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.



Is here at FPC the right point for Videos? --Ralf Roleček 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course yes. This section is for Media in General, we can use similar rules for videos and images. --The Photographer (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really. There is Commons:Featured media candidates, which seems to be rather dead, however. --Dschwen (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I have it just in this moment added. What is to do? --Ralf Roleček 14:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest to keep it as it is. We have seen a few videos here over the last year and nobody ever complained. Commons:Featured media candidates is probably not on anybodys watchlist, the guidelines are outdated and somewhat bizarre. The category "Inactive Commons projects" is there for a reason. The only problem might be that we don't have any guidelines, but I think we can live without them. — Julian H. 14:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
@Dschwen: ist meine "info" beim Kandidaten verständlich? Du weißt ja, mein Englisch...--Ralf Roleček 21:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Jo, ist verstaendlich. --Dschwen (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination share

Hi, I know that the current nomination share is 2 actives nominations for each user. However, Beria is busy doing severals activites. I could use her share to public two more nominations? Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

And what is with the nomination of one of my photos by a other user? --Ralf Roleček 19:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Beria is busy doing severals activites --The Photographer (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is your granny busy too? Perhaps you can also use her share? I don't think so. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2 Nominations?

My question is: Ok, i can have max. 2 Nominations. But what is with nominations of my photos by another user? Are there included? There is actually one of this. --Ralf Roleček 19:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It's per nominator, not per photographer. There are often 2 Diliff nominations and 1 or 2 other nominations of a Diliff photo. So if someone else nominates one of your images, that doesn't reduce your allowance. -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Ralf Roleček 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: It's time to divide up Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media

As things now stand, here's how this category works.

  1. If they're maps or computer-generated media, they're filtered out to sub categories
  2. Everything else is put into a gallery at the bottom of Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media, and every few months are put into sub galleries, also on that page.

This seems a really strange way to do this. Why not make each gallery on Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media into a sub-page of Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media? Then the bot will automatically classify them into the right gallery, and we won't have to wait.

We do need to fix the galleries a bit - I'd say that 90% of the "Other" section would be more appropriately put in a different, pre-existing section, or is Theatre, which maybe we should separate out as well - but if we get nominators to do this, we'll be fine.

Possible downsides:

  1. This may need some translation work, depending on how Commons:Featured pictures translates into other languages. On the other hand, at the moment, only English is available for the sub-galleries, so... it's still an improvement.
  2. We should probably add a note to the template used for setting up nominations telling people that the category has divided for, say, 3 months.
  3. I think the bot is independent of our category trees; it just puts things in where it's told to. If this isn't true, the bot will need tweaked.

What do people think?

Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I confirm we can create new galleries and the BOT will move the images in, if that indicated to him in closing the nomination. I think the creation of a new galleries is relevant when there is image enough to do. Exemple : 1 galleries with 100 images divided in two galleries with 50 images in each (or 60 - 40) it's ok, but if it divided in two galleries with 95 - 5 it's not necessary to create a gallery. Thus I agree to create new galleries if there is enough images for the new gallery and if it will stay enough images in the former gallery. For translation work I already had the idea to implemented language selectors {{mld}}, a better choice than in Commons:Featured pictures where we need as many pages as there are translations, or maybe it can be ok only for the heads of the galleries pages, but not for the images sections, or so the bot must be modified to provide the same image in all translated galleries (the french version of Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media, the english version, the Polish version ....). --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Adam, you proposal looks fine. As Christian said, each subpage should contain about the same number of images. I think that's the case for the current galleries. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A date for your diary: Open House Weekend London

On the 19th and 20th September 2015 is Open House London, which opens more than 700 buildings, walks, talks and tours that would not normally be open to the public and for free. Last year I had a very productive weekend, taking lots of photos and seeing some very interesting buildings, as well as meeting some nice people in the queues. Last year I saw:

There are a few buildings where entry is via a ballot, which is open till 5th September. See here for a chance to go round 10 Downing St or go up the BT Tower. The BT Tower is closed to the public normally, though I got a chance to go up one evening last year. I only had my mobile phone on me, though. Anyone interested in visiting and wants to meet up or get more information, let me know. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint Colin, it is really tempting. Unfortunately those days I will be somewhere in Galicia walking the Way of St. James. Poco2 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


FPCBot is taking summer holiday now? --Laitche (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot owner informed. Yann (talk) 12:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Hope KTC too can restart it. Jee 13:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Should be okay now [1]. -- KTC (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Again not working since 07:03, 26 August 2015‎. The bot owner is informed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Bis repetita placent. Yann (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Livioandronico2013 again

On closing noms

Closing nom is boring task, and I'm personally thankful Yann (sorry for those I missed) does most of the painful job. So how about they must be closed by nominator? I think it would only be fair after all. - Benh (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe because I mainly frequent en.wp, but I have always been hesitant about closing one own nomination. It is mainly just double checking the bot, but I would rather a 3rd party does it. -- KTC (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, on the English Wiki FPC, the nominator is not allowed to close the nomination. In fact, the closer is not actually allowed to vote at all, but that's partly because (at least in theory) it's not a simple vote count and the closer's job is a bit more subjective. I'm not completely against the idea of the nominator doing the work, but I can see a lot more problems. Not everyone will be familiar or attentive with the process and I'm sure that more mistakes will be made. Diliff (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not hesitate to close nominations, mine or other, when I visit the page and they are waiting. Of course any help is welcome, especially from experienced regulars...and all experienced regulars should take a look at the entire page to see if a nomination is waiting to be closed IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    I do hesitate (and never did it) my own nominations when they can be speedy promoted. I don't see a problem to close mine when the regular time is over Poco2 07:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not keen on the idea of nominators closing their noms. While I trust the experienced folk here, I suspect it will open up problems where impatient newbies close their noms early or misinterpret the voting rules. And then who would watch to check the noms were closed properly? My preference would be a defined team of "FP administrators" who we trust, rather than leaving it open to anyone. It doesn't need to be very formally appointed. If we listed them on the FP candidate page, then new editors would have a list of names they could contact for help making nominations or fixing issues with their nomination. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  Comment Closing was an issue before I proposed that the category is to be mentioned. Now it is not so much an issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Bug in chronological list

Hi, Something is wrong in the chronological list (Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/2015-B): August and September are empty. Also the current month is titled "August 2015". Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • To look at the history of this page and at the history of the previous pages, it's not made by a BOT so if nobody work on that...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
If I understood right, the BOT move the promoted images here : Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/current month, and at the end of each month, the move of the images on the chronological pages must be done manually. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice that a BOT can do that. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah OK. So I moved August nominations, but it is true that a bot doing that would be nice. Yann (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
You need to renumber the September promotions to start back at 1, and update the section title as well. ;) -- KTC (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did it go?

