:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


Of course, these are flowers and you can not summarize Sète or Hérault with these both images, but yes you can find this flower in Sète, and yes it is a little part of the territory (not the town) of Sète, so yes finally it's a Featured pictures of Sète, or at least it is a featured image that, me, I have the (one of the) vision of Sète. Is it a wrong vision? no, it is maybe not the only vision that you can have of Sète but certainly not a wrong vision. -- ChristianFerrer 16:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please check this category, these are all pictures of Sète, and these are all well categorized be being there. I hope yuo will have a good idea, or at least a more precise idea of what you can find in Sète by checking this category. -- ChristianFerrer 17:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I understand perfectly the rationale of such categorization but still consider it is not appropriate because it can be confusing and misleading to the users looking for something. Now that we have expressed our points of view it would be nice to hear the opinion of other editors. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not heavily involved in categorisation so I may be missing the point here, or missing the reasons why things are done the way they are... But if I understand it, the problem may be the wording of the category, and possibly the result of different interpretations of English. For me, as a native English speaker, if you refer to the category "Featured pictures of Porto Covo", my impression is that you are talking about photos in which the subject is the region, Porto Covo, not a photo of anything which merely happens to be taken in the region. Therefore I agree with Alves - adding a photo of a flower to the category doesn't really make sense to me because it is not a picture of a Porto Covo, it is a picture of flower which happens to be taken in Porto Covo. However, to use the example that Jee mentioned, the category "Insects of Kerala" suggests to me that the category contains photos of insects that inhabit Kerala, not necessarily photos that were taken in Kerala. An insect may be found in Kerala and also in many other neighbouring regions, so I can imagine that we might have two schools of thought here: One which believes an insect photo should only be a member of that category if it is exclusively found in Kerala, and another which believes that the insect photo can be a member of the category regardless of whether it was actually taken in Kerala or not, as long as the insect can in theory be found in Kerala. The wording is therefore very important in order to avoid misleading people. It is a more complicated way of expressing the category, but I think "Insects photographed in Kerala" and "Insects that inhabit Kerala" are more informative and less prone to confusion than the vague "Insects of Kerala". Am I missing the point, or could this be the source of the confusion here? Diliff (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • You understood perfectly but it's still worse than you say. The problem was born when this picture was categorized as "Picture features of Porto Covo". Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • And thanks to that I now have a better idea of the insects found at around Porto Covo. This is an asset for Commons, long live the diversity of subjects! -- ChristianFerrer 20:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the category is poorly named. Only pictures that show the entire place in some sense qualify for such a category. Thus this one fits, but this one does not. If the category were renamed "Featured pictures taken at Porto Covo", then all would fit, including the picture first mentioned in this discussion. Subcategories such as "Featured pictures of flora and fauna taken at Porto Covo", "Featured pictures of houses taken at Porto Covo" would be a nice addition if the parent category becomes large. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I do think it is correct that categories called "Featured pictures taken at..." would be more unambiguous in their naming. However, instead of atomically removing images from the existing "Featured pictures of ... " categories, I would instead suggest that we just generally agree to rename those categories and let bots do the actual work. We are in no particular hurry in doing this, it is just an improvement. It will also take quite some time to carry out as it would require a lot of renaming requests. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree, we should not "clean" those categories, in many cases, most or all photos would be gone from them. Renaming the categories makes sense, and can be done with care and over time. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 21:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think that is enough, Slaunger as we still have to distinguish between "Featured pictures of ..." and "Featured pictures taken at ...". Migrating from one to the other will also make the confusion (e.g. between houses, the sea and butterflies) migrate. Because the present problem relates to places, we have to decide what kind of subjects should be put in the "Featured pictures of some place" category. Of course, the decison taken here should be reflected in QI and VI, if not in all other images. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I see your point Alvesgaspar. Still, I do not think the existing categories should be removed arbitrarily from individual file pages, but dispersed over time and with care as commented by Julian Herzog above. I also agree with you, that if we decide to carry out a less ambiguous naming of the categories (I have personally been fine with the current naming and conventions of use, but see your point that their meaning is not clear) it shall be carried out more generally. In that case, this talk page is probably not the most adequate unless notifications about this discussion is added to the QIC and VIC talk pages, or alternatively, centralized at COM:CFD, where there are other users watching, who are familiar with consistent and good naming schemes of categories. But please be a bit patient with removing the existing categories from file pages, as it is my impression that the current categorization naming scheme is well understood by a majority of the FP regulars. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Of course I will be patient with removing existing categories from file pages and ask exactly the same to the users who may be rushing to insert them [1]. I suppose not to be wrong by saying that most FP are still not affected by this category. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Alvesgaspar Don't thank me, this image is now correctly categorized, if you can provide a geolocation, it would even be better. -- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A general question with possible answers

Since this categorization problem is related to places I will try to focus the discussion on the subject by proposing one general question and listing some possible answers. Of course, other questions and answers are possible and please feel free to add them if you consider appropriate. In my opinion, it is for now premature to engage in any kind of poll. The purpose of this subsection is just to focus the discussion and identify possible solutions. I hope it will help. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Question: what kind of subjects should be categorized as “Featured pictures of place A” ?
  • Solution 1: all photos taken in place A: static or mobile, indoor or outdoor, land, sea or sky, big or small. For example, a photo of a man, a house, a flower, a fly or an aircraft taken in place A;
  • Solution 2: all photos taken in place A, except when a finer category exists; for example, “Featured pictures of flowers in place A”;
  • Solution 3: only photos showing views of place A, e.g. views of land, sea, streets, woods, etc. Photos where a living organism, or group or organisms, is the main subject are not to be put in this category. The same for small objects except when they are recognized as characteristic of the place, for example a typical house, window or staircase.
  • I don't particularly like solution 1. It seems to be the way we currently do things, and it seems we agree that it could be improved. I strongly disagree with solution 2 because I think it's bad practice to have one naming convention for when finer categories exist, and another for when they don't. Finer categories are often created later, and we shouldn't need to rename a category just because we created a sub category under it - it should be a universal naming scheme (or as close to universal as we can get). I would prefer to go with solution 3 because I think it most closely matches the language used in the category. Diliff (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm against "Solution 3" as it is just a repetition of Category:Featured pictures by subject. We already have it. The purpose of this node is to categorize photographs based on location irrespective of subjects.
"Solution 1": It was the intention behind creating this node under Category:Featured pictures by country. But I wonder why the word "of" is used instead of "by" in subcategories. We may rename it to "by", "by location" or "taken at". But we need to discuss this in a more wider place and check why "our major categorisers" choose the current concept. Note that Commons is multilingual; more English words means more confusion for others. (I remember a discussion about category vs tags in Wikimedia-I recently. I see there opinions like "English phrases in category name" is a difficulty for others. It may be a reason why our seniors prefer to limit the conjunctions in one word, "in", "of" or "by").
Another possibility is to keep the current naming and procedure as it is ("Solution 1") and adding a message on every category like:
  Featured pictures by <location>
The images in this collection are Featured pictures of all types of subjects (landscapes, architectures, objects, people, plants, animals, bla bla bla) taken at <location>. For subject specific categories, see Category:Featured pictures by subject.
 
(I edited only the English description; people who knows French and German can fill them. :) Jee 03:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Here is my opinion about the three solutions:
  • Solution 1: I strongly deslike it for the following reasons: i) it is irrational and misleading for someone looking for pictures of a certain place and find bugs (people, objects,...) instead; ii) it is not universal because not all image files identify the name of the places where they were taken. The solution of going up to the nearest identifiable region is just stupid, as it may end in something like "Featured pictures of Portugal" to categorize a butterfly; iii) it is superfluous when geolocation is present. Geolocation is a much better solution for those users looking for geographical distribution of things.
  • Solution 2: the same as solution 1, plus the incoherence mentioned by Diliff.
  • Solution 3: the best of the three, as the category is focused on the features of the place/region, as anticipated by most image users. I don't understand the comment above that this category is just a repetition of Category:Featured pictures by subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems you are assuming a place name = landscapes of that place. For me, I expect everything related to that place belongs to it. Taking your rational, I oppose adding anything to a category with just place name. Such category should be empty container categories for "landscapes of..", "Insects of..", etc.
  • I wonder why you didn't see any relevance to location for an organism. This butterfly is identified as Phalanta alcippe mercea Evans, 1924 because it is recorded from Western Ghats. If it were from Meghalaya or Assam, it will be Phalanta alcippe alcippoides Moore, 1900. [2]
  • Geocodes are not a substitute for categories; otherwise no need of any categories. See how the same picture is tagged in Flickr; binomial name, common name, and place. It is geocoded too. Jee 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment To be honest I think this is a diversion from the real problem with Commons: it's broken categorization system, which is based on Wikipedia. A proper picture library needs a hierarchical keyword tagging system. With that, each small hierarchy has no combinations at all (e.g. no Featured + London). Instead we have many simple distinct hierarchies of attributes: quality-rating, geolocation, subject location, subject type, dominant colour, weather, whatever. These attribute tags are then applied to the image and can be searched for in combination. The problems we face are no different to those of other folk categorising images here. Dschwen's cross category tool is a crude sticking plaster. It really is about time WMF spent a little money on Commons to make it a proper media/picture library. We should campaign for that, rather than falling out with each other over which category combination is least stupid. -- Colin (talk) 10:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with you that a better system clearly needs to be developed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the system we're stuck with for now. A new categorisation system, even if prioritised by WMF, is probably a year or more away. In the mean time, we need to do something with the multitude of images that we have and are receiving daily. Diliff (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • @Colin: -- The problem is much deeper than you imply in your comment and should be solved before a cross category searching tool is developped. For example, should the category "London" contain all pictures taken in London (as defended by some editors here) or only the views of London (as I defend)? Diliff's explanations below help to understand the nature of the problem and suggest possible ways out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • There wouldn't be a category "London". I wouldn't use plain names for keywords -- they need to belong to a grouping. There two aspects as you say. The first is geolocation and the world can be divided up in many ways and each have their uses. One might have a hierarchy of "geolocation:city=London" and "geolocation:county=Greater London", etc. The second is a description of the subject. Again there are many ways to tackle that and really a judgement call over how far one can narrow the focus of an image before it is no longer representative of a place. So a close-up of a hoverfly on a flower could have:
geolocation:parish=Porto Covo
species=Eristalinus taeniops
species=<whatever the yellow flower is, if known>
dominant-colour=yellow
photographic-technique=macro
Without identifying what the keyword means, like above with "porto covo" then the user will make an interpretation that will sometimes be wrong.
When I look for a pair of trousers from an online clothing company, they have groups I can choose from like waist size, colour, material, style. They do not worry about whether "Black Flat-fronted 32R Grey Wool-blend Machine-washable" is a good category. Perhaps I will want to order both 32R and 34R or both black and grey. The combinations are up to me. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Jee, if you're right and there are good reasons for continuing with Solution 1, then at the least, I think we need to change the wording so that it makes more sense and has a more precise description of the category. I know that many contributors do not have a good understanding of English and do not understand the nuances of the language, but I don't think that more words = more confusing. Sometimes additional words can actually remove confusion, and there are always online translation tools for situations where someone doesn't understand.
Also, you mentioned that you didn't understand why Category:Featured pictures by country used the word 'by' whereas the sub categories used 'of'. It makes sense to me. In that context, the category uses the words 'by country' because it describes what the subcategories will be broken down as. That is the purpose of the category so it makes sense to define it in the category name. The subcategories themselves could not use the phrase 'by location' because the subcategories need to define each of the countries, and it doesn't make sense, grammatically, to say "Featured Pictures by location India". The most logical phrasing is "Featured pictures taken in India", not your suggestion of 'at' which would be worded "Featured pictures taken at India". 'At' is a word that refers to a specific location, whereas 'in' is a word that refers to an enclosed space or a region. I don't mean to be giving you an English lesson and I assume you know much of this already, but unless we actually discuss why certain words are better than others, we're no closer to improving it. Diliff (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Diliff, I am aware of my limitations in English language skills. My comments above are very informal and more about the topic than about the exact wordings. I agree, we need a formal discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion, the place where we can expect participation of categorization experts in Commons. (BTW, I will be away for a week for Christmas; will not be able to comment further.) Jee 11:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we should keep Solution 1 and add Solution 3 where it's reasonable, for example in the case of a city for photos of a significant part of that city. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 10:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But how do you define reasonable? That's an inherently subjective thing. I think it's important that there be consistency across Commons, because someone browsing for images shouldn't have to open a category page to find out whether someone has considered it reasonable enough to use solution 1 or solution 3. I really think the category naming system should be self-evident, with the category's purpose clearly labelled in it's name. Diliff (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't have a definitive opinion about categories, but I agree 100% with Diliff here: it should be consistent across Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not saying Solution 3 or 1 should be used depending on whether or not it's reasonable. I'm saying Solution 1 should always be available, and Solution 3 (with a different name, as a separate category) should be used whenever a location is a subject at the same time, i.e. if there are, for example, photos of the whole place. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 13:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I think you've misinterpreted Alves's solutions. We aren't talking about having more than one category (although it would be a logical conclusion if solution 3 were used). We're talking specifically about what "Featured Pictures of <location>" should contain. What you're suggesting is that solution 3 is the correct solution when there are images of anything taken in the location and photos taken of the location, but when there are only photos taken in the location but no photos taken of the location as the subject, then you are happy for the category to contain only those images. This leads to an inconsistency as I mentioned above, and the category doesn't accurately describe what it contains. I think that solution 3 naturally leads to the conclusion that because images taken in the location but not truly of the location would be excluded from "Featured Pictures of <location>", then another category should be created called "Featured Pictures taken in <location>", or something similar. Shouldn't we just create consistency and create it as a parent category and add "Featured Pictures of <location>" as sub-category of it? After all, photos of a location are (usually) by definition taken from that location. A slightly different set of rules should apply to subjects such as plants or animals that are endemic to a region. As I mentioned above, and I see The Photographer has mentioned below, there should be a distinction between endemic plants and non-endemic subjects so that when we view "Plants of <location>", we have an idea of whether they were merely taken in that location or are actually a plant that is notable in or specific to that location. Diliff (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, obviously, Solution 1 categories should always be named "taken at" and Solution 3 categories should always be named "of". If that's what the discussion is about, I don't get what the lenghty discussion is about. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 14:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, solution KISS, ordinary categories already cover "taken by foo" and "taken in bar". FP categories should be about procedural details (featured when, why, nominated by, or similar.) –Be..anyone (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment Additionally, I believe that a kind of endemic plant of Porto should be Featured Images of flowers of Porto, however, a non-endemic plant of Porto should be in another category called Featured Images of flowers in Porto --The Photographer (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Before this story it is a pity that all who wanted to illustrate an article on the fauna near Porto Covo had been forced to read the description of several hundred photo to find the one that was taken there. It is a fact. And even it's the finest!! -- ChristianFerrer 12:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • How likely is it that someone will specifically be looking for an image of the flora (not fauna?) of Porto Covo in order to illustrate an article on it? We need to be sensible with category organisation. We could organise Commons in an almost unlimited number of ways with extremely fine sub-categorisation, but it would probably make it more difficult to find what you were looking for, not easier. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • See this flora and its use in EN. Even its binomial name is derived from the place where it grows. (My last comment this week) Jee 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • No, we need to stop second-guessing what our users will want to search for. Diliff, people already are categorising Commons with ridiculously fine levels and it doesn't "probably" make it hard to find a photo, it really does. Look at Category:Loudspeakers. Can I find a decent picture of a loudspeaker without drilling into random categories? I try Dschwen's tool on that category and the results are nonsense. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • One issue I have with the way categories currently work is that if you view a category such as Category:Loudspeakers, you only see the images that are not sub-categorised. I want to see all images including the sub-categorised ones. I may want to drill down further to find specific types of loudspeakers, but if I'm not bothered about what kind, I want to see them all. This has nothing to do with the number of sub-categories, it is a problem with the way the pages are displayed. A more modern browsing experience such as the way Flickr now displays photostreams would be a good start. Rather than having to click 'Next page' over and over, it would be nice if it would automatically populate the page with more images as you scroll down to provide a free-flowing browsing experience. These are functionality and user interface issues, not categorisation issues. Diliff (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Here is my interpretation of what has been written above so far:
  1. There seems to be a clear consensus that Solution 1 is not good. Even the editors who defend it (Christian Ferrer, Jkadavoor) admit that it can be replaced, in some cases, by suitable subcategories;
  2. If a category containing all pictures taken at a certain place X is to be created, it should be named "Featured pictures taken at X" and not "Featured pictures of X". However, its creation is not consensual;
  3. There seems to be a clear consensus that Solution 2 is not good;
  4. The majority of editors consider that the category "Featured pictures of X" should only contain those pictures showing views of place X (Solution 3).
  • In order to proceed with the discussion we now need to identify suitable courses of action, assuming that Solutions 1 and 2 are to be rejected. A new subsection was opened below with some possibilities. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What do to assuming that Solutions 1 and 2 are to be rejected?