What happened to the pic of Queen Elizabeth? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn. --Laitche (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
She did wave as she was leaving. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes I think why Wikimedia projects don't have the   Like button... --Laitche (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarity of nomination instructions for set

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/ was created by accident, as will happen if the instructions in the <small> tag aren't followed exactly. Perhaps the Adding a new nomination section should read (from the end of the first inputbox):

'''Sets of files:'''<br>
<small><center>''All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".''<br>
Ensure you have added a name for your set nomination before clicking "Create new nomination"</small>

Any thoughts? Storkk (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Broken Link

I don't know what happened but I'm afraid I might have caused a broken link. Since adding my latest nomination, "Skip to current candidates" doesn't seem to work anymore. I can't repair it myself, so I'd like to ask for help here. And I'd also like to apologize of course! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Somebody already took care of it - thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No problem. You somehow accidentally added a letter in front of the main heading that broke the link → fixed. --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FP on Wikipedia and Commons

Can someone explain why there are two types of FP please? I cannot see the difference in criteria between Commons QI and Commons FP. Charles (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp: from COM:QI: "Unlike featured pictures, quality images must be the work of Commons contributors; they need not be extraordinary or outstanding, but merely well-composed and generally well-executed." The threshold is lower for QIs, but FPs need not be taken by commons contributors. Storkk (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I didn't make it clear that I cannot see why we have Wikipedia FP and Commons FP. 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Charles (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, and I shouldn't have given such a glib answer - your user page shows you clearly know this so must have been asking a question that I wasn't answering. Storkk (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Many local Wikipedias have their own FP processes with slightly or significantly different rules - en, de and fa seem to be among the most active ones based on my limited dataset. They usually care slightly less about wow and beauty and more about usefulness for illustrating articles, accuracy, good descriptions and similar things that are important for an encyclopedia -- which makes sense. Nominating an unused image here on Commons is common, on the Wikipedias, that's more unusual. Also, they are simply different communities and it's fair that they select their own set of pictures that they view as being among the best based on their values and needs. — Julian H. 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
In the case of English Wikipedia FPC, the image must be used in an article to be eligible. Diliff (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely there must be a suitable article for any FP otherwise it's not 'featured' is it? Charles (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Here on Commons: No. Not at all. A good picture is a good picture, whether someone on another project uses it or not. — Julian H. 19:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
A pity.--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2015

-Hi there,

It appears that day after day, a BOT transfers the ended nominations (successful of not) in a monthly page. This works automatically. But It seems that withdrawn nominations are manually transferred to this page. I disagree with this practice. "Withdrawn" means "withdrawn", the nomination is to be considered as if it never happened. I don't want it remain a trace of my own withdrawn noms in this page. Furthermore it is completely useless. Thats why I'll remove these traces of my own withdrawn nominations from this page until today. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The FPBOT remove the closed nominations to this LOG. For the "withdrawed" nomination usually we are a few to move manually the nomination to the LOG. Unfortunaly at the bottom of the Commons:Featured picture candidates page there is nothing specified about that, and I would want to know if this is required (compulsory) or not. And that, specialy to avoid this kind of thing:
Copy from Jebulon talk page:
  • Original in french :
  Info La liste des candidates FP étant dans ma liste de suivie j'ai noté que tu as retiré 4 nominations "withdrawn" de la liste, c'est très bien mais il est d'usage de déplacer toutes ces nominations dans le Log du mois en cours en cours, le BOT se charge d'y amener les nominations qui arrivent à terme, malheureusement les "withdraw" sont à transférer manuellement, je l'ai fais pour celles que tu as sorti de la liste : [2]. Merci quand meme pour l'intention. Cordialement, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
C'est simplement du flicage, du traçage. Une annulation rend la présentation nulle et non avenue, ce qui signifie qu'elle n'est pas censée avoir eu lieu. Je ne suis donc pas d'accord. Mais en fait je m'en moque.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • English traduction :
  Info As the FP candidate list is in my watchlist I noticed that you have removed 4 nominations "withdrawn" from the list, that's fine but it is customary to move all these nominations to the LOG of the current month. The BOT do it for the nominations coming forward, unfortunately the "Withdrawed ones" are to be transferred manually, I did it for the ones you out of the list : [3]. Thank you anyway for the intention. Sincerely, --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
It is simply of tracking (policing), tracing. Cancellation makes null and void presentation, which means it is not supposed to have occurred. I do not agree. But actually I do not care.--Jebulon (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think logs of the withdrawn nominations are also a property of FPC but if the nominator don't want to archive their own withdrawn nominations, I don't care. Means not a compulsory, imho. --Laitche (talk) 10:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn does not mean it never happened. If I withdraw a nomination moments before the discussion are due to close because the votes mean it's going to fail, that does not mean the discussion never happened, it just means that I didn't allow it to go the full distance (by whatever amount of time). Then again, it's not like anyone actually goes through the log page, so does it really matter either way? -- KTC (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that withdrawn/FPX/FPDed noms are also moved to log by the bot after 9 days. But to avoid the clutter, we (some of us) remove them from the candidate list as soon as possible. In such cases, it is better to add them in log too. (I too agree; there seems not much use for the log page. Sometimes it is difficult to edit when bandwidth is limited. The bot had failed several time while editing it, earlier. That's why I created a temporary log to handle that crisis. Anyway that issue is solved, now. Jee 05:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    • In such cases, it is better to add them in log too. Why ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
      • "log" = "record"; "a ​full written ​record of a ​journey, a ​period of ​time, or an ​event." So it should be "full/complete" as far as it exists. An incomplete "log" may misleading for a "perfectionist". You know that.   Jee 02:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I also think that withdrawn nominations should go in the log. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Fragmented consensus

What happens when an image is nominated but a minor fix is needed, done, then re-uploaded with the fixes but then there's a request for a different format (TIF to JPG). Are all the supports combined for that one image, or is consensus calculated individually for each of the 3 images? It seems strange that an image uploaded as a TIF file would be considered different from an image uploaded as a JPG - hopefully the supports will be combined? Atsme😊Consult 22:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes


  •   Info
New: hello all, I am pleased to notify you the creation of this new image gallery for our friends the Charadriiformes birds with near 70 images!
Two other new galleries coming soon... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge November

There are a couple of photo challenges this month that I'm sure will interest the Feature Picture crowd.

  • Windows - Including stained-glass windows, of course, but perhaps you can find more unusual subjects?
  • Day and Night A pair of photos of the same subject, photographed during the daytime and at night.

Photos don't have to be taken during November (though that's certainly encouraged) but need to be completely new to Commons and uploaded during the challenge month. Hope this inspires you to get your camera out! -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Artiodactyla and Carnivora


  •   Info
New: As promised two new galleries were created, both are sub-galleries of the Mammals gallery.
--Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal about featuring rules and candidates for POTY