  • In see the following possibilities (please add more if necessary):
a. Keep in the category “Featured pictures of X” only the images showing views of the place;
b. Keep in the category “Featured pictures of X” only the images showing views of the place and create the new category “Featured pictures taken in X”, to host all photographs taken in X;
c. Keep in the category “Featured pictures of X” only the images showing views of the place and migrate (some or all of) the remaining to subcategories of the type “Featured pictures of Y in X” (where Y is the subject: animals, plants, vehicles, etc.).


Me, I simply propose to develop the current system by creating categories that put everyone agrees, thus there will be the opportunity to reach an image by by taking several path. Exemple with your file : I suggest to tag it with Category:Featured pictures of insects of Portugal and with Category:Featured pictures of Diptera and to create :


-- ChristianFerrer 16:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

  • And of course Alvesgaspar I also suggest that you restore the description that you changed. -- ChristianFerrer 16:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If I remember well, that picture was taken outside the village of Porto Covo (how far I can't say). That is why I corrected the information in the image file. More recently, Thierry Caro introduced this new category into the picture, obviously to make a point. I will not revert the edit as it serves wonderfully to illustrate the irrationality of the system. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Here is what I think of the three solutions. I believe that solution a) is the best of the three. I see no need to categorize according to the location of the shot because such information can be retrieved from geolocation (for example, naturalists want to now the geographic locations where species live, not the names of the places). Furthermore only a minority of FP indicates the name of the place where the shot was taken, except when the place itself is depicted; this fact alone would make the new category inconsistent. Also the categorization of Featured Pictures (as well as QI and VI) should follow the normal categorization scheme of Commons. That would not be the case with the new category because no categories of the type “Images taken in place X” are in use. Finally, as mentioned by some editors above, over-categorizing and going into fine details doesn’t make any easier to find the pictures we are looking for; usually it is the contrary. Identical arguments can be raised against solution c), when the subject of the picture has nothing to do with the place where it was shot, for example, “insects in Porto Covo”. On the contrary, creating a category named “Featured pictures of churches (or streets or parks) in Paris”, makes sense to me, but this is not what we are discussing here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If I understand correctly these categories and many others have no senses and must be emptied : Category:Featured pictures of East Timor, Category:Featured pictures of Botswana, Category:Featured pictures of Haiti, the half of FP of Australia.... and many others. -- ChristianFerrer 19:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In these cases, the categories would indeed be emptied but remain available for future FPs. But that is just my opinion Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yeah but in the same way you can't remove these images from these categories without a consensus of the communauty, you also can't remove the categorization made by others on your files, ot change the description or your files after their promotion as FP. To discuss is one thing but to undo the work did is another. -- ChristianFerrer 09:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Everybody (also without login) can fix descriptions and categories, or actually anything that needs fixing, after all it's a wiki, reverting bad ideas is faster than implementing bad ideas. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think we can follow the same naming conventions for FPs too. People can add images to Category:Featured pictures of Kerala; but they can be moved to Category:Featured pictures of animals in Kerala, Category:Featured pictures of forests in Kerala. Problem solved? :) Jee 15:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid not, Jee. Categories in Wikipedia apply to articles, not media. And the deficiencies of Wikipedia categorization scheme has already been referred to by some editor above. If someone has to teach anyone about categorizing images it will be Commons to Wikipedia, not the contrary. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering the wider scope of these topics; I don't think this is the right place for a discussion, nor expect any progress here. Jee 03:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

POTY

I noticed the POTY team already started there homework. Please double check Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2014-A and Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2014-B for any errors or omissions and make comments there. Jee 07:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured sets

So we temporally banned set nominations. Now we need to review the guidelines (if needed) and make a procedure to handle them.

Guidelines

The current guideline is available at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/guidelines#Set nominations. Please check it and make suggestions, if any.

Since the existing set guideline is just a few lines in a bulleted list, I find it relevant to copy them here in and then we can comment on the individual lines (typeset in green). Please do not apply a polarizing vote on lines. Let us try to discuss and reach a consensus --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.
  •   Comment Agreed. Maybe 'direct and obvious' is a bit redundant and can simply be shortened to 'obvious'? An alternative word to bring into the game could be 'coherent'? --Slaunger (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer a bit of redundancy because it prevents people trying to lawyer around the wording ("It's obvious to me that x,y,z is connected, even through it's not a direct connection"). --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with 99of9 - the more concrete the guidelines the less grey area...--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
1. All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  •   Comment Agreed. In practise I would propose this to be as a gallery with captions, much as how it was done for the now discontinued (due to technical problems) Valued image sets. For instance. check this nice VIS candidate page of Thespis, opera from Adam, and the way it is (after promotion) formatted as a Valued image set: Thespis, opera in a manner, which clearly highlights that this set has a special status. However, the templates used for VIS are really alienating to fill in for the nominator, so I would propose to make some smarter nomination templates, if possible. They were made before Lua, I do not know if something smarter is possible nowadays. --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • When I wrote this I was mainly thinking about image processing and presentation, not how they are arranged in the nomination or gallery. For example, in the VIS you mention, I would possibly want to critique the apparent differences in overall darkness of some of those images. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Arrangement of the images should be some part of the set's aesthetics, but the similarity in editing, processing, tones (if relevant) is important.--Godot13 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
2. All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  •   Comment I do not hink this should be a requirements for all sets. For some large sets, I believe this is better solved by having a dedicated subcategory for the images in a set., or have them organised in a gallery categorized to the main theme of the set. --Slaunger (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that large sets could be an exception to this. One reason for having this requirement is to again prevent nominators from making vague thematic groupings when the images themselves are not truly closely connected. If you're willing to link them as an "other version", then I'm more likely to agree that they are closely connected. --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
3. If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
4. If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  •   Comment Could 3. and 4. simply be shortened up to "The nominated set shall be complete and be extraordinarily valuable when presented in its entirety."? --Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to question "complete" - I could see situations where incompletion might be required (say, I can prepare 65 out of 66 images from a book, but the 66th is badly damaged, and the book is very rare). I also think "extraordinarily valuable" may set the bar excessively high. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Adam Cuerden: Then how about "The set shall, when possible, be complete." and "The set shall be highly valuable."? --Slaunger (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the badly damaged 66th should still be included in the set if it is to be considered our best work (although then it may fail the quality requirement). I favour keeping the completeness requirement. I would make an exception if it were the only copy in existence and the 66th page was missing :-). --99of9 (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I think there is a clear categorical difference between objects in a finite set (e.g. plates in a book) and a set of images selected to represent an infinitely extensible subject (e.g. Kungsträdgården Metro station). It doesn't make sense to me to ask the latter to be "complete", and in my opinion the former should not be considered "our best work" until it is complete (I understand that this can be a tough requirement Adam, but IMO high standards are exactly what FP is about).--99of9 (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I disagree with dropping the concept of a selection from an unbounded set. On Featured Lists at Wikipedia [from memory when I participated there years ago] they handled both complete and unbounded lists/sets. Part of the skill and judgement for unbounded sets is selecting high quality images that are representative of the whole. As far as handling bounded sets where the nomination is incomplete, I'd suggest we word the desired situation. If we don't already have something, then we need an IAR-style clause where nominations that fail the normal guidelines may be accepted provided explanation is given and accepted by the reviewers. This would include such issues as low resolution, or some images being poor quality. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
5. All images should be of high technical quality.
  •   Comment Agreed. I think the current, not so rigorous rule is adequate. I considered for a while if it should be required that all images were 2 Mpixels, but on second thought I can think of exceptions, where the resolution of each image matters much less than the completeness, especially when the sets is large. It is good to leave some room for interpretation here. --Slaunger (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd actually go more hard-line on this. Every image should be up to the minimum standards, or be an obvious exception (for example, the Face on Mars image doesn't exist at higher than low resolution, but it was that low resolution image and the errors that started the phenomenon. A set of it and a high-res modern image would be suitable, but that should be the exception, never - not ever - the rule.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • See my comment above about documenting the FP-standard guidelines as such, but providing the opportunity (in general) for a nominator to explain why their image/set should still be considered. -- Colin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would propose to also add the clarifying statement to the guideline (I think it can be formulated more concise than I have done, please do so, if you see abvious ways to improve it):

  • Files in a featured picture set, will be tagged as being "Part of a featured picture set". Selected individual pictures in a featured set may also be nominated separately for featured picture status, if each nominated picture fulfills the normal (stand-alone) requirements for a featured picture. It is recommended to spread such single picture nominations out in time in order to avoid reviewer's fatigue from reviewing many thematicaly similar pictures consecutively. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that additional nominations from a set is somewhat of a bad idea. It increases the number of nominations, without any actual benefit. The point of featured pictures is surely to make people aware of work useful to wikis. If that's our goal, only one promotion is ever necessary, although we might want to discuss how to handle this in POTD/POTY.
Mind you, I have some grave concerns with POTY - the last two years, despite having category winners, they were not announced, not in the final announcement or anywhere else - which, in my opinion, makes a mockery of the goal of celebrating the diversity of images by using categories, and which would cause major, major problems with sets in POTY, since you'd surely need to treat sets in a separate voting, possibly not even allowing them in the final, but giving their own award. This is possibly a bit off-topic, though.
My suggestion to POTD is that it may be appropriate to have more than one image from a set, but they should be no less than, say, four months apart. Alternatively, we could come up with a way to handle multiple images in POTD, with a main image as a default fallback. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Procedure

Galleries

We need specific categories and galleries to showcase them. The current galleries for FP are under Commons:Featured pictures. So we need to create similar galleries either under Commons:Featured pictures or under a new Commons:Featured sets.