  • I know there were several times proposals in recent few years. Although I would like to propose about featuring rules below three.
1. At least eight support votes required.
2. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes more than 2/1. (8 support 4 oppose is not featured, needs 9 support in this case.)
3. About Rules of the 5th day. change 12 support votes from 10.
  • From the next year to be the candidates for POTY at least 12 support votes required, less than 12 support votes can be an FP but not a candidate for POTY.
  • What do you all think about that? --Laitche (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • +1. This feels like shovelling my own grave if I ever want to get another star, but: Maybe even go up to 10 pros minimum, as the really good ones seem to easily reach that nowadays, and 15 for 5th day. --El Grafo (talk)
  • El Grafo, Thanks for the comment. I think fifteen is too many because that might not be speedy promoted... --Laitche (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a little hard to maintain differen criteria for POTY candidates and FPs, simply because the votes aren't really stored anywhere in a way that is easily machine-readable from the file page. Even if it's technically easy to implement (I might be missing a simple way), it might be confusing. I think we should find one set of rules to match both, that should be possible. And I agree that a higher number of supports and a higher ratio are a good idea, but I'm sure there are opposite opinions. — Julian H. 10:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I think no problem only about the featuring rules. --Laitche (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Julian, Yes there are opposite opinions and I think when there are many support opinions, the proposal will pass. It's ok to take a long time to me :) --Laitche (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point in this. You'd have to convince me that in the last year (say) most of the images that pass with current rules that would fail with new rules are clearly images that we shouldn't have let become FP. If you want to collect a list of such images, then we can review whether the rules need tightened. Such analysis is hindered by the fact that supports may stop at 7 merely because that's the threshold, and they would have got another support had 8 been the threshold. My guess is there are a number of images that some people feel shouldn't have become FP that passed even with the proposed rules, and a number of images that unjustly failed to become FP even with the current rules. The problem is IMO more about misguided voting (for example, lazy "Like!" votes on images that are clearly not among our finest if anyone cared to look, and over-harsh pixel-peeping votes on excellent images with minor technical flaws). Fiddling with the threshold like this doesn't improve the quality of voting, it just makes for fewer FPs. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I cannot find any good idea to improve the quality of voting. That's why I've proposed this :) --Laitche (talk) 19:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Colin, I have confidence that I will never be able to convince you, so please convince you by yourself... --Laitche (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment 1. It is nice to raise/tighten the FP bars. But at the same time, we need to be careful not to stop exceptional works. FP is not QI. Here we occasionally except very rare and difficult to accomplish works. And they are the real stars in POTY compared to boring high quality works. 2. And, I don't think we can have separate rules for POTY as it become complicated and we need wide community consensus for it. (I've limited Internet connectivity now; so may not comment again.) Jee 02:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment if theres a problem with FP address that rather than fiddle with POTY and arbitrarily eliminate FP images from that. If there was a way to identify images that pass with high support 15+, 20+, no oppose or something have those images progress straight to stage 2 of the POTY voting would be a better solution then others which may not have drawn a large vote for numerous reason like it was nominated just before Wikimania, or a holiday season would still be able to included. The presumption that not many responders means it isnt a worthy image is a disservice to the contributors and the community and will put pressure on the other time periods as people will nominate when they know editing activity is at its highest,. This proposal is just creating a problem the community doesnt need. Gnangarra 04:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the proposal

  • Keep the FP standards. Members of FPC are increasing day by day therefore at least 7 support votes could not be keeping the FP standards. About Rules of the 5th day. 10 support votes are too few these days.
  • Assure the voting quality. Increasing the number of support votes to 9 or more might make it easy to support, so "at least 8 support votes" is better to keep the voting quality.
  • Slightly make stronger the oppose force. Generally they don't like to vote oppose because (I believe everyone knows) sometimes opposing cause a trouble then they tend to evade opposing even if they would oppose the nomination.
  • Avoid losing interest in the nominations. When the nomination got 7 support votes (featured in current rule), the members seem to be losing interests unless the nomination has outstanding attraction. If there is an one-step higher bar (a candidate for POTY in this proposal), they can keep the interests. (Like "This photo would deserve to be an FP but a candidate for POTY?")
  • Choose a candidate for POTY more carefully. When the nomination got 10 support, occasionally supporting party occurs in a stampede. If there is 12 bar for the POTY, the members would vote support carefully even the nomination got 10 support votes.
Regards and sorry for my poor English. --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


  • 1000 photos are too many for POTY candidates because they cannot check so many photos, around 300 photos are better. --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw this proposal. Thank you all of you! --Laitche (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes

     Info Hello all, there is a new gallery for our friends the birds of the order Pelecaniformes

--Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

New category needed

Hi, We need a new category for such places: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falu gruva (by Pudelek).JPG or Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nearly exhausted sulphur vat from which railroad cars are loaded, Freeport Sulphur Co., Hoskins Mound, Texas, 1a35438v.jpg. These are not about architecture. Opinions? Yann (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I will wait a few days or a week to see if someone oppose that or have another idea and I will create it...--Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  Done @Yann: I moved the gallery to Commons:Featured pictures/Industry. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


Some of you may be interested in this discussion: COM:ANU#User:Fotoriety. Thanks --A.Savin 12:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

New galleries for vehicules

  Info Hello all, as there was near 300 images in this former gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles, I divided it into four parts:

Very nice, thanks. I changed the aircraft logo to be less crashy. — Julian H. 15:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Voting expired problem

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Santa Croce in Gerusalemme (Rome) - interior.jpg

Currently says voting is over. But date give is 26th. I see User:Laitche has tried to fix it but not successfully and this will put off voters. Can someone who speaks bot have a look? Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done I think.... I tried to correct the timestamp with [4], I think it was wrong --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The nomination have been created the 14/11/15 but put in the list the 17/11/15, the BOT did his job properly and it is now closed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Humman Body Category

Where could be the right place for this cat? --The Photographer (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


(Pre-emptive comment) Yes, I know FPCBot is down. It was presumingly started by phab:T121305, but probably something else as well. Will (get others help to) investigate why it's still not working. -- KTC (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


After a voting for FP is finished, is there a specific person who choses the day for the new FP to appear or each proposer choses it? Sturm (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

My image not showing in the featured images candidates

I have nominated one of my images here Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Huma,_Sambalpur.jpg. It didn't show up in the Featured picture candidates page. Any suggestions?--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 09:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I've some suggestions. First, please nominate it again, as the nomination is not regular (it was never published). Secondly, how is it possible that an invisible nomination gets so many supporting votes of non regular users in FPC (you don't need to answer, it's an ironic question)?. When you renominate it and publish it here, please, please stop canvassing. Thank you. Poco2 10:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank You very much Poc for your suggestions. Yes, I have asked some people to vote as I thought it was normal. I think I'm not going to nominate that image again. Feeling bad about that.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 14:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That's a wise decision. Surely you have other good pictures Poco2 14:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

New galleries

The family is growing... here are two new FP galleries:

  • Glad to see more plant FPs! Thanks for your maintenance works too! Jee 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Featured sets are not being displayed

Please see Commons talk:Featured pictures#Featured set invisible. This is a bad and ongoing problem, and it's also bad that no-one seems to be monitoring Commons talk:Featured pictures at all. I hope someone will take care of this problem as soon as possible. If not, I will have to provisionally oppose all future featured picture sets that are nominated, until this is dealt with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Increasing max number of nominations

I kind of hate to ask this, but I'm sort of falling behind on nominations of content I'm restoring whenever I'm in an active period; and when I'm not in an active production period, I'm generally not up to editing at all. I think 3 nominations at once would be more practical... though I suspect my request may face some controversy.

I mean, I don't intend to nominate everything here. File:Vivian Malone registering.jpg, for example, is valuable, but probably not Commons' thing as the value comes from the unique historical events surrounding it mitigating the composition issues. However, to give some idea:

All were created in January, and none are yet nominated here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


This year's POTY seems delayed probably due to lack of volunteer manpower. Interesting people can talk with the previous team and offer some helps if needed. Jee 09:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Change the number of votes to feature a picture?

For those of you who are concerned about maintaining standards: Do you think it would be a good idea to require a 3-to-1 ratio of Support to Oppose and/or require at least 10 Support votes for a feature? I think 10 votes are too many but I could imagine supporting either a 3-to-1 ratio or perhaps at least 7 more Support than Oppose votes, which is another thought. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I believe as it is now is OK --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no need for any change of rules --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a few years ago, we increased the number of support votes needed from 5 to 7. It is good now, I think.--Jebulon (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jebulon an we need more constructive criticism for all our FP candidates!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Also, 10 votes are too many (it's good you thought about that too).
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokéfan95 (talk • contribs)
  •   Oppose as Jebulon --Hubertl 19:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

New proposal

  •   Comment A 3-to-1 ratio is probably too much, but I would support a slight change. Instead of a 2 supports >= 1 oppose ratio, I would support a 2 supports > 1 oppose ratio, and may be an increase to 8 votes instead of 7. That means that 8 supports with 4 opposes would fail, instead of being promoted now. I may shoot myself in the foot here, as a number of my nominations wouldn't pass with this rule... ;) Regards, Yann (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 with Yann, since a long time I wanted to increase to 8 support. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 I am also fine with increasing the threshold in those 2 ways that Yann proposed. A 3:1 rule + minimum 10 supports goes IMHO a bit too far. Poco2 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy with increasing the threshold to 8 but complicating the majority rules seems unnecessary. A "two-thirds majority" is a common concept and easy to explain -- changing that to some non-standard "more than two-thirds" seems to be just tinkering for little gain and possible confusion. I'd far rather see our expert photographers lend their eyes to those reviewing and voting, *cough* Poco_a_poco *cough*, to ensure some better standards applied, rather than merely trying to compensate for the increase in !Like votes by cranking up the minimum. The danger of cranking up the minimum too high is that only populist photos succeed and photos that require a little effort to appreciate will fail. -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Intuitively the current system does not require a majority of two-thirds. To me, a majority, means 50% + 1, not just 50%. Just my 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
en:Supermajority#Two-thirds_vote -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-1 Why this sudden need for a change ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-1 please more focus to the FP candidates, not for the counting of the votes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-1 per Jebulon and Alchemist-hp --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-1 Uh, do you think we really need this change? -- Poké95 12:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I should say that I'm neutral on this proposal. I merely brought up the idea of toughening voting rules because there are some people who are concerned about maintaining or strengthening standards for what is considered a Featured Picture. Maybe I should make a confession here: Not everything I vote for gives me a "Wow!" If I voted against everything except that which truly wowed me, I would vote against most nominations. But I don't think that would be fair, actually. If I see a picture that has a very good composition, seems technically sound to my eye (which is not able to discern every kind of technical fault) and pleases me, I generally think that's a good enough photo to feature. Berlioz was a much flashier orchestrator than Schubert, but both were great composers. Similarly, I think that some great photos provoke contentment or quiet contemplation or move the viewer, rather than wow them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps "wow" isn't always the appropriate word. But it needs to be special. Otherwise I'm afraid a good composition and technical soundness are what QI is about and if you are supporting on that level then IMO that's harmful to this forum. FP is more than "good enough": it is about the "finest". Often that means looking at our existing featured pictures and at our existing images in that domain (using the "Good pictures" button for a category is a great tool -- when it works). If an image is no better than many others or countless QIs then it isn't "among our finest". I don't think it helps FP for nominators or reviewers to be satisfied with "good". It has to be "great". The best way to improve the standard at FP is to up-calibrate our definition of "great", rather than expect some numerical vote-counting algorithm to compensate for !like votes. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do you not sometimes offer weak or moderate support to a nomination? If you do, I would submit that photo is not among the very best on the site. I'll have more to say in a second. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I didn't say a merely "good" composition; I said a "very good composition". There is a difference. Plus, I find that quite a few Quality Images don't have a very good composition, merely one that's adequate for the reviewers to consider it "Quality", in conjunction with adequate technical achievement. I find that Quality Images range from not that good to great. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
To elaborate: Right now, the FP candidates that "wow" me are the statue of Aphrodite, purely because the statue itself is a great artwork and the picture of it is so impressive, User:Johann Jaritz's picture of an Alpine village, User:Uoaei1's cyrpt picture, User:Diliff's 2 pictures, the picture of the Cave of Hercules, Livio's picture of the dome and ceiling, maybe his sacristy ceiling picture (I can't view it at full size right now), the panorama under that, half a wow for the mushroom picture because the mushrooms themselves are a wow, the video, Moroder's pic that isn't going to be featured, probably the two village views under that, the Rococo engraving, and the hill elevator pic. That's a few more than I thought it would be, but it's leaving out some excellent pics. Are you suggesting that I should actually vote against every pic that doesn't wow me, even if I appreciate it the way I appreciate many really good landscape paintings, which when viewing them, I don't think "wow" but simply enjoy the experience of looking at the overall form and all its aspects? I think this is an important discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have a related question for you: You probably have a sense of the nature of my reviewing. As I said, I don't always see the kinds of technical faults you folks, who have much more skill and knowledge about digital photography technique, perceive. But other than that: Do you find my standards particularly lax? To be sure, User:Karelj opposes many more photos than I do, but it's not like I support everything. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
One more remark, and then I'll await your (or anyone else's) reply: When I looked at Moroder's Venice pic, my first thought was that Venice would be so well represented by incredibly fantastic FPs that his nomination would fall short in my eyes. But then I looked at FPs in the Venice category, and the quality was surprisingly low, with quite a few photos that didn't look at all great to me. In that context, his very good photo should be featured, in my opinion, especially because it's also informative. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm still awaiting some feedback, but today, I've toughened my standards a bit, keeping in mind the "must have a wow" criterion. I expect to vote against more shallow DoF photos on that basis, abstain less and resume annoying a bunch of people because of that. But we should have a separate conversation about historical photos, and restorations of them. The picture of the Maori Battalion in Africa is particularly relevant. What standards do you think we should use? I do not use the same standards to judge historical photos that I use to judge current-day digital images and definitely take the historical importance of the images in question strongly into account, but one could argue that my standards are too permissive because of that. I'd refer you to the subthread started by User:El Grafo in the nomination thread for that image. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm busy with Photo Challenge right now. Will get back to you. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
By all means. Take your time, and I'll carry on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: Personally, I give more importance on the educative value of nominations than most others. I support images with a slight lower quality standard if the image has a high EV, and I would oppose if the image has a low EV, even if the quality is high (i.e. File:Brighton MMB 34 West Pier.jpg). And in many cases, I don't vote where my opinion wouldn't change the result in one way or the other. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. I voted to feature that picture. I think that presenting a great composition of any kind is in itself educational, although it is mainly enjoyable per se. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: I feel exactly like Yann, as one can see, even in votes either in my nominations. I deeply think that "FP" page is NOT a "super QI" page, but something very different. Educational or encyclopedical or cultural values (in any meanings), or historical value, or rarity, ar essential factors. I don't vote when I'm not interested by the subject, or if my vote wouldn't change the result. Keep in mind that one single oppose vote among many supports has only one consequence: let the picture stay longer in the queue of candidates.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with that closing remark. Nobody is compelled to vote so if one can't be bothered voting when it makes no difference, that is up to you I suppose. But if the implication is that one shouldn't vote when it makes no difference, and that doing so clogs up FPC, then I protest. If you support the picture for FP then support. If you oppose the picture for FP then oppose. If you are not sure then abstain. The existing votes should make no difference. Let's not be sheep. -- Colin (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek: I generally follow a different approach than Yann and Jebulon. I try (!) to look at the image as a whole first, in the sense of "is it a good image?" Would I consider printing it to hang it on my wall? Could I imagine it being printed in a high-class magazine (like National Geographic)? Would this be a worthy candidate for "picture of the year", at least in its group? This includes things like composition, lighting, and considerations like "is this a really freakin' awesome sunset or just a regular beautiful one?". When I'm sufficiently WOW-ed, I still have a look at the technical quality (sharpness, noise etc.) and check if it's useful at all, but it's not that important. When I'm not sufficiently WOW-ed by the overall impression, I see if I can find my wow somewhere else. That's where I start looking for things like very high educational value or incredible detail, which could tun my mind towards supporting an otherwise "meh" file. At Wikipedia FPC, I would probably follow a different approach, focusing more on EV. Here at Commons we also have QIC and VIC, so I'm focusing more on WOW at FPC. But that's just my personal view, and I think it's a good thing that we have different people with different perspectives!
BTW, what I like about your votes (regardless of whether I agree with them or not) is that you take some time to provide a reason for why you vote the way you do, usually in more than just 2 words. Keep it up! --El Grafo (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your thought process. I will continue providing reasons. I think that when it's not blindingly obvious why I'm voting a certain way, I kind of owe it to the person who took the effort to take, upload and nominate the photo to think about why I do or don't support featuring it, and to give them some reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

[Unindent] Let's talk more about the meaning of education and educational content:

Educational content is indeed central to this site, as mentioned above. This is from Commons:Project:

The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

*that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and

*that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative".