Categories

The current structure is Category:Featured pictures by subject under Category:Photography by subject and Category:Featured pictures by country under Category:Photographs by country.

There is one generic category Category:Featured pictures on Wikimedia Commons which is assigned on pictures having {{Assessments}}.

This is actually very spottily applied. I don't think any of my featured pictures are actually categorized under either type of category, because historical media doesn't generally appear to get categorized. And, of course, not every featured picture is a photograph. I'd suggest that the categorization scheme we have is actually far more broken than people think. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment tag

I think {{Assessments}} with featured=5/6 may be possible.

Don't do it that way: First of all, featured= is not just used to mark featured pictures. featured=2 marks former featured pictures, and there's also sounds in there using 3 and 4, but that's not very well-used at present.
Instead, realize the nomination for a set is always formatted Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/DESCRIPTIVE NAME. Not only is it absolutely trivial to find out if an image is part of a set from the nomination alone, it's also trivial to put all images in a set into the category Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME because the template has to link to the nomination anyway. That category can then be linked to from the Assessments template. Using basic magic words can find out the number of images in that category, giving the size of the set.
If ordering the images in the set beyond that is desirable, a setposition= or setpos= variable can be used to change the category position. Simplifying the code slightly, it'd be something like: [[Category:Featured picture sets/DESCRIPTIVE NAME|{{{setpos|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]] - although DESCRIPTIVE NAME would be, I think, the comnom variable or some #titleparts variant of same. I seem to recall that the Assessments template has some weird, poorly-documented code around comnom to check that the FP nomination fits the right format. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss under each topic above and make generic comments here. Jee 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I would support specific categories and galleries for sets. Yann (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Yann:. One gallery alredy exists which I'm not aware of earlier; maintained by Ö. I think it only needs some sorting and splitting.
But we need to create categories. I thin we can create them either inside or outside of Category:Featured pictures by subject. Any suggestion? Jee 08:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary

So there's been like no activity on this for a few days && we really need to get set noms up & running again (like I have three antarctica images I'm waiting to set-nominate) I'm going to summarize what's been said so far—

0 If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • Disparate & convoluted groupings should be disallowed

1 All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.

  • Everyone pretty much agrees but could also be extended to captioning & galleries.
  • Templates for creating these galleries are long and annoying to fill out.

2 All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.

  • Possibly redundant and unnecesarry?
  • Used to prevent disparate & convoluted groupings
  • Large sets might be exempt
I'd be inclined to drop this. I don't think it's enforced, nor is it particularly enforceable, and it ignores the actual purpose of the "Other versions" section - which rather supersedes it. If you're using it to link to other images in the set, you aren't using it to link to, say, the unrestored version of the file. Lose the requirement completely.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

3 If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.

Add "Or a good reason why the set isn't complete". Also, note that completeness is subjective. For example, you might think that including all illustrations in a book is simple, but I can name a few cases where it isn't - for example, Rudyard Kipling's Soldier Tales includes small images under the titles of the stories, and at the end. They're fairly simple and not half so useful as the full-page illustrations, so I probably would leave them out, but would that make my set incomplete? Also, I generally get illustrations from the second printing or so - much cheaper, and all the original illustrations are there. But this means I couldn't, for example, include the first edition cover, and, indeed, probably couldn't afford to, as second editions are usually pretty affordable; first editions... not so much.
There's a few books where the American 1st edition and British first edition have completely different illustrations. Would completeness require both? The point is not to give an answer, it's to point out that there's a subjective element to this rule. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

4 If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.

  • Issues arise with what to do when it is difficult or impossible to complete a bounded set
  • How should you choose members of an unbounded set?
Commons has a tendency to get bogged down in bureaucracy. People will vote it down if it's poorly chosen or unjustified as a set. We can let this evolve. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

5 All images should be of high technical quality.

  • Exceptions might be made if there is a good reason for it.
That's always true. We should make it clear exceptions can be made at times - but probably not at specific points in the rules. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Classification of FPSs

  • Renominations as single images could be used to determine POTD/Y eligibility
  • A spacing rule could also be used to prevent set elements from dominating POTD
I really don't like the idea of having renominations as single images. That's pointless, and instantly negates any value to a set nomination.

Organization

  • FPS elements need to be placed in galleries and categories to keep them organized
  • The current category tree is broken and doesn't work for sets
  • Technical problems regarding the Assessments template

Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been traveling in the last weeks and couldn't follow this discussion closely. I will try to relaunch it shortly to try to find a solution. Poco2 21:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I have to apologize, I didn't manage it so far and will be in London/Wikimania and in other destinations until end of August. Sorry, I have been pretty busy with travel arrangements, work, preparation of my presentation in Wikimania, etc., but I haven't forgotten it. Poco2 07:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Photographing churches in Paris

DXR, Jebulon, and of course anyone else who may have experience with this... I'm going to be in Paris for a few days just after Christmas and was thinking of using my time to photograph a few of the interesting and beautiful churches of Paris. From experience, I know that some of them are not particularly photography-friendly (I remember from many years ago that Sacre Coeur forbids it and I assume that is still true), probably even less so for tripods. Do you know which churches I shouldn't bother trying to photograph, and which ones are okay with tripods? I wonder if it will be a bit like English Cathedrals - most don't actually forbid photography, but many are very suspicious. I will of course have the additional disadvantage of speaking almost no French at all. :-) I'm sure it will be very difficult to find any of them quiet enough to get a nice architectural photo without crowds of people, especially around the Christmas period, but I'll give it a try. Any recommendations on must-see locations would be appreciated. If Paris is anything like London, there must be many less famous churches that are still worth a visit. Diliff (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Diliff, I'd generally say the less known, the more you can do. Sacre-Coeur is indeed not allowing it, Notre-Dame doesn't allow tripods (probably there's no way they could enforce no photos at all anyways!). I would perhaps suggest Saint-Germain-des-Près, which I found quite interesting (also with all the history etc.), but once I had received my pano head, that church was full with stuff for a concert (I then shot Saint-Sulpice instead, also pretty, not hyper-overcrowed). I do feel that this church does deserve a Diliff-treatment, even though it is not so fancy. I personally shot more churches elsewhere in France than in Paris and I never did get too hostile reactions. Unsurprisingly people ask, because tripods always raise alarm lights, but saying that you don't do it professionally usually satisfied people (though I guess I got more leeway being 20 than somebody older might get :D). I also experienced people actually finding it interesting and handing me maps and telling me what to shoot (though that was in Troyes). I must admit that the only time I see churches from the inside is to photograph them, so Jebulon probably knows much more about other locations. --DXR (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, I think they often see you shooting 'professionally' and think of it as a signal that they can make money from you. I visited a very insigificant church (but with a very beautiful rood screen, although the photos on Commons currently don't do it any justice) a few days ago that is only open twice a week for a few hours and gets almost no visitors at all. And they still tried to charge me to photograph it. I don't usually mind if it's a few £/€ as a donation but sometimes they want serious money. Usually when I explain it's only for Wikipedia and not professionally, they calm down. :-) I know these churches need to survive somehow but I do think they need to balance this with being open and accessible to visitors. Good photography will only make more people aware of it. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Diliff (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Diliff, To be known: churches in Paris are belonging to the State, not to the Catholic Church. In theory, photographying should be free. but in real, of course, things are different. Remember that catholic churches are not only "monuments", but places where God is present in real (in the Holy Sacrament, symbolized by the little red light you see near the main altar). So the way to do is to be quick, discret and silent. Not far from Saint-Germain des Prés is one of the most interesting (and beautiful) churches of Paris (IMO), it is Église Saint-Étienne-du-Mont. I've taken photographs all inside here with a tripod, absolutely free (see the Category:Église Saint-Étienne-du-Mont, you'll find some of my poor production). It is my parish church, and I know the vicar, so I may ask him for you, even if we already have many and many pictures of this monument. And I've used tripod in other churches without problems. I try to meet a priest and ask him a permission, and I've always been authorized. But 1):the main problem is of course the period of Xmas. 2):I'll live Paris for the New Year eve, so I think I could not be with you (a pity, send me your dates by private mail !!!). 3):Inside of parisian churches are generally very dark and not as "clean" as the english. Anyway yes, a lot of churches in Paris deserve visits.--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Jebulon. I'll send you an email. I'm actually not sure about dates yet, I will actually be north of Paris for almost 2 weeks as my wife's family is French. I assume also that the other major touristy churches like Sainte-Chapelle will also restrict or prohibit photography? I had a look at Flickr images and most were handheld, but I found one or two that were longer exposures and must have been taken with a tripod of some kind. Most had a very low position so I think maybe a mini tripod was used so that guards would not notice? Actually I did find this blog post by Trey Radcliffe ('celebrity' HDR photographer) which does suggest that you aren't allowed to use a tripod. Unfortunately the interior photography I do often takes 10-15 minutes per image so I really doubt I would ever be able to get away with it! Anyway, your parish church looks really quite interesting. Diliff (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW: Sainte-Chapelle is managed by the CMN, so it basically treated like a museum with entrance fees, queues and stuff. So I would not be surprised at all if no tripods indeed applies and using one will get you more than a stare ;-) . And probably it is going too be too crowded anyway... --DXR (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I just saw the entrance fee of €8.50 too. A lot of the bigger and more impressive cathedrals in England charge that kind of money, but there is usually much more to see in a cathedral than just one small (admittedly very beautiful) room. You're probably right, there are some nice ultra wide angle images of Sainte-Chappelle looking upwards at the glass and ceiling which would avoid the crowds being in the shot, but I don't think it's worth trying. I hate crowds. :-) I visited Versailles in the summer and it was ridiculously busy. 2 hours of waiting in line to get in, and the rooms were totally overcrowded, it was hard to even move. It was almost impossible to appreciate the building. I think the trick is to find the hidden gems that aren't on the package tourism bus routes. Diliff (talk) 21:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
To be known: there are two chapels to be visited in the Sainte-Chapelle, one above, with the stained glass windows, and one below. But as it is a "must" in the touristic Paris, there is a long queue during the Xmas holidays...--Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@DXR: and @Jebulon: Sorry I didn't contact you before Christmas and the New Year. I actually didn't even know which days I would be free to photograph in Paris. I did get a few half-days to photograph some of the churches but didn't have a chance to send you an email to let you know when. I tried to photograph St Etienne-du-Mont twice but it was closed both times (on the 2nd of January). Oh well, maybe next time. I will likely be back in March. The churches I did manage to visit were: St Germain-du-Auxerrois, St Sulpice, St Germain-des-Pres, St Francois Xavier, Basilica St Clotilde, St Severin, St Gervais and St Paul St Louis. Oh and Notre Dame, although without the tripod. Enough, I suppose. :-) I'll be processing and uploading them in the next week or so. Diliff (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy speedy

What happened on Jan 6th to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Палац_у_Шаровці.jpg/2? Speedy processing less than 2 days after nomination? --Kreuzschnabel 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an old nomination and this types of edit will not work. Bot is very clever. Jee 07:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the /2 should have told me :-) Thanks! --Kreuzschnabel 15:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed rule for FPC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I start the proposed rule for FPC. "If a nomination ends with 6 votes for support and no votes for oppose, the nominator can, immediately after the ending, renominate the file."

What you guys think?