So I would agree that if a photo is right on the cusp on being featurable based purely on considerations of technical quality and the quality of its composition, factors like its informational value and/or historical significance should put it over the top. The degree to which a reviewer is affected by these factors will vary, but it is welcome to remind everyone of the centrality of this site's educational mission.

However, there's an implication we need to address explicitly, and that is that a photo that is sublime or beautiful purely in artistic terms is not thereby per se educational. I would call that argument a philistine one that is similar to arguments used in the United States to deprecate and defund arts education and arts professions, based on the idea that if something is not obviously utilitarian, it has no value. Extending this kind of argument to a site that pointedly serves as a repository of art - as photography is a form of art, not merely a type of documentation (and one great example of this is the beautiful light microscope photos we've been seeing at FPC recently) - is abhorrent, anti-intellectual and anti-aesthetic, in my opinion, and something to be condemned and rooted out, not promoted. So I hope no-one really means to use this kind of reasoning or vote based on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The definition of educational is very broad and at one extreme a matter for Commons:Scope deletions to worry about. But take the classic problem of sunset photos. Sunsets are beautiful and a good photo of a sunset could well be used in encyclopaedia article on sunsets or on an educational book, etc etc. But one can exchange one decent sunset image for another and it has exactly the same educational utility. And not only are sunset photos interchangeable and common, sunsets are themselves common. We have thousands of decent sunset photos and plenty opportunity for any one of us to take more. So the educational value of one sunset photo is low. Whereas File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg has imo higher educational value to the project. There are no other pictures on Commons of the interior of this building (than the few I took) and only a handful on the rest of the internet, none of which are large or high quality enough to be printable. I'm sure most of the photographers here could pick similar examples from their portfolio. The church is a listed building of quite significant architectural note, and quite unique. The stained glass window is by a notable artist. So both the sunset and the church photos could illustrate an article equally satisfactorily. But I don't think they are equal in terms of educational value on Commons.
I don't think we should raise "educational" above all other factors. It's a defining feature of this site just as "freely licensed" is. But it isn't a binary quality. There are degrees and they should be weighed against all the other qualities we look for like great light, great composition, high technical quality, superb detail and so on. -- Colin (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree and thank you for that eloquent statement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Ikan, you may be interested in the discussion at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg. It failed to become featured on Commons (though is an FP on Wikipedia). -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, definitely interesting. I would have voted to feature that photo, based on your explanation of the technique. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: correction: "though it is an FP on english Wikipedia"... That's the difference ! We all have our wikipedias in our own languages. "Commons" is multilingual and unique. I think that you, our native english-speaking friends, don't have the same perception of this difference...It is normal, I suppose.--Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Jebulon, I'm aware of the difference between WP and Commons. I still think the image has educational value beyond merely illustrating an article on ICM and that ironically it is because many on Commons are still stuck in a "Repository for Wikipedia" mindset that the image failed. There is far far more to educational imagery than an standard photograph of a noun. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, ok. Just another "Babel tower" language misunderstanding. My opinion is that we have on the web many other "beauty contests" for photographs and photographers egos, and that "Commons" FPC is something else, something different, maybe something more. Do you agree ? Sorry if I'm still "stuck"...:)--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
If it is "something else" then what is it? I'm now puzzled what you think FP is compared to QI. Earlier you say "Educational or encyclopedical or cultural values (in any meanings), or historical value, or rarity, are essential factors" yet most of these are not aspects of the image but attributes of the subject [I'm dealing with images we take/make, rather than paintings or photos that someone else made a long time ago, say]. Surely QI is full of photos of historical subjects, rare subjects, cultural subjects but the image has no spark, nothing special about it, no technical excellence, no wonderful light, no exceptional composition. I don't see how "rare historical subject + DSLR + knowing how to operate it" makes an FP. Surely the thing about why a QI becomes an FP is an exceptional image. If the subject is exceptional in a visual way, then that helps. And wrt "egos" do you think our photographers should not seek the approval of their peers for having created something of excellence? Perhaps we should all take the "BY" out of our "CC BY-SA" photos and stop nominating our own images? So why do you think Commons FPC is different? Why do you claim Commons is different to Wikipedia, if all you want to take/nominate/support are images that are suitable for Wikipedia articles on nouns? -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with Colin. Educational value may be a factor (among others) when determining pictures that rank among our very best - but EV should always be understood in the broadest terms possible. I'd go as far as to say that even a picture that is lacking any tangible, definable material content and that is therefore just representing an idea, a concept, or an abstract quality (cf Category:Abstract photography) is still of high "educational value" in its own right. Thus we must not consider ourselves humble servants of rather limiting (and necessarily always) contemporary encyclopedic notions. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Totally agree with both of you, Colin and Martin, but I think I can see what Jebulon means by "beauty contest". If you have a look at what is popular on other photo sharing sites like 500px or flickr, there is a difference to what gets featured on Commons. Most of the stuff there could be featured here as well, but there are also many pictures we would reject because they are "overprocessed", have no educational value to speak of or are just plain "fake" (some quick examples: [5], [6], [7], [8]). I think Commons FPC currently fills a niche right in the middle between QI, VI and Wikipedia FPC (at least the English and German language versions) on the one hand and pages like flickr and 500px on the other hand. I think that's a good thing, and we should strive to keep it that way. --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for judging historical photos

I'm grateful for the discussion above and agree with the points Colin and Martin Falbisoner are making about beauty and educational value. I want to focus on this part, though:

I don't see how "rare historical subject + DSLR + knowing how to operate it" makes an FP. Surely the thing about why a QI becomes an FP is an exceptional image.

Colin, I definitely agree with your characterization of the difference between a garden-variety QI and a FP, but do you use exactly the same standards in judging a historical photo as you do to judge a present-day digital image? I'm guessing not, at least in technical aspects. Do any of you have specific thoughts about how best to judge historic photos from the pre-digital age? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, My criteria: it should of very good quality according to the technical capabilities of the time it was taken (composition, exposition, etc.), and it should have a high EV, either as depicting a personality or for some scientific (e.g. ethnographic) interest. The main difference with digital images is noise, which is quite inevitable in most argentic pictures. My 2 Rs. Yann (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Yann and I probably don't review many historical images. However, the really old ones are probably better judged as reproductions of a work-of-art rather than as a contemporary photo albeit with technical limitations. The rule "among our finest work" still serves well within that class of image. -- Colin (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting and makes sense. Thanks for the responses, Yann and Colin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


I goofed on a nomination for spotted trunkfish. Please delete it and I'll start over. My apologies. Atsme 📞 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme:   Deleted Poco2 21:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How long a wait after withdrawing?

How long should we wait after withdrawing a nomination, before we nominate another picture? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no wait time. If a nomination is withdrawn, it isn't active anymore and a new one can be started Poco2 23:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought maybe we should wait a day for the bot to remove it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The bot is not removing them. It has to be done manually Poco2 00:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
That sucks. What's the procedure for manually removing it? Where is it moved to? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It should be moved in the archive, like other nominations. Yann (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
As you maybe know, I disagree with that, and I'll remove from archives page all my withdrawn nominations...--Jebulon (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Jebulon: Hi, Could you explain please? Regards, Yann (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
C'est ma conception du retrait. Si je retire une candidature en cours, celle-ci est considérée comme nulle et non avenue, et ne doit donc pas figurer en archives.--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried but did it wrong. Have a look please. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Open the Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list
copy {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male Galápagos red-footed booby.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2016), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list. I did it, see [9]
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I add it's not an issue if you don't want to do such thing yourself, it is not compulsory for the "withdrawner" to do it himself. If you don't do it, some experienced editors will do it. But thanks for helping, you're welcome. :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've also updated Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log and added 2016's. -- KTC (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Should I add the "Support" and "Oppose" votes to the moved thread? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Introduce delay?

I would be in favour of a delay before renominating after withdrawing a candidate. Otherwise there is no incentive to take any care over choosing images that really are "among our finest" and every incentive to keep nominating your max 2 images at all times in the hope that you get lucky some of the time. How about if both FPX and Withdrawal did not actually remove the candidate from the list, but merely marked the discussion as closed. Then the nominator would be required to wait the full term before their nomination count dropped. The usual short-cut for pile-on-support candidates still applies, giving incentive to those who nominate obviously excellent images. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a harsh penalty. I'd consider it reasonable to require someone to wait 2 days, maybe 3, and we could discuss a longer delay if it's necessary to compromise between opposing camps. But what you're proposing is, if someone nominates a picture and then withdraws it the next day, they'd have to wait almost 2 weeks before being able to nominate a replacement. A lot of the nominees that fail are not featured not because they are obviously bad pictures but because of aesthetic differences on what qualities people consider necessary for a picture to wow them. If we impose too harsh a penalty, then rather than simply discouraging people from putting up obviously inappropriate nominees, we'd also be discouraging people from putting up anything offbeat that they think is great but which might prove controversial on this board. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, I probably have an unusual perspective on this question because I always nominate other people's pictures, so if you penalize me for nominating a picture I think is great and others don't, what is the effect of that? Probably to discourage me from nominating pictures at all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, no, I don’t share this kind of “punishment”-measures. The bottomline is whether this rule would help the project, and I have serious doubts about it. I believe that independently of how many FPCs a user is nominating, only those that deserve the FP should, and will get it. If this premise is wrong then we should look for the source of this problem and not trying to “fix” it with measure like this one. Poco2 09:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I take exception to describing this as "punishment", and it is just an idea thrown in for discussion. Look at it this way, the standard "fair" procedure for all images is that they get 9 days of assessment. So most people only get to nominate two images every nine days at most. The Dillif's of the community, who frequently nominate images that swiftly gather unanimous support of 10 reviewers will have their images promoted after only five days. So that's a reward: they can nominate again more frequently than the average. But at the same time, we currently "reward" those who (a) nominate images that are clearly below standard or (b) who wish to abandon a borderline nomination so they can move onto another. Those nominators are also permitted to nominate more regularly than the standard. Does that "help the project"? It would be quite possible to nominate and after a couple of days, decide the wind is not blowing favourably, withdraw and immediately nominate another dubious image. This wastes reviewers time on images that could have been more carefully selected in the first place. And it can be used to game the system by frequently nominating a conveyor-belt of QI-level images in the hope that a minority pass for being "nice". So, rather than accusing my suggestion of being a "fix" or a "punishment", I ask why do we give special treatment to those who nominate clear-failures or who voluntarily short-circuit the review process. -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
You make a good point. Would you be willing to compromise by making someone who posted a withdrawn or FPX picture wait 5 days before nominating a replacement? One thing you're not considering is that by withdrawing, the nominator is being responsible in not making someone else decide whether or not to put in the FPX template, but maybe you don't consider that an important point. I'm not convinced we have a huge problem with time-wasting nominations right now, though. It's not like we have a hundred nominees every week or something. I'll also add something else: If I think a picture is great but I'm not sure others will agree, I figure that nominating it is the only way to find out. If you'd rather, when in doubt, I could post a link here, but first of all, I doubt many people would want to discuss a picture on this talk page and second, it would take the same time that discussion of a nomination could take. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
If we de facto remove the possibility of a withdrawn (as new nominations are blocked) then the motivation to use it would be really low and most reviewers will actually have more work to do reviewing images that the author under normal conditions would have already closed. That is in my eyes a bigger waste of time than reviewing the candidates that have not be properly been chosen by the nominator. I've the feeling that we are just chasing ghosts and try to fix problems that are not existing. I cannot think of any nominator right now that would be well-known for nominating a picture after the other that has no chance to become FP. I think like this, if we introduce a measure like this we will introduce a measure for a non-existing problem and we will also introduce 2 additional problems: we need to track that kind of things (either with a bot, maybe mid/long term, otherwise manually) and we could be prevent nominators from proposing images that would deserve the FP star. I don't see any trade-off here --Poco2 22:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
There are some users who often nominate photos that are featured on one or a few languages' Wikipedias but are not really to the standard of a Commons FP, but I can't think of any user who nominates a lot of pictures and never gets any of them featured. If you'd like, I could be explicit about a particular user I'm thinking of in this instance, but I think it's best not to single out users who are obviously nominating in good faith. I think that it should be assumed that any nomination of a photo that's featured on any other Wikimedia project is in good faith and in no way frivolous. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I am an exception. I submit a lot of good faith nominations that ultimately fail horribly. And it's never because the quality is poor. A lot of the subject matter I work with or the artistic choices I make do not match with general reviewers opinions. So my ratio of success is actually pretty low, but I still have over 40 featured pictures. I mean, this is one of my favorite pictures. I believe beyond a doubt that it should be a featured picture, but some others did not. I nominated this picture three times (1, 2, 3). Each time is received more support votes than oppose votes (if any at all!) and yet it never reached quorum. The nominator should not be punished because the votes of the reviewers are not known ahead of time. -- Ram-Man 02:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Are you an exception? I don't know. I like that covered bridge picture, though. Maybe you should nominate it again, but I'll leave that to your discretion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  Comment I see where you want to go, but I don't think your proposal offers more advantages than issues, as mentioned above. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments folks. It wasn't a serious/fully-though-out proposal. And the discussion is one of the reasons I'm so against the urge-to-vote we often have on Commons. Ram-Man, you are certainly not one of the "conveyor-belt" nominators, are there are a few of those, and I note that none of the FPCs you linked to were withdrawn or FPX'd. So you nominated in good faith and had to wait the 9 days like the rest of us. Adam is another person who typically has to endure the full length of candidacy, watching support trickle in, and it must be galling for him to see others nominate half a dozen images during that period, chucking nominations into the pot to see what works. This absolutely isn't about punishing. This isn't a game to get some FP high score, so after a nomination fails miserably, I'd do some self-reflection about what makes an FP and whether I'd checked the categories/peer-photos well enough to judge if it is among the finest. I don't think a healthy response to a miserable failure is to nominate another as quickly as possible. But Ikan I'm not picking on you here for asking, as it certainly seems you do a fair bit of thinking about your nominations even if they aren't always successful - hopefully your hit rate will go up. Ram-Man, I can see why you like your bark nomination and I can imagine it succeeding if it attracted some quick support. Sometimes it is a bit of a gamble what mood the community is in when you nominate. -- Colin (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