Votes for support:
1.   Support Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Votes for oppose:
1.   Oppose I don't see many amazing images not being promoted due to a lack of voters. I have won and lost candidatures on the edge of 7 supports, and I'm still not sure if those that passed deserve the status. For the media that seem to be harder to get supported (paintings, restorations, graphics), I'm not sure more time would help. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
2.   Oppose @ArionEstar I think you are starting to see why I questioned the rationale for this change. Really great images are attracting 20+ votes in just a few days. I have a hard time changing a system that achieves that so the mediocre images get a second chance to be considered in the same league. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Saffron Blaze: Really great images are attracting 20+ votes in just a few "hours". 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
3.   Oppose Per above. I can see the point being raised for media, but imo an image with <10 net support votes is usually not great and certainly doesn't wow many people. Seven is already a very generous level and extending the deadline would many help catch random or "friendly" votes and is not a sign of greater support for me.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by DXR (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
4.   Oppose for the reasons indicated below by Alvesgaspar, Slaunger, Diliff and Colin. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
5.   Oppose it will be better to have 10 votes or more for an real FP image, not less ... The most of our FP images are simply good images, not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
6.   Oppose You're actually free to renominate what you want when you want. -- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Proponent:

😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
  • I am not necessarily opposed, but what is the rationale? Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Saffron Blaze: See one situation that happened. If you want to renoninate a file, you need to wait a month. The rule is: if the first nomination has 6 support and no oppose, you can nominate again without wait a month. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Where is the "wait for one month rule"? I think it is only an understanding to prevent the fpc page from too many nominations and wastage of reviewer's time. If a nomination failed due to holiday season, renominating immediately will not work unless people already come back. The current case is different; as we have not enough reviewers on such subjects. Jee 03:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • why not just extend the nomination time period if its 6/0/0... but then what happens with 5/0/0 or 6/0/1 unfortunately the line has to be somewhere for those on the wrong side of that line there will always be disappointment. Maybe the rule: 8.1 Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator). be extended to less than 4 supports (apart from the nominator) that would remove the slow crawl nominations that tend be the more common ones that fall short. Gnangarra 03:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some works which have big wow attract quick supports; but some need time. So I don't think changing 5 day rule is good.
  • We handle more than 200 noms every month; so extending the duration will increase load; I afraid. Yes; people frustrated when failed on the edge. I had voted (supported) on edge cases just before the closing time, earlier; stopped that practice nowadays. Jee 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I cannot support a change to the rules to make it easier for 'almost' promotions. I supported the original in the example, but I also have to say that promotion is not an exact science. If you end up around 6 supports you nomination is really a borderline FP, and who wants a borderline FP anyway? Also the lack of support is just another way to express (tacitly), that you do not think it is quite an FP. It is well known that many reviewers do not explicitly oppose a nomination, because opposition requires an explanation (and this may be hard to express, especially if you are not a native English speaker) and opposition often leads to abrasion as well and 'demands' for further explanations to defend you oppose vote. For me it was good enough to support as FP, but I also have to admit, that I have seen more featurable illustrations. And I will not support the renomination. I do not think it is an adequate use of community resources to again consider nomination, which has just failed promotion. Move on. Only 1/4000 files on Commons are featured. The illustration is still good even if it is not FP. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think it makes it easier. It just gives the nomination a second chance. It will still need sufficient votes on the second attempt. But I agree with you that this situation (few supports but no opposes) is indicative that people are not very excited about it and may have opposed if they felt more comfortable doing so. I agree that it's probably best to leave the procedure as it is. We have a similar problem on the English FPC, but different because we genuinely do not have enough participants to get a valid result in many nominations. This is not a problem that Commons has. Diliff (talk) 12:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It may even be, but a FP with only 7 supports and a FP with 20 supports compete for POTY without distinction. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • But what happened here was lack of wow? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is very difficult to review the "quality of work" of Google Cultural Institute by us. :) Jee 13:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's difficult to even vote for oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. Please understand me right: I feel quite frustrated as my last FP candidate hardly got votes until the voting period was over. I would have been very happy even for an oppose. It's so frustrating when your work seems simply not to be recognised by others. However, I also understand why not everybody votes on every candidate. Sometimes I feel that I don't like a picture and I am not really able to say why. Sometimes (in rare cases but you could know which I mean) I know that the other nominator will give me a revenge oppose which I'm going to avoid by not voting at all. In some other cases I just don't feel competent enough to evaluate a work (e.g. when it's about svg graphics and so on). And sometimes it's just laziness, I have to admit. Perhaps we should at least introduce a similar rule like we have on QIC: Everybody who nominates a picture has to vote for another one. This could at least help a little. --Code (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A typical and sad situation. @Code: I am also like you. I do not like to oppose images. An oppose would make me very happy too. I also had an idea. When a nomination is not evaluated, its title is red and big. When evaluated, the title is with normal color and size. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well if people don’t feel compentent to vote on certain things, or are just lazy, does that mean it just doesn’t pass?—Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Or that some people around here only know how to appreciate photographic works and ignore paintings and illustrations and stuff—Kelvinsong talk 15:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • See, if we have a photo of an insect or architecture, we are mainly reviewing the quality of the photography; not of the subject. Similarly we appreciate works like this, though a few will pass. But when it is from Google art project, we have not much to review here. (Illustrations like Kelvinsong's work are different. Honestly I think we are in short of reviewer here.) Jee 15:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This does not mean that there is not FPs of the Google Art Project:
  1. File:Maker unknown, India - Krishna and Radha - Google Art Project.jpg;
  2. File:Joseph Ducreux (French - Self-Portrait, Yawning - Google Art Project.jpg;
  3. File:Paul Gauguin - Fatata te Miti (By the Sea) - Google Art Project.jpg.
  • I had supported many earlier, when Dcoetzee was active. But most of them attract only bare minimum supports without any criticizing comments. In the archives, you can find related discussions. Jee 16:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a bit tired of this sense of entitlement. As Slaunger notes, many voters going "meh" do not bother to vote. So failing to attract support is often an indication it is not FP rather than necessarily an indication the world has not fully appreciated your creative talents today. Happy now?. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Slaunger, Diliff and Colin even though I am a frequent victim of the meh syndrome (as shown in the present page).I would make promotions more difficult rather than facilitating them... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am puzzled that Slaunger "will not support the renomination" as he feels the previous vote indicated it was not a strong FP, yet by not voting this time, the nomination stands a good chance of success through canvassing and the extra attention it is getting -- one oppose vote is not enough to counter this. Is that fair on the rest of us who accept our failed nominations when Kelvinsong gets two attempts (this isn't the first time) at reaching the threshold? And User:Julian Herzog's vote " it's not easy to read, a lot of stuff in there and things like the temperature profile are quite hidden" doesn't really read like a description of our finest illustrations. Are we falling, once again, of falling into the habit of supporting nice QI level images that don't actually reach the level of FP. If User:Saffron Blaze thinks such a slow nom is not our finest, then say so. If we feel this isn't an FP, or that such a renomination isn't fair game playing, we should oppose. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Colin: It is because I've voted once, and wish to spend no further time on that nomination. It would be inconsistent to oppose, if its re-nomination is acceptable, as it would be an oppose to the process and not the nomination, which I have previously supported. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not entirely inconsistent, if one views a nomination as more than just an objective assessment of a random image. Surely nominating until one gets enough support is not a tactic that should be met with abstention? A comment at the very least, would indicate the community does not approve of game playing. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        • If we do not want to accept re-nominations, I think we should state it in the policies/guidelines, such that it is clear as apparently it is something editors here are not entirely aligned about. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I’ve gone and withdrawn the nomination, okay? Sorry if nominating it twice, I didn’t know about any rule against that. I think some of the criticism here does not quite make sense though. Many people are citing ‘lack of wow’ as a reason for ignoring or opposing, which if you ask me is not always a valid criteria depending on the subject (and never seemed to be a relevant factor before, considering a pymol molecule screenshot and a Euro symbol somehow made FP 🐸☕️) but I won’t get into that. But you’ve got to admit that at least part of the problem is that people sit out or oppose for trivial reasons because they do not understand SVG. When photographs fail, they fail for very specific real reasons that reviewers give, such as “bad angle” or “poor composition” or “compression artifacts”. However I have noticed on nearly all of my SVG nominations, even the ones which passed, all people can come up with are vague things like “wow” or very trivial things like not enough contrast on a label or not being able to find the text data, or an SVG grammatical error which is well known to Inkscape and fixable by anyone in two minutes. Or irrelevant things like “it doesn’t show up if I drag and drop it in Mozilla Firefox” (it’s called designing for the medium, aka the Commons renderer—every SVG renderer has a different behavior and it’s like saying an English book sucks because your French friend can’t read it). Or they don’t vote at all. So I don’t think it’s quite the same if I renominate an SVG image that not a single person was able to find an issue with than if someone renominates a photograph that multiple reviwers already said had problems with color or focus or etc. && @Colin: I left a note on your page—Kelvinsong talk 05:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Kelvinsong I agree with you insofar that it is a pity that the SVG renderer on Commons is as bad as it is. I do not know if the SVG problem could be resolved by both uploading the SVG as an 'original' (as this is the file format you would want to make changes to) and then nominate a properly rendered png for FPC linking to the svg? I also agree with you that the number of qualified reviewers for illustrations are less than for photographs and it is a bit harder to get illustrations promoted due to that. However, I would be very reluctant to introduce special, more lenient review criteria for illustrations, as it gives an over-complication of rules, which are already quite elaborate. See it as a challenge! If you get an illustration promoted it is surely FP.  -- Slaunger (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Kelvinsong, you said your earlier nom had "unanimous support" and this is where you are going wrong. You have no idea how many thought your image unimpressive and didn't support. If your attitude is that we must find some fault or SVG bug before opposing, then it is no wonder people have better things to do with their time than get into an argument with you. You ask me not to vote "meh" but all I'm doing is being explicit about the reaction your diagram gives. If I'm frank, there are graphics designers at my work who could knock up that sort of diagram in the time it takes me to have a cup of tea. I googled for other diagrams and yours was one of the least clear. Lots of people at FP are unable to draw such diagrams and can only be impressed at seeing something professional for free -- but at the same time it is unexceptional and unoriginal. Perhaps the FP criteria for diagrams need revised so they are clearer about what really makes one of our finest diagrams. You are right that with photographs there are often easy targets to name when opposing such as noise or focus, but the same issues occur when an image is technically OK yet fails to have any spark with people: the nom simply fails through lack of support rather than clear opposition. Unless we can come up with a way of forcing all who look at a nomination to express their vote, then that's just the way it works here. People generally re-nominate if they have improved the image since last time, or they think the discussion because confused/unclear and so has a good reason for a fresh start. Simply re-nominating because your underwhelming diagram might scrape 7 votes this time is imo not a reason and simply playing the system. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
      • If it takes you four hours to drink a cup of tea you should really see a doctor. && if anyone remembers we already tried creating criteria for FP SVGs but that went stale—Kelvinsong talk 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Personaly I did not support (and no vote) the diagram by Kelvinsong because it does not talk to me and did not seem clear enough for a FP promotion. The no-votes are also explicit and this does not mean that no one watching. An interesting thing would be a counter that tells how many times a page (the nomination or the file page) was opened. -- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Invalid SVGs should be fixed, and sometimes I try that. Invalid_SVGs and Media_for_cleanup should not contain any QI, FP, VI, POTD, MOTD, or edit-protected image. I'm a big fan of SoFixIt, but I'm not bold enough to fix (overwrite) images while they are assessed by one of these projects, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For the future the error we’re talking about doesn’t affect the rendering, it’s more of a “who” vs “whom” thing. You can fix it without affecting the image; you could probably make a bot that would do that automatically for inkscape uploads—Kelvinsong talk 16:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Result:
 1 Support X 6 Oppose. Rejected proposal. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WLM 2014 winners announced - did anyone notice, or care?

See post at the Village Pump:

Your constructive opinions on what might be done differently/better would be useful. -- Colin (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Mass nomination

I am to nominate massively a large part of the paintings of the Category:Google Art Project works in Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. Who agrees? I also wish to create the Category:Featured pictures of Pinacoteca do Estado de São Paulo. What is the opinion of you guys? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Egyptian Grains.jpg

Hi, It seems there is a problem with this FPC. It was nominated on 27 February 2015, 12:24 UTC, so the vote should end on 8 Mar 2015 at 12:24 (UTC). However there is already a red message "Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes." Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The original timestamp that was used there is wrong, I corrected it to a roughly accurate time. The nomination seems to have been generated by copying this nomination: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tajines in a pottery shop in Morocco.jpg, everything else was changed manually. — Julian H. 11:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative image nominations

There are two nominations in the current candidate list (this and this) that have had alternatives added by someone other than the nominator. This does not always go down well (though I don't want to discuss the specifics of these two images). I have also had a nomination (this) where an alternative was added by someone other than me. And I've probably done it to others myself in the past. Often it is a good-faith addition but occasionally the reviewer is trying to make some point that may not be welcome. Sometimes, especially late additions, can considerably complicate the voting and wreck a nomination. Other times, the spilt in the vote makes it less likely a nomination succeeds.