  Comment - I definitely do think hard before nominating a picture. I tend to trawl through current Quality Images and Valued Images (favoring the ones that are also Quality), and also Quality Image Candidates. The first thing I look for is the feeling it gives me - is it truly special? Do I fully like the composition? The second thing I look for is anything in full size that disturbs me, such as noise or unsharpness. The third thing I do is to think hard about what in the picture might provoke Oppose votes, even if I consider it deserving. After all of that, I'm left with perhaps one or two pictures I'm considering at any given time. Sometimes, I've missed factors because I didn't know enough about voters' criteria, and I certainly do pay attention to reviewers' Oppose summaries and consider them in deciding whether to nominate a picture the next time. Sometimes, as with the wayside shrine picture that looks like it won't make it because of harsh light and shadows, I know that there are things about the photo that are risky but like it so much, I nominate it anyway and let the reviewers make a decision. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white

Hello all, I am pleased to announce the creation of a new gallery for modern black and white photography. I specified on the gallery page "after the 70s", but feel free to modify that.
I have not finished searching the images that will be included. If someone adds images in this gallery, please be careful not to remove them from their original gallery, e.g. a people portrait, even if black and white, must be also displayed in the people gallery. Then normally all images in this gallery should also be in another relevant gallery.
I will soon include the gallery in the navigational template.
@INeverCry: you wanted to be pinged.
Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


City Talk Pages XKCD

I liked the article picture discussions. I checked my latest picture and am confident there are no murders. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

"Why is this town so bad at committing murders?" ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the latest xkcd is hilarious, albeit a bit unrealistic compared to how boring city talk pages usually are, but either way, I think this talk page is a really weird place to discuss it :p (I assume NOTFORUM is also in effect on Commons) (But yeah, check your photographs for incidental murders before nominating them for Featured Picture) ~Mable (chat) 07:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
And if there is one, point it out for giving extra value at showing why your city sucks. Someone will then be along to murder you sortly for insulting your city. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Paolo Monti

You may have heard of the Category:Photographs by Paolo Monti release that Commons:BEIC made, 17k photos from the fund of one of the most important Italian photographers of the 20th century. There are many hidden jewels, but you may want to start digging the list of images above 2 MPx that I made. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

mode=packed-overlay sucks over mobile broadband, mode=packed-hover might be better. There should be something for the new Featured pictures/Black and white in your list, thanks. –Be..anyone 💩 05:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Federico Leva (BEIC), many thanks for your effort, every external donation of images is highly appreciated. However, we should be cautious here, also regarding FP nominations. There are several photos of contemporary architecture, and Italy sadly has no Freedom of Panorama. And it is rather unlikely that Monti had also got permissions by the copyright holders of that buildings to distribute photos of them. I'm afraid that many of the donated photos must be deleted for this reason. --A.Savin 11:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Max number of nominations

I'm not terribly surprised at this result: The actual arguement for the increase wasn't even on the page for most of it - a badly-formatted discussion was arbitrarily made into a vote by someone other than the person proposing the change, and this is going too screw over a much-needed change for ages. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your method was indeed not good and with this method, the result was inevitable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Christian, you turned the "result" into "yes" or "no", by making it a vote. Better for all if we keep our support/oppose templates for the FPC pages and use a talk page for, em, talking. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I consider myself responsible neither the departure nor the course of this. He said "I'm going to up the number of maximum nominations to three, and see if anyone complains.", I said not agree because there was not even a beginning of consensus. He said "I *did* open a vote, and it ran for a month. No-one voted on it, and it was archived". Then I voted and he had what he asked for, this is his method not mine. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
And when I talked about vote, I talked about "consensus" of course. If there was a consensus after a discussion, I very likely said nothing here. I have some kind of allergy to people who say "I have no answer so I consider that everyone agrees", it is same because of a similar case that I almost gave up my administrator statut. Although I learned to approach the matter a little quieter way, I still don't like this method. This is of course my views and I have no forced anyone to follow me, if anyone has better direction than mine so follow them and don't follow me. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Christian, I'm not blaming you for Adam's bad assumption that lack-of-response = consensus. And although it is confusing that Adam said "I *did* open a vote, and it ran for a month. No-one voted on it, and it was archived", he didn't actually "open a vote" nor did he request one. He made a suggestion, and got no reply. My point is that Adam's suggestion was open to full discussion -- someone might have suggested any number of alternative options. But you restricted the discussion to merely yes or no when you voted, and afterwards everyone just voted. And I don't think that is helpful, at least until discussion seems to be forming some consensus. Polling should be merely a check at the end of discussion, rather than as replacement for discussion. I don't think this would have changed the outcome here -- that there's no enthusiasm for changing the limits -- but it might in another discussion. In addition to the Wikipedia page I mentioned already, see also m:Polls are evil. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Although I don't disagree with this kind of essay, I do not attach much importance to them. And I even consider them with suspicion because I don't like very much great explanations of what is good or bad...that is too rigid for me, and perhaps can even be sometimes unproductive in my opinion. At the time I did not see other ways to prevent him changing the rules, his wording pushed me to put the first vote. Maybe I was right maybe not, I don't care, this was action-reaction. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come. I had an essay typed up that was archived about the justification. This was not unarchived. I suggested, after you objected to it, that we start up a discussion - before any formal setting-out of the discussion could even be started, you linked this from the main page without the case for the change having been unarchived. If you start a vote without letting the case for the change be presented on the page, then I'm not even sure the vote above is even valid. Would people have voted differently had the proposal not been misrepresented, e.g. "Adam-special rule where you alone are permitted what others aren't." - I was suggesting the change for everyone. We don't know, and we're not going to have a valid judgement on the proposal, because by starting the vote so cack-handedly, we didn't get a proper discussion of the issue. We'd have been better off if I had just changed the rule - at least we would have had a place to discuss from that way, and would have seen the change proposed, without misrepresentation of what was being voted on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Do you believe that someone has visions problems that you write in bold? is it a sacred text? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