The nominator made their choice when creating the candidate page. Therefore, I'd like to propose that the FP candidate belongs to the nominator and out of politeness they should be asked before anyone else adds an alternative to the candidacy. An exception might be made for the creator of the image (if different to the nominator). -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposal. There is never a need for unsolicited or unapproved nominator alternatives. They can always be handled better when pre-coordinated with the author/nominator. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd support this too. I've not been angered by unsolicited alternatives in the past, but I do agree that they should be at the discretion of the nominator. I did recently have the situation where additional alternatives made my nomination more complicated than necessary, because I wanted to add my own alternative too, and the nomination became a bit diluted with too many different alternatives, which I think tends to discourage voters as they can be confused or overwhelmed by the choices and often insignificant differences. Any suggestions for alternatives should go through the nominator out of courtesy, so they can decide how they want to handle it. Diliff (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Diliff, as someone who has had some of their images nominated by others, how do you feel about whether the creator might offer an alt themselves, or whether they should ask the nominator first also? -- Colin (talk) 08:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that creator can withdraw a nom at any time even if it was nominated by someone else. Jee 09:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but that's kind of a cutting off the nose to spite the face result. If the creator liked their own version of the image but disliked the alternative offered, I think the best result would be to have the alternative withdrawn, not to have the entire nomination withdrawn. Diliff (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You missed my point. What I said is nominator always can withdraw his work if he don't want it be featured. As an ex. closer, I witnessed it. One nom withdrawn at the edge of promotion. Due to some strange reasons, some authors don't want their works here. :) Jee 09:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Right, I get the point now but I don't think it was clear at the time - your comment was in response to a discussion about creators not appreciating alternative images, so I took it to mean that the creator could withdraw the nomination because of the alternative, rather than because they didn't like the nomination itself. Diliff (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I feel less strongly about that situation because I suppose if I haven't nominated it, I haven't got the same emotional investment in it. I think as a general rule though, there should be respect for the creative choices of the photographer, and trust that they have created the image as it is for a reason. Of course that also doesn't mean that the photographer cannot make a mistake - we all do - but I'd prefer for people to ask before nominating an alternative regardless of who has nominated the original. Here's a rule of thumb that I would apply, and which I think may be appropriate: "If the adjustment is minor enough that it would be better to upload over the top of the original and is unlikely to upset the photographer (such as dust spot removal, minor perspective adjustment, etc) then go ahead and be bold (but out of courtesy, advise the nomination and the author that you've done so in order to give them the opportunity to revert if it isn't welcome). If the change is significant enough for the creative expression of the image to be altered (white balance, crop, major perspective adjustment, etc), seek permission from the author first." In the case of someone else nominating my images, one question remains: Should the original author or the nominator be asked permission to allow an alternative (or both)? Diliff (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Though even minor adjustments can be detrimental to overall image quality - making changes to a JPG is never ideal and some image editors chuck away important EXIF information as well as the loss of quality inherent in the decompress/recompress step. I think most of us are best placed to fix dust spots and CA and the like using the source raw in Lightroom, etc. The image may already have perspective/rotation changes so making further changes to the JPG will only soften further compared with the original. I know we lose some control due to the licence freedoms, but in terms of everyone getting along with each other, it is polite I think to ask the creator first on any proposed change. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
+1 -- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree. Imo we shouldn't be too strict on the creator, but third-party alternative nominations can lead to irritation and confrontation even when done in good faith. Just upload your alt and discuss it on the user's talk page before making steps on your own. --DXR (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  Support --The_Photographer (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  Oppose I think this is only a "own made problem". What is difference between a new nomination (this is still allowed for us all) or as an alt version? Both is for me the same. The author can simply withdraw his (alt) work ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Because when they are both in one nomination, they compete for votes. There is a significant chance that neither option will achieve the required number of votes, not because of a lack of a support but because of a dilution of support among multiple options. That's just one side of the argument though. The other is that it's a bit inconsiderate to hijack someone's nomination with your own vision of what the image should look like instead. I think if you are not the original photographer but you feel strongly that an alternative should be considered, you should ask the permission of the original photographer first out of courtesy. You might have the legal right to create and use a derivative, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should drop it into someone else's nomination. Diliff (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Technically Alchemist-hp is correct per this #6. Note that all works except PD are covered by this tricky rule. If "Original author" don't like any alternatives made by others here, he can enforce it by simple adding a {{Withdrawn}} on it, still keeping his original alive. :) Jee 08:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a question of legality/correctness though, it's simply about trying to create an environment at FPC that is respectful to nominators and the photographers. Diliff (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that I didn't oppose this proposal or it's spirit; just said it is already possible without amending the rule. We are not like this earlier. So what we're missing is not lack of rules; but good sportsman spirit. :) Jee 09:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
True, I agree with you that too many rules is not really a good thing. We don't even have to make it a hard rule, perhaps all that is needed is to agree that it can be disrespectful to nominators and should be discouraged. Colin made a good point though, that even trivially small edits to an image can have a negative effect on image quality, and it is always best to make the edit from the original file (ideally RAW), rather than the image on Commons. For that reason, even if you believe an edit is required, it is best for the author to do it themself. Some authors are not technically proficient at image editing and someone else may need to do it for them, but it's best to discuss it first before presenting it as an official alternative IMO. I've seen first hand that alternatives in a nomination confuse people and can lead to less votes and a less obvious result, which can be frustrating for a nominator who neither wanted or requested an alternative edit. The example you linked to shows it can work, but that doesn't mean it is the best way to handle it. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Our "main" Commons rules:

{{self|cc-zero}} {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}}

I can't read anywhere: "please inform/ask the author at first ..."! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
You know, half the problems on Commons are the inability by some to understand there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. And the response to being asked to do something by the community is to demand evidence of a policy that requires it. Are we grown ups here, or teenagers? Is Don't be a dick not enough advice to counter this attitude we can do what we like provided it isn't against some rule? The issue of adding alternates to someone else's nomination is one of respect: respect for the person who took the trouble to select the image and offer that for review as one of our finest works. And the issue of modifying someone's image (our images still belong to us, merely licensed) is also one of respect: respect to the person who's technical and artistic talent created that work. Alchemist-hp points out that the nominator could use the "withdraw" option to eliminate an unwelcome alternate. Doing so would likely be interpreted as hostility. The point of this proposal is that if we act like polite ladies and gentlemen who respect each other, then things are more likely to remain mellow. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only reiterate what Colin has just said, and point out that we're not talking about the legal requirements of licences, we're talking about the guidelines of FPC. How you could confuse the two is beyond me. Diliff (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Colin and Diliff above. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

While we're discussing alternatives, can someone point me where the rules for them are listed? I can't find them. I'm sure we had a discussion a while back that alternatives should typically be a re-processing of the same image, or at most another image from the same photo shoot, and not merely another image of the same subject. -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. It's a matter of respect to leave the nominations in it's original way. Variations should be started as a separate nomination. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, this "Variations should be started as a separate nomination." is full acceptable for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I found the earlier (many) discussions on what restriction should be placed on what's allowed as an alternative. There doesn't seem to be a strong consensus, with some wanting a very restricted "same raw file" approach and others happy for another frame on the same shoot or for images where one wouldn't naturally want both to become featured. So we can leave that aspect for another rainy day. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment On another note: Is there any rule for tiebreaking alternatives if it is not totally obvious? Is it supports (#s) or net supports (#s - #o)? Also what happens if there is even a draw on these measures, say (8s - 1o) vs (7s - 0o). Should the nominator be allowed to choose their preferred image or do we have any established rule? --DXR (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I don't know as I don't close but I would hope they use their brains rather than just a calculator. If there is doubt it might require chasing up those who voted on the original nom but not the alt to see if the preference can be determined with more votes. And if totally evenly split, then I suppose the nominator is as good a chooser as any -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    As we have it now, closer's discretion more than anything. However, the creator's wishes should definitely be taken into account especially when the vote is close. The argument against a raw vote count can be illustrated by the following example: A nomination gets 15 supports and 3 opposes early on. Late in the game, an alt which addresses the complaints of the opposers is added, and it quickly racks up 7 supports. The latter should be promoted despite having fewer votes. -- King of ♠ 05:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Another question: how about a nomination and its alt-version that isn't from the original author or an author that no longer works for Commons? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    In such cases unilaterally adding an alt is fine IMO. -- King of ♠ 05:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crown of Thorns Starfish at Malapascuas Island.jpg

Can someone experienced pick the alternative to promote. It's been nearly a week since voting closed. -- KTC (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I closed it on the second one since three people have said it is better while no one has defended the first one. -- King of ♠ 03:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I have processed the promotion manually with your choice. -- KTC (talk) 02:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

FPCBot

Hi, The bot is stopped from 8 March. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

If someone other than me want to do some manual closure as well in the meantime, or volunteer to run another bot to do the same job, please do. -- KTC (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I remember a discussion between Daniel78 and Dschwen on sharing the operation of the bot. Jee 01:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Set nominations again

After seeing several de facto set nominations at FPC, I think it's time to bring back sets formally. My idea is this: Instead of having several broad criteria that all set nominations must satisfy, have a list of very specific criteria of which a set nomination only needs to satisfy one. In other words, enumerate the allowable types of sets. If someone wants to nominate a set that doesn't fall under any of the criteria, they should either propose a new criterion or get consensus on this talk page to allow an exception. Here are the criteria I'm thinking:

  1. Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  2. A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  3. (added per Diliff) A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  4. A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Feel free to suggest any amendments or anything I might have missed. Again, what I'm going for is a rather narrow, unambiguous set of rules that can be expanded as needed. Thanks, King of ♠ 04:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't have strong opinions on this but I think your suggested guidelines sound reasonable. I was just wondering what your thoughts are on what is most likely to be a potential set of mine: A series of images of the interior of a building (eg a cathedral). What I usually aim for is to shoot the main views, but it's difficult to say that any group of interior images are definitive and show all possible variations, because there could be an unlimited number of angles and perspectives of an interior. I've nominated a few sets on the English Wikipedia FPC and they've been received well as they are used to illustrate a single article in a somewhat definitive way, but I'm not sure it will have the same effect for Commons because of the different scope we have here. Thoughts? Diliff (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    Diliff: Added a line, what do you think? -- King of ♠ 03:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Quite reasonable actually. The distinction that you make about 'different rooms' of a building, or 'an organ and a facade' not being acceptable is an important but fair point. For English Wikipedia FPC sets, these would likely be allowed because the scope is for any homogeneous group that provides strong EV in illustrating any one article particularly well, but I think Commons' scope is narrower and a Commons FP set should be more visually identifiable as a set. So I'm happy with the addition you've made - no complaints. Diliff (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine for me. -- Christian Ferrer 17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment I was trying to have a look at previously featured sets to help me think about this, but Category:Featured picture sets only contains Category:Featured picture sets of Paris, which only contains 2 sets. I think if we re-allow set nominations, featured sets should be categorized as such and the {{Assessments}} should get a new parameter that changes the text from "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons […]" to something like "This is part of a featured picture set on Wikimedia Commons […]". --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    Have a look at Commons:Picture of the Year/2013/Candidates/Sets and Commons:Picture of the Year/2014/Candidates/Sets? -- KTC (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, that's helpful. Any objections against me going through the lists and putting the files in Category:Featured picture sets? --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not from me, something I would do myself. -- KTC (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you remind me then what the rules are/will-be for sets at POTY, and for categorisation/listing. Will sets be kept separate or will every image in the set be considered a featured picture in its own right. Clearly POTY is limited in having only one winner, but "Set of the year" could be a prize and encourage comprehensive illustration of a topic. If sets were entered as individual images to POTY then it is quite likely they will dilute the votes that might have otherwise gone to a single image from the set, and thus stand little chance of making any shortlist. Is it work having a "key image" that represents the set and could thus be considered the featured picture for Main Page/POTY purposes? Sorry if this has been discussed before. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Afair, in the past a single vote was held for the whole set, but each individual picture from that set was then tagged as being FP with no indication that it was a set nomination whatsoever. Personally, I don't like that, which is why I suggested adjusting categorization and the {{Assessments}} template above. --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I would be in favor of the "key image" approach. The creator of the image should be requested to specify one of them to enter into POTY, and if no response if received, the organizers can pick whichever one they feel is the best. -- King of ♠ 04:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it will be better to request the nominator to choose one of them when he make the nomination, like that you will be sure to have an answer. -- Christian Ferrer 22:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like the conversation has died down and my proposal seems uncontroversial judging from the opinions here, so I've added the language to the top of the FPC page. -- King of ♠ 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Intermediate School 72.jpg


Banned users

Standard's slipping again & double standards

After a period of fairly good reviewing, I'm seeing standards slipping again. There have arisen several relatively new reviewers who support any and most random images. Along with this are an increasing number of nominators who constantly hit FP with 2 nominations of images where even the most basic "is this among our finest" checks have not been carried out. But the serious reviewers are not compensating with opposes. Perhaps you looked at this awful FP candidate and saw that Colin and Benh had opposed so thought that's killed it. Well it hasn't because it is currently a majority in favour, and if uncritical support keeps dripping onto it during its nomination and only two more supports arrive then we have an FP. This is an image that crops off the vital part of the statue (Jesus hand in blessing). An image so posterised it is practically a gif. A portrait so badly lit, it would be met with derision if of a living human.

Letting this sort of not-even-a-QI image become FP is insulting to those who work hard to take serious portraits (human or stone), or take care over lighting, who employ advanced techniques to capture fine detail or dynamic range, or even take care that the image doesn't chop off anything vital. It is also insulting to the reviewers who spend the time to check similar works, to ensure the subject is well presented, to consider both artistic and technical qualities. Don't assume someone else will oppose or that one or two opposes are enough.

If I had nominated that FPC it would have been trashed with glee. If Diliff had nominated it people would wonder if he'd lost his mind. Every time you give a great image a hard time over some minor technical flaw, remember how much more then it hurts to see dire images pass because of apathy. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes I remember: not distorted and barell distorted ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
A small amount of distortion (barrel, vertical) or tilt looks like a mistake and can mislead the viewer. A large amount becomes a different kind of image. I actually didn't mind your oppose on that fisheye because that's an extreme kind of image not everyone can accept. Whereas low-key, high-key, b&w, etc are bog standard professional photographic styles. I'd much rather we disagreed and discussed interesting and challenging photos, than let weak and boring photos pass because of people thinking they are on Facebook and going "Like". -- Colin (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Colin here. There is a big difference between barrel distortion and fisheye projection. Barrel distortion is the unfortunate side effect of the lens' imperfect rectlinear projection, whereas fisheye is a completely different projection - a deliberate choice if you use a fisheye lens. But whether it is acceptable or not, I think, depends on the situation and the image. As Colin says, if you don't think fisheye is a suitable projection for the scene then it's fine to oppose for these compositional reasons. I must say, I think the barrel distortion is just one of many problems with the nomination linked. It probably wouldn't be a reason (IMO) to oppose the image if it was the only fault but when combined with other issues, I don't see the oppose as unreasonable. Diliff (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys keep cool :-) because we have a POTY 2014 winner with " ... There's useless space in the top left. ...". It's not the end of the world ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Alchemist-hp, I don't know what the purpose of you once again comparing two images with similar features where in one it is acceptable or even desirable and in the other it is a flaw easily fixed by a different arrangement of the subject. If you are being serious, then it makes you look ignorant. If you are trying to be a comedian, I suggest you don't give up the day job. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, my voting has the same value how yours and sorry, but your opinion is not the only one here. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Everyone's opinion may have the same value as one vote is all we get. That doesn't mean that some expressed opinions are the result of more care, or more experience or better judgement than others. Do you find, in your general experience of life, that everyone has the same good judgement? I think not. Has nobody you know ever done something careless or foolish? Or have you never met anyone who you regard as wise? You seem to think that criticizing poor judgement is somehow a social mistake on the par of some kind of **ism, and shouldn't be done. This PF candidate has multiple flaws that most of us (even you) can see and should point out. By not voting, the FP community permits the inferior work to get promoted along with quality work. The end result is a gold star that is worthless and no longer worth aim for or reviewing for. Quite why a few editors supported it is beyond me if they aren't just playing games. Perhaps they should spend more time at QI where they can see a multitude of non-wow barely competent images. He's cropped Jesus' hand off for crying out loud. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I generally agree with Colin. I detect a facebookization of FPC as a place where images can collect "likes" and, as soon as having collected enough, get featured. Some reviewers appear to do their judgement from another viewpoint than I prefer, not asking themselves, "do I think this image is among our very best" but just supporting any image they'll find "nice". I said so here and – despite Hubertl accusing me of only wanting to erect a temporary monument for my hugely exaggerated opinion of myself – I mean it.

Sometimes, on reading some of those careless supports, I think we should alter the rules of being entitled to vote on FPC radically into "only users who have 3 own nominations got featured are entitled to vote for other’s nominations on FPC" to keep standards up. The demand for 50 edits is too easily achieved. --Kreuzschnabel 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologise: It was my unlimited opinion of myself, not hugely exaggerated. --Kreuzschnabel 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have to say though, requiring a participant to have 3 FPs of their own in order to vote on other images could be counterproductive. For one thing, there are likely some good, honest, critical voters who simply aren't active photographers themselves (although obviously it helps to be aware of photography and its technical limitations through experience). And Wikipedia/Commons already has accusations of being full of cliques or a cabals. I think we should try to make it as inclusive as possible (while still maintaining standards). I just wish we could be more critical, with debates about the merits of each nomination. I would much rather see opposes than silence. The issue is that not everyone's ego can handle opposes, particularly blunt opposes, and so we tiptoe around and tend to avoid voting if we think we might upset someone. Diliff (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn’t say they necessarily have to have taken these 3 images, I was talking of nominations. Having been a nominator 3 times through all the process before might wake a sense for what’s expected here. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Well nomination is typically accompanied by a support vote and we also need nominators to wisely review what they are about to nominate (whether their own work or others). There are some nominators who collect gold stars for nominations of others' work, and that is also easily gamed by supplying a stream of QI entries and withdrawing (in order to replace) when it looks like one isn't going to make it. We'll always have some newbies, whether taking, nominating or reviewing, and newbie mistakes are fairly easily handled if they are a small minority. But a few users don't seem to be learning and persist in nominating sub-standard work that they really should by now be filtering out for themselves. -- Colin (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've commented before that we have a persistent group of reviewers who essentially never oppose and a slightly larger group that would never be bold enough to oppose first. These groups are essentially free-riding on those who actually do the opposing. The problem is that if those groups grow then every nomination that isn't obviously dreadful will gather enough such "Like!" votes and pass. The forum only works when enough reviewers/nominators (a) take the process seriously enough to do their research and (b) have the balls to oppose even if it doesn't win them friends when they come to nominate their own work.
At present, it is easy to game FP: just keep nominating QI images and a third of them will pass through insufficient critical review. In fact, if you make a personal habit of nominating barely-even-QI then people will be so relieved when you actually nominate a good-QI that you'll get a rebound reaction of support. In contrast, if you are the kind of nominator who only nominates high-quality work, then this is expected of all your nominations and the slightest flaw will be mercilessly picked upon. We need more people to critically restrict their nominations and to actively oppose. -- Colin (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a valid point. Hell, I'm by no stretch of imagination among the best photographers here, but I reckon I could get 10-15 additional images I have uploaded here through FP at the current standards. But I choose not to nominate them, because I personally don't feel that they are truly great and that they are not making the FPC galleries better. I think it is unfortunate if people stuff FPC and get exactly the effect you describe. To a degree, they are creating this stupid situation in which not the nominator of the mediocre image but the opposer is the "bad guy". You are right that harmony-seeking people (including me) are then likely not to oppose as much as they should. But also have to rely on the good sense of people understanding what is good (or at least what is interesting enough to discuss openly) --DXR (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In the recent POTY contest I needed a lot of time to look through almost a thousand candidates, and thought that maybe it would be useful to limit the number of FPs in some way. Could such a limit also make voters more careful about which images they support or oppose? A limit of for example 40-50 FP:s each month would is still be enoguh for 30 POTD featured on the main page each month. /Ö 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's asking for gaming the rules just as much or even more... I really don't think there is a chance to solve problems by regulating this way (imagine one oppose delaying a promotion by one day, making it 41st or whatever, antics and stuff following). Some months yield more good images, some not, etc. We just need to be more serious and responsible about what we nominate and what we support. --DXR (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of FP isn't (IMO) to supply pictures for the main page or entrants for POTY. I view POTY as a popularity content where 90% of reviewers will just look at the thumbnails. I have no problem with having too many FPs in a year for POTY to be viable -- that would be a nice problem to have -- as long as they are all great images. -- Colin (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej.jpg

We have hundreds and hundreds of QI stained glass windows, and many more that are worthy of at badge. Can someone please explain how FP is not broken, when an obvious QI like this is both nominated and on its way to getting an FP badge. See Category:Stained glass windows and press the "Good pictures" button for examples. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"This has been nominated and I like, what else?" Do we need to update the FP criteria to specifically mention that "I like" is insufficient reason to support? Or an edit-notice to remind voters than this is not Flickr? -- Colin (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe it would help to translate Commons:Image guidelines into more languages. I was a bit surprised to see that even the German translation is still mainly English. Can someone set this up for the new fancy translation tools? --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the Commons:Image guidelines is dire, like most guidelines and policy on Commons it is fairly incompetently written. All the decent writers hang out at Wikipedia and Commons has people who know how to upload images or press buttons on their cameras. :-) So I wouldn't waste any effort translating that. The problems here aren't fundamental issues of photographic judgement. The basic "is this among the finest image on Commons" is not being respected. The above image is fine and meets the image guidelines. It's a QI. But it is a long way from being among our finest, unless that term means nothing. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On criticism

Can we be clear here that if you vote on FP then your vote is open to criticism. The defense of "it's my opinion; please respect that" is childish, naive and misses the point. This is a forum, a community, where we collectively judge images as among the finest. If you want to "Like" images and have that opinion "respected" then do so with the Favourites gadget or leave a comment or post something to the photographer's user page. FP will simply deteriorate to something worthless if we continue to uncritically accept "Like" votes. It isn't a simple popularity contest. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a step back, Colin. You are trying to play God again. The support votes have always been the "like" votes. And it will be so in the future. You have made too many ridiculous statements recently about the FP nomination and voting.. I think you should take a break. --89.249.83.102 15:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If our IP coward wants to comment on users at FP he can log in like the rest of us. IP edits to forum pages on Commons serve no purpose other than to highlight the inadequacy of the poster. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Please assume good faith people occasionally forget to log in Colin.—Kelvinsong talk 18:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Em, good faith people don't edit war. Kelvin, this is an IP troll who pops up occasionally to take pot shots. IPs can't vote and their opinions on those who do vote are irrelevant. If this isn't our nasty coward, then log in and we can have a grown-up conversation about voting. Otherwise, this is just someone flinging shit. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
IPs are not people. They change and can be shared (if my limited knowlege about the internet is correct). To call an IP a troll is like calling a particular post office a troll, and insults people unfairly who may not be to blame for previous offenses. This reflects more on you than it does on whoever left that comment. && even so that IP has only been used to leave two contributions so i hardly say this is a recurring problem for you—Kelvinsong talk 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
We don't permit IPs to vote, but we there is no rule of banning them from commenting. If you count IP comments as irrelevant, than just ignore them, this is your personal decision. But please don't try to impose this opinion to the community. It seems to me like you are fond of some open words, so you should be also able to take open replies and criticism. This is how grown-ups handle it. In this particular case the IP didn't post anything offending, so you should not just revert it. Frankly, I would even agree in the bigger part of the statement. --LC-de (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvinsong, you don't have all the facts. I am pretty certain this is the same IP troll who turns up here to fling shit from time to time. Yes the numbers change, but the language doesn't. It's childish and cowardly. I'll take criticism from someone big enough face me, not from numbers. And if I see another Commons user citing "there is no rule" as a justification for making this place unpleasant.... It's shitty behaviour and has no place on this forum. Now, meanwhile some folk at FPC are interested in doing serious reviewing: there are plenty other photo sharing sites for folk who want to "like" each other's photos. -- Colin (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, i'm now logged in. Better? An IP address can probably tell more about me than a user name. I just wanted to say that your statement is ridiculous. And what you say is not just your opinion. I have noticed before that you often put yourself above the others. You often try to influence the "collective judging". I have no doubt that if the decision "featured or not" was made by you solely the selection of FP would be much better. Better for you but not for everybody. Your comments, votes and arguments are nothing more than "like" or "dislike". Keep that in mind. You are not better than others. We are all equal here. If I have the necessary number of edits, I can vote. And if you attempt to derogate my vote, my opinion, my "like" then you're the troll here. You had problems with WLM results, you say POTY is a popularity contest, you say other users are superficial. I think you should take a break.--Donninigeorgia (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I think Colin has a valid point though. Your vote might be valued the same as anyone else's, but if you don't take the criteria seriously, you are not helping the project. That is what I think Colin takes issue with - the promotion of sub-par images as a result of people supporting almost any image regardless of whether it legitimately stands up to a comparison with its contemporary FPs on a given subject or category, and subsequently taking offence when someone points that out. Pointing out that you're not taking the criteria seriously is not trolling, and Commons has never been (or if it was, it should not have been) simply a popularity competition. A set of criteria does exist, and "I like it" has never been a valid reason to support. This may not have been rigorously enforced in the past, but it doesn't mean the criteria weren't there. Diliff (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to evaluating a photograph, that is a piece of art or a creative effort at least, there are no and can't be any criteria. Yes there can be some kind of guidelines and as Colin mentioned earlier, you can't take these guidelines very seriously. So over time everyone has worked out it's owe criteria. I don't like your criteria and you don't like mine. Nothing new under the sky. No matter how sophisticated your reasons are, in the end it's all about the "like". --Donninigeorgia (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you for logging in. The thing is, we aren't evaluating a photograph to decide if we like it. We're judging to see if it (a) meets various technical and artistic criteria (shared with QI), (b) is among the finest on Commons and (c) has some wow. We aren't robots and this isn't a maths problem so we will disagree and that's fine. But judging "among the finest on Commons" is actually one of the easiest bits yet most commonly neglected. Reviewers need to make a little effort -- visit the FP page and look at similar FPs, or go to the picture's category and have a look at the FP/QI. But comparing it against its peers is really really easy and requires no great photographic skill or artistic ability. But people aren't doing it. The above stained-glass window is no better than many hundreds of QI images. It doesn't take an experienced eye to see that. Of course there will be images that are much closer calls. My frustration, and reason for posting above, is that on cases that are clearly obvious calls, we need people to make an effort to oppose. Not assume someone else will do it. Some reviewers even have admitted to judging solely on the FPC image without even looking at an enlarged version. That's really not playing fair. Anyone who fails to do those things is not helping Commons and not really being respectful to those photographers who make big efforts to make great images. It's about being prepared to take this seriously and make an effort. On Flickr / Facebook, no effort is required at all. Click the little icon to "fav" and move on.
As for thinking FP would be better if I was the only reviewer. Hmm, I think you're extrapolating your misunderstanding. I learn lots from FP in the criticism my images receive and in the alternate votes and disagreements about my reviews too. Over the years I hope I have become a better photographer and reviewer. But I've long way to go still. It is because I value that interaction personally that I absolutely oppose this mindset that votes/opinions must be "respected" or treated as "equal" to the point where it is considered rude to disagree. What utter nonsense. Such baby-care of precious opinions belongs perhaps in infant school but we're grown-ups here.
And wrt popularity contest. Well that's a perfectly legitimate way of running a review/competition/assessment. You not may be aware I started Commons:Photo challenge where .... the voting is a popularity contest. And no "oppose" votes allowed. And no discussion. And no criticism. All votes equal. And in addition to point-votes, you can even add little love-heart "like" comments. It's a completely different kind of assessment deliberately designed to be positive and encouraging to photographers to try new things without seeming like utter failures if it isn't pixel-perfect featured material. Does that line up with your opinion of me as some kind of judging God? I happen to think FP is a different kind of review, one that doesn't work as a popularity contest. Our rules for 7 supports and 2/3 majority simply fail if (a) we have lots of reviewers and (b) hardly anyone opposes. If FP was changed to be a popularity contest, it would need dozens of reviewers and would then lack the critical feedback many of us value. And our rule for "finest" absolutely needs more than just "like!". -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
All votes ultimately boil down to whether or not the reviewer “likes” the image, some just seem more objective than others :) . But either way, you have written a very long paragraph Colin, and I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. FPC should be among the finest, voters must always look at full size versions (I am actually horrified to find that people are judging on thumbnails, like that doesn’t happen here??), and most importantly, FPC is not a popularity contest à la Instagram. Now I’m probs getting a bit off topic, but I do recall a good while back we had a rather bitter argument over whether or not it was acceptable to reject SVG works because of “wow”. Wow is by definition how many “likes” an image would recieve, so I wonder if you are truly trying to improve FPC review or if you are simply trying to make it harder to pass because that’s an easier reform to implement. I’ve been on a sort of FPC break since then, but I might return to it if it were a bit more clear exactly what is being sought.
&& I must again direct attention to the Commons:SVG guidelines proposal which might keep more Euro symbols and linear gradients from sneaking into the FP category, in line with your standards-raising—Kelvinsong talk 23:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Kelvin, 'wow' is not, by definition, how many likes an image would receive or how many people vote for it in a nomination. I think it is more about how much an image impresses you; that je ne sais quoi for want of a better English phrase. Because of its inherent subjectivity, nobody is trying to prescribe what exactly constitutes wow, but I think most of us would agree that it should be more than merely liking an image, and that we should also consider the image(s) amongst its peers and be realistic about how great the image really is. For example, you might be inclined to 'like' all photos of cute kittens, but of course it doesn't mean that every photo of a cute kitten truly wows you. In any case, wow is only one aspect of what makes a solid Featured Picture. That's the whole point really. 'Likes' and 'wow' should not be enough for an image to be featured. More robust critiques are required for the project to really feature the best images. You seem to agree with that statement, but at the same time you're more than happy for strive for mediocrity if you accept that all votes are simply 'likes'. Do you not see the conflict here? Diliff (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But isn’t that exactly what you’re saying? That “wow” is the quality that impresses you enough to stop scrolling and double tap. Also kittens might not necessarily be “wow”, but “wow” means very different things to very different people. I can’t help but think of “diversity gap” or whatever they’re calling it now. The photographer crowd here is very into natural scenery and buildings (that personally I don’t see what the big deal about is), but might be unimpressed by a technically decent images of say an Elie Saab dress. && I know people who would be stopped in their tracks by the “wow” from that dress. PS nobody is saying “wow” should be the only factor but it seems to be the one critera that attracts a disproportionate amount of drama—Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I really have to take issue with your claim "All votes ultimately boil down to whether or not the reviewer “likes” the image" and that "Wow is by definition how many “likes” an image would recieve". There's some seriously wrong thinking going on if you think that, thinking that belongs on other photo websites. Both ideas simply lead to support votes for "nice" images and given that FPC is fairly well attended by reviewers, that makes it rather easy for "nice" to reach 7 supports. And some reviewers just don't want to face the hassle of opposing a "nice" photo that is technical ok but fails to either be among our finest or have any wow. Where's the "wow" in the above stained glass? Does anyone claim it is among our finest? It is nice and very typical of competent images on Commons. Wow is more than "made you look". The 7-support/2-3 majority rule simply doesn't work for that kind of voting. And nor does it lead to any collection of our "finest works". It simply selects popular images. Well, Featured Pictures is not "our most popular images". -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

All of this for nothing?

Looks like all this discussion is in vain. this another candidate is currently being promoted, when it looked like it didn't stand a chance a few days ago. Author was probably aware of that so he looked around for supports. Last ones were adding after these requests from nominator : [3] [4] [5]. Now nothing forbids that but I'm really suspicious about them when I see no justification or even one which states "sharp, good composition (!) and good lighting (!!). I hope FP is more than just begging for supports or other tricks. - Benh (talk) 12:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all of this for nothing. The fact that nobody argues with you doesn't mean everybody agrees with you or Colin. Obviously you two are also cooperating. You often try to influence the vote, make people change their vote or make them withdraw their nomination and so on. It's not your project. Don't do this. No need to answer, your arguments are not very convincing. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @Donninigeorgia: Trying to influence other people's opinion is supposed to happen in all foruns and is a fundamental component of FPC. Our opinions, expressed as comments which go along (or not) with our votes serve two different purposes: to help nominators and creators improve their work; and to influence (hipefully in a positive way) the other reviewers, some of them less experienced in Photography or image assessments. That is one of the reasons why we just don't support ("like") or oppose ("don't like") a nomination. This is indeed very different from Facebook or Flickr. Our main goal is, or should be, to choose the very best images Commons has to offer, not to engage in social interactions or please the creators. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And anyways, what does an anonymous participant try to do, if not influence... since his input is not counted. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, you'll see people disagreeing with me and Benh, and even me and Benh disagreeing quite regularly. A healthy FPC is one where reviewers discuss the qualities of the image and their reaction to it. One with full support is kinda boring :-). What's unhealthy is where people try to stop discussion and disagreement, to protect their own opinions from any criticism. That's a pretty infantile approach and not really appropriate for a community forum. Who learns anything from that? People may not always be swayed in an individual nomination to change their votes (thought that happens), but it adds to our collective judgement over time. This is why, if nominations start becoming !like votes then that will become the culture over time, and our voting criteria would simply end up promoting any half-decent nice photograph. And that would be rather tragic because if there's nothing "excellent" to reach for, then quite a number of photographers here will stop nominating and ultimately stop uploading. Donninigeorgia, I'm far more interested in what you think of the FP candidates than what you think of me, and I can't imaging anyone else here is much interested in that either. -- Colin (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not but I am far more critical about the FPC than you all together. But if I opposed a nomination would confine myself with the "o" and maybe a short reason why. What I wouldn't to is to challenge "s" voters under the nomination. Nobody likes the nominators who challenge every "o" vote but I think it's no better when the opposer challenges supporters. If you want to educate the contributors then that's OK but it shouldn't take place under the nomination. You should just vote, explain your reason and then forget it. You should just trust other reviewers. At the end of the day if some bad images slip through the process and becomes a FP it's not a big deal and definitely not an end of this project. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I've benefited from people questioning my reviews and think the forum benefits from such. There are some people who never oppose ever. Everyone's got different psychology and views on how they personally would vote or comment. So you wouldn't act like I do. Well, it would be a dull world if everyone thought or did the same. -- Colin (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Donninigeorgia, there's absolutely no reason why a support vote is more precious than an oppose vote, both are equally valid targets for discussion if someone feels they are unfair or not well supported. It may not be a big deal if some bad images slip through, but that truly is settling for mediocrity. Featured Picture is the highest accolade an image on Commons can receive (other than POTY finalist, which is a subset of FP). Why shouldn't we expect only excellence? You don't seem to understand the place of FP or value its high standards. That's your perogative, but don't be surprised if we're hostile to your mentality here. We actually care about keeping standards high. Diliff (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Donninigeorgia, now that you are a few edits away from actually being able to do what you say, I'm looking forward to see you voting on the project page itself. Would be a better way to voice your more critical than other opinion about FPC. - Benh (talk) 05:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- For the first time in a very long time I went through all nominations and voted/commented on a few. Of those !votes only one was a support. Some will consider (or perhaps complain) that I wanted to make a point, but that was not the case. The truth is I was only touched by one picture and, in my opinion, that is precisely what FP is about: the exceptional and the magic. Please notice that the deafult state of a nomination coming here to FPC is "not promoted". And it should remain in such state unless very strong reasons are found by the revierws to change it. I don't understand those editors who justify their support votes with comemnts like "nothing wrong with the picture". In the past I struggled in this discussion page to force editors to justify their oppose votes with meaningfull reasons. Now I'm much more woorried about the unjustified (and apparently shallow) "like-type" supports. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What you did was great. You submitted your vote like you're a part of this project, not like you own the place. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It does seem like you've tried to make a point though. As you said, only one of your 16 votes in the last day or two was a support. I'm not going to go through all your historical votes to get a long term ratio of supports to opposes, but I think we would all agree that it's better than 1:16. Probably closer to 1:1 or 1:2. How then do you explain the sudden change of heart and what does that say about your previous voting patterns? And can you honestly say that using this new mentality, you would support your own recently nominated images such as this or this? I have no problem with people being quite critical in their evaluations because based on the discussion above, we clearly need more of it. But please use that same critical eye on your own images and be consistent. ;-) Remember that a nomination is a support vote too. It should be more than a "I'm going to put this image out there and see what other people think". Diliff (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that your conclusions on my inconsistencies are unjust in both cases: my reviewing practise and my nominations. Concerning the first, it is just not true that my average ratio support/oppose is close to 1:1 or 1:2. As a matter of fact it is usually much lower, which can easily by confirmed by someone patient enough to go through last years's nominations. Most regulars here know how hard to please I have always been and how I have consistently consider that a FP is nothing less than the very best Commons has to offer. And that, with the general improvement of the average quality of the nominations, the FP bar should raise accordingly. Moreover it is inaccurate and misleading to make statistics (and draw conclusions) about someone's reviewing behaviour on the basis of a small sample of cases, as you did in your last comment (by the way, my ratio seems to be 1:13, not 1:16). Next month my ratio may raise to 1:10 or better (never to 1:1 or 1:2, unless a miracle happens), depending on the particular set of pictures in contest. Concerning my nominations, you should know that most of us (if not all) are seldom objective when evaluating our own creations. That is easy to explain by the close relations we often establish with our pictures during the process of observing the objects, preparing and making the shots, treating the images in the lab and enjoying them afterwards. It is also easy to confirm that very seldom did I contest the assessment of my own nominations, made by the other reviewers, even in the cases when they were offensive or just incompetent. When I realize, during the first days, that my images are not appreciated by a consistent group of editors I discretely withdraw the nominations, with no hard feelings. No one can be 100% consistent but we should keep trying. That is what I also do. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • And in defence of Alvesgaspar, there are images between "full support" and "full oppose" where one may or may not choose to make the effort to review thoroughly and vote, particularly if the nomination is very mature or from a nominator (such as Diliff :-) where one can be fairly sure of consistently high quality. So looking at ratios doesn't really say much -- think why medicine now requires prospective trials rather than retrospective analysis. And I agree that it is difficult to be objective on one's own images, though there are some who have two nominations on the go continually who have a low success rate, and that to me just seems like expecting others to do the selection / gaming the system. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I much agree with Joaquim about the subjectivity on our own pictures. I've often found people nominating pictures of mine that I never thought were worth FP label (like this nom which I see more as a fine QI or this one which I feel a bit shameful about, and plan on delist and replace it (new shot being processed now). I did nominate a lot of pictures which I thought were going to make it through, but didn't ultimately, like this attempt or this one. I like both a lot, but people don't share my point of view. - Benh (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course none of us are completely objective about our own nominations - I'm not suggesting we can completely remove our own impressions. After all, if we didn't like the image, we wouldn't have nominated it I suppose. But I do think the two examples I gave show that there is a big disparity between your own images and the images you are opposing and I think it's important to acknowledge our own blind spot in these situations. I do give you credit though - although I've opposed a few of your recent nominations (and Poco with his recent nominations also spring to mind), you seem to have accepted the critique without taking it personally. I did count 16 different nominations that you opposed, but whether it's 13 or 16, it's certainly quite a large number. Perhaps you're right and you're normally more critical of nominations than I realised. I haven't paid too much attention to anyone's voting patterns but nor had I noticed a particular pattern of opposes previously either. I suppose it's only when there's a lot of them all at once that it becomes obvious. As for drawing conclusions though, if indeed your ratio was normally 1:2 (and I accept your claim that it isn't), then a sample of 17 votes only one support out of 17 would be statistically significant, with a ~5% chance of happening by chance alone (if my maths is correct). If your long term ratio is truly close to 1:5 or 1:10 then the probability of 16 out of 17 votes being opposes is much easier to explain by chance. Anyway, this is all academic now really but based on my (incorrect) assumptions about your voting patterns, I do believe I wasn't wrong to bring up the perceived ratio change based on those assumptions. Diliff (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Diliff, voting ratios can't be used for the purpose you intend, unless one prospectively requires a reviewer to vote on the next 30 FPCs. Anyway, I'm more concerned about lightweight reviewing such as User:Tremonist, who yesterday managed to hand out over 30 supports in about 40 minutes. It is difficult to believe the images were viewed in any detail in that time, and certainly not enough time to check elsewhere on Commons to see if they are "among our finest". Such voting merely serves to tilt all (except the most obviously flawed) nominations towards success, and it only takes a handful of such voters to completely wreck FPC and make serious participation here pointless. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see why a sample of 17 votes can't be used for the purpose I intend: to compare a short term trend to a long term trend. As I said, assuming a normal voting ratio of 1:2, 16 opposes out of 17 votes has a 5% probability of occurring by chance. That is significant and think it's worth mentioning because probability is easy to misjudge - sometimes what seems likely is actually unlikely and vice versa. I'm not saying it proves Alves was trying to make a point with the opposes, and in any case he said his long term voting ratio is not 1:2 anyway so it was an incorrect assumption. Anyway, I agree with you though that the more important issue is people who support almost every nomination but it doesn't mean we can't look at the other extreme too. Diliff (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Admittedly very academic, but I feel your math is a bit off. If we assume a binomial as described as your normal case (n=17,p=0.666,x=16), the probability for that happening what you observed is actually a pretty low 0.8%, so it is very unlikely to get the observed result if your initial assumptions hold. You can also turn it around and calculate a binomial proportion confidence interval for the observed p=0.94 and n=17 and see that p=0.666 is certainly not part of it even for very small alphas. --DXR (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the internet wonderful? We can have a conversation about pictures involving Scottish, Australian, Portuguese and French reviewers, and a German turns up with university-level statistics to correct our sums :-) Without Tim Berners-Lee, www would just be some letters at the end of the alphabet. Amazing. -- Colin (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Haha you're right. I currently spend my days analyzing forecasts for my thesis, which is quite interesting, but not exactly stimulating creativity in commenting or photography, so I have to resort to the statistics for the moment... --DXR (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ouch touché... DXR, please be aware that some people here are past 30 and have their maths far, far behind them. ;-) - Benh (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, well, probably true. In any case I would trade a bit of (basic) probability theory knowledge for Diliff's eye in a heartbeat, so let's all stick to what we are best at, taking photos :D. --DXR (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did say "if my maths is correct". ;-) I was aware that it was likely to be slightly inaccurate as I applied a simplified calculation (the maths required to do it properly is beyond me!) that approximated things. I guess with each of the 16 iterations, the error of my approximation became amplified! Thanks for the correction though, it only proved my point more completely, given that 0.8% is even less likely than 5%! Diliff (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In real life I use statistical techniques and numerical modelling to figure out how the medieval and Renaissance nautical charts were constructed (here). It’s a pity that the cartographers who made them didn’t survive to our days because a much easier way to get the correct answers would be to ask them. In the present case the most effective way of knowing accurately what my voting pattern is and whether, yes or no, I wanted to make a point with my last voting is … to ask me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, that is a much, much more useful and interesting thing to do with statistics. Last time in 2014, I complained about the similar voting pattern by you (and I still think it is a distortion if it is on-off), but actually with some distance I guess that most of the votes are fair enough. Opposes are not pretty on the scorecard, but even if they were done overly harshly, they would usually do less harm than blind support and FPs should not sail through if they are not truly outstanding (even though that might be in the spirit of the explorers ;-) ).
  • I don't think I misrepresented anything though. From the start, I said that it was only my guess that you had a usual a ratio of 1:1 or 1:2 and that I didn't want to go to the trouble of counting it, so it was always presented as a guesstimation. I could have asked you, but for the purpose of the discussion, it made more sense to simply express my perception of the discrepancy and give you the chance to respond. Also, I want to make it clear again that I didn't say I believed you were trying to make a point, I simply said that it seemed that way. A minor difference I suppose, but I was only telling you what it looks like to me, not that I could read your mind. Perhaps even if you weren't consciously trying to make a point, the maths could point out a subconscious bias. Lots of possibilities. Anyway, that's all I was trying to do - bring up a few points for discussion. :-) Diliff (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am being not far away from saying goodbye to FPC altogether, to maybe come back in a few years and see what’s become of it. It’s rapidly ceasing to be the place where visual excellence is cared for, being turned into some sort of photography Facebook. Support reasons like "parallel lines" or "correct exposure" is far from judging excellence, it’s nothing but looking for reasons to support a quite mediocre candidate. I still think (and I was serious about it) that only users that had one (or several) own nominations (not necessarily own works) being featured should be allowed to vote (except for their own nomination, which they may support of course) to prevent this looking-for-supporters-with-at-least-50-edits and keep standards up. – This may sound like an arrogant approach but isn’t meant to be. I’ve had more nominations declined here than featured, and I learnt a lot from the decline discussions. If my nominations were to be judged as "correctly exposed" in the future, I would’t learn a thing about how others regard my work anymore, about whether my picture conveys the impression I had in mind creating it. That’s what used to be valuable in FPC, and it’s completely lost if this is turned in some sort of QI plus. --Kreuzschnabel

The problem with FPC lies not in weak reviewers but weak nominations. I think even Colin wouldn't mind if I supported an excellent picture with the comment "I like it I like it I like it!!!". It is OK to like a good picture but not Ok to like a bad one. But who's to say the picture is good or bad. Who's to say who's opinion is superior to any other opinion. I agree that the standards are slipping but the real problem is that there is no real progress, no improvement in nominated photographs. Photography is a kind of art where you need continuous improvement. In other words, if the standards are sustained and not raised, it actually seems that the standards are slipping. I'm sure you fellows are learned a lot critiques. You reviewer's skills have improved, that's for sure. But what about your "photographical" development? To keep the standards high, every nominated picture should be somehow better, somehow more extraordinary or special than your previously nominated picture. But is the latest Diliff's church interior somehow better than one of his nominations last year? --Donninigeorgia (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think putting the blame solely on weak nominations is expecting us all to be, alone, reliably able to judge FP including on our own images. However, for those who nominate other people's images, I do think there are some who's standards are way too low and just treat FP as a game to collect stars where other people do the hard work of serious review. That just wastes everyone's time and if the nominator doesn't improve his eye over time, then perhaps they should find another game. And there are some photographers who over-nominate their work too, and should be more selective. For our own image, many report that their photography has improved through participating here. Even a highly successful photographer like Diliff learns what is acceptable in terms of extreme wide-angle, perspective, HDR, faithful-colours and light vs less wow or visible detail. His HDR process hasn't always been what it is now, and has altered through discussions with others here, and may alter again with Lightroom 6 :-). Very little of that would have occurred if the only feedback we got was an icon and a signature. My guess is that Diliff's images would not be as good if FP was not held to a high standard. To take one example, if we regularly promoted unsharp 6MP architecture photos, would Diliff have any incentive to upload 40+MP versions for free? Or even to participate here, if professional-level photography really wasn't appreciated at all.
It isn't a question of being "not Ok to like a bad picture". Like what you like. But to support, as among our finest, a bad or ordinary picture, is something different. Kreuzschnabel I'm sorry to hear you are so despondent. I think, though, that quite a lot of the weak votes are coming from those with some FPs under their belts. The only solution (and it is worth exploring others) I can see is for those who care about high standards to use the "oppose" option more often rather than assuming others will. If enough do that, the message that FP is a tough forum to succeed in will sink in. -- Colin (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually Colin, I've been creating 40mp+ stitched images since before FPC, Wikipedia and Commons even existed, and certainly before such high resolution was anything but a novelty. ;-) I've always done it simply because I enjoy the details available and the perspectives that become available, rather than because I'm specifically trying to impress anyone here. But that said, of course critical feedback results in better photography, and more of an incentive to improve, and I absolutely agree that it is an engine for us to innovate and learn, but only if feedback allows us to. A mere support (or oppose) without any comments gives absolutely no indication about why the vote was cast and no opportunity to learn.
And yes, Donninigeorgia, I think my interiors from this year are generally better than last year. Not every image, of course, and often the subject I've got to work with is what matters most, as technique only gets you so far. But my images from this time last year were systematically lower resolution, processed with poorer workflow and with a lesser understanding of how to best use HDR tone mapping techniques to give an image improved dynamic range without compromising realism. You may not have noticed any of that but then again, perhaps you don't actually have a fine-tuned eye, not having been actively involved in FPC in the past. I also disagree that photography is a kind of art where you need continuous improvement. Of course personal improvement is desirable, but ultimately if you are producing high quality photos from day 1, the fact that you aren't imrproving on them doesn't diminish the fact that they are already high quality. Likewise, if you producing crap photos after 10 years of photography, you may well have improved significantly, but they're still crap photos. Of course we should be capable of rewarding an individual's improvement, but at the same time we need to be capable of judging an image objectively amongst its peers. If we take literally your need for continuous improvement, both on a personal level and on a FPC-wide level, then you seem to be suggesting that every new FP must be objectively better than the FP before it, on a given subject/style/etc. I don't think that's the right way to look at it. I think it's better to have a minimum standard that we expect. A standard which is continually adjusted according to its contemporaneous and historical peers. A new FP could soar well above that standard and blow everyone away, or it could just scrape through above that applied standard, but both would be valid FPs IMO. We don't have to be completely elitist to be critical judges of nominations, we just have to judge the images rigorously and fairly and apply the criteria - not simply vote with the equivalent of a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Diliff (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Dillif, there's a difference between "creating" and "upload ...for free". Your earlier panoramas on Commons/Wikipedia are relatively small. -- Colin (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
All right, that settles it. If this quality is already considered excellent, there’s not much of a challenge left in it for me. Have fun. --Kreuzschnabel 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yup... FPC looks to have reached middle age... - Benh (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 16".