Botched Steve McCurry Print Leads to Photoshop Scandal

Interesting article & comments. I guess we, at Commons, are somewhere between photojournalism (where no cloning retouching is allowed at all) and photo art (where anything goes), but closer to the former. I'm surprised McCurry's out-of-camera unprocessed images are available to allow a before/after test, and that he employs people to perform significant artistic post-processing on his images. In the comments section, one person posts an image by Andris Apse (to see the image, you have to click "more", or go to this page) of a boat tossed about in front of some fearsome rocks. It apparently is a composite of two images: one of the boat at just the right angle (a boat that was hired to be there for the photo) and one of the waves breaking on the rocks. This sort of thing has been done since the very early days of photography. I guess that is OK to combine the best of two photos taken seconds apart. I've certainly done this with stitched photos, selecting some frames rather than another because they include better light or a person at a better position or to remove people or vehicles. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Good point. I guess Commons can and should be a media repository for anything and everything. Major post processing, i.e. serious deviations from what would normally be considered "conventional" image creating, must be made as transparent as possible though. Boundaries will always be in a constant state of flux of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with Martin. As long as the author indicates the retouching he made I'm fine with any photoshopping. --Code (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
  • And source files could be uploaded to Commons Archive to underestand the procedure. --The Photographer (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on intent. If it's meant to be a photo of someone, and you edit out the boom mike dangling into the shot, who cares? But if you're changing the inherent nature of the view, or misrepresenting an event, it gets a lot more dodgy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we all agree, more or less. As long as you don't deceive the viewer, all is fine. Please use the "retouched" template and explain what you did, then your good faith is proven. Adam and I do so for restoration of old photographs.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I have to admit I don't always label the exact details of restorations, but I do label them as restorations and provide the original for comparison. This is because a comparison is often more to the point than a simple list, e.g. it shows exactly where the major changes happened. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Yeah, for restorations where there are often hundreds of very minor changes that add up to a big overall difference, it's hard to specify exactly what you've done, and a before and after comparison is more useful than an explanation. For many traditional photos though, it may not be desirable or reasonable to expect to see the 'original', given that the original is an unprocessed RAW image. I can imagine that publishing the before and after in that case could result in unwarranted accusations that you've overprocessed it, when in actual fact, you've brought the image from being underprocessed back to where it should be to more accurately match what you saw either with your actual eyes, or in your mind's eye. An original RAW file isn't necessarily the right way to look at what a photo 'should look like' and isn't even what the camera would output if you shot JPG instead of RAW. Diliff (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Well said! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Agreed. Another case: It's pretty common to get focus stacking or stitched panoramas; we surely can't expect everyone to upload all their source photos, even if that might be a theoretical "best practice". Metered internet exists throughout large parts of the world, and the sheer annoyance of preparing and organizing the uploads would likely put people off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I consider post-processing as an integral part of digital photography. I have a lot of fun to spend hours editing images. Look at this, I'm not doing all this for all my images, far from it, but if I judge that to be necessary and that there is potential in a RAW file, then I can spend hours in post-processing experimentations. And I have no shame in that. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Well, I agree with all of you, and especially share Christian's opinion: post-processing is a real pleasure, either for old or modern images.--Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Why not simply upload us source files (RAW, Photoshop, Panorama files...) to Commons Archive and use the template {{Commons Archive|<MY_SOURCE_FILES>.<ZIP>}} ? just like this image description (source) --The Photographer (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Because that doesn't describe or even alert anyone that the image has been altered. -- Colin (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • When a image is altered with photoshop you can see the history. Uploading the photoshop file to Commons Archive could help. --The Photographer (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The history is usually meaningless. Random text about slices and masks. No, it needs a readable everyday-language explanation such as "Removed tourists" or "Cloned out overhead wires". -- Colin (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree with the word "altered". Why not "improved" ?   --Jebulon (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Ha, well I'm not sure the boy that was removed in McCurry's water football photo would think it an improvement :-). -- Colin (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Did I screw up here, or is this just a minor bot thing?,_full-length_portrait,_seated_in_front_of_fireplace,_1896.jpg&redirect=no

I moved the nomination because I learnt the image had a proper title, so thought it'd simplify things to have the nomination match the file name. The bot seems to have closed the redirect... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Rule on renominating unsuccessful candidates

Everyone: In view of the discussion at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Couillet - chevalements de la mine du Pêchon - 7.jpg/2, I ask: Is there currently any rule governing the amount of time that must elapse before an unsuccessful FP candidate can be renominated? Is there a different rule in cases in which that nominee was not successful for specific reasons and the photographer or photo restorer has taken steps in the interim to address the criticisms that were made?

I guess my feeling is, if no changes have been made, perhaps we should never allow an unsuccessful candidate to be renominated. However, if we do want to allow this, I'd suggest a mandatory 12-month waiting period and a further rule, that the previous vote count had to number at least 5 "support" votes and be supported by at least a 2:1 ratio minus 2 votes. I propose this because at least that's close to the requirements of 7 votes with at least a 2:1 ratio of "support" to "oppose" votes, and renominating candidates that lost something like 7-3 or 15-8 is a waste of everyone's time. However, if changes have been made to the photo in direct response to criticism, I would suggest for there to be no waiting period at all.

What say you all? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on lots of explicit rules with 7 of this and 5 of that and 12 of the other. en:Instruction creep. Of course, if the image has been significantly improved then a renomination is appropriate. And I would be understanding if a nomination got derailed for some reason (e.g., concerns over deletion/copyright that were unfounded, alternatives proposed (late) that split the vote, possible revenge or other prejudiced voting, etc) and a fresh attempt could be fairer. But I wouldn't want to restrict on how well/badly the previous nomination went. We can see that photos with lots of wow get lots of support quickly. So there are no shortage of eyes viewing images. So an image with little support either has lots of implicit "now wow" votes or has attracted some early negative comments that is putting others off. Renominating relatively soon afterwards will just get the same eyes and seems like an attempt to hope that perhaps one opposer isn't watching this time, or one more potential supporter can be bothered this time, which isn't really playing fair. Nine days are usually plenty time to get enough votes. We have a 7 votes after nine days threshold for a reason -- if we kept nominations open indefinitely then many would reach that number purely on the casual like! votes. A delay of 12 months, say, is enough that perhaps a cultural or critical shift in how we review images may have occurred that mean the image might be looked on more favourably this time, and so a re-nomination could be appropriate. But why make more rules to add to our huge instruction page? This doesn't happen very often, and if it does, we can refer to this discussion rather than quoting some hard rule. And I wouldn't want some rule to encourage people to look through their failed-noms archive and resurrect them to play FP roulette again -- I'd expect some explanation why they feel the image deserves another chance, rather that merely state it is allowed per the rules. -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that an explanation should be necessary in the case of a renomination, but if in practice we would look askance at a renomination of an unchanged picture in less than 12 months, what's the downside to adopting that as a rule? Have there been many cases of unchanged pictures being approved on their second go-around even when it was more than a year prior? We fairly recently had a renomination of a picture of a dance festival in Budapest that was shot down for being unimproved. I think it had last been nominated in 2014 or 2013, but certainly over a year ago, and the renominator was roundly criticized for not doing anything to address the points the reviewers had made the last time when voting against a feature. I guess at least we could require a link to the previous nomination thread and an explanation of why it's being renominated - can we have that as a rule? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's say I had a nomination two years ago that got six supports during the Christmas lull, or the Library of Congress releases a much better scan of an image so the previous 1400x1800 px and blurry image is now exceptionally better. I don't think I should have to justify the nomination. Given we only allow two nominations per person at a time, I think that, if they want to do something so foolish as an immediate renomination (very unlikely to succeed), the consequent ignoring/knee-jerk opposing of the nomination is enough. Let's not add extra rules. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam, a new scan of the same artwork is a different file and must be uploaded with a different filename so obviously counts as a different nomination. If they merely release a higher-resolution JPG of the same scan, then this could be uploaded over the old one, and would be a clear improvement. When re-nominating images, we often link to the previous nom out of courtesy/openness, and I think that saying "This is a much higher resolution / better quality version since last nomination" would be a natural thing to do. So it's hardly something you "have" to do -- it would be to your benefit to point out the improvement. As for the two-nomination rule, the image that sparked this discussion was nominated by a different person to the original. And, well, it probably isn't a good idea to nominate images you aren't totally sure are wow-wow-wow over the Christmas lull. -- Colin (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: You might say that, but, in practice, if the original image is very low-quality or resolution, it generally just gets uploaded over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam I know, and that is against policy and just wrong wrong wrong. I don't overwrite low-quality/low-resolution images of the things I photograph, so I don't understand why anyone thinks that's a respectful thing to do with photographs or scans of artworks. We've discussed this before at AN/U and policy is quite clear. It's a WP attitude to content development, which doesn't translate to images. Anyway, that's a separate issue. -- Colin (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It translates far better for scans than it does for photographs, though. A scan is always rom exactly the same position, of the same thing, with differences in reproduction primarily coming down to one being more accurate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Colin: Compare, for example, File:Daniel Craig McCallum by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery.jpg - the Library of Congress offers scaled-down JPEGs and full-size TIFFs, it's not uncommon for someone to presume the JPEG is full size. I can't see this situation as problematic. And it prevents the need for bot-like editing that had to be done with File:Maresuke Nogi 2.jpg, replacing all of 50 or so uses with the improved File:Maresuke Nogi, 近世名士写真 其1 - Photo only.jpg - although, as you can probably tell, I did think that one was too far away to be uploaded over. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Your example isn't very clear as I can't make out what the source of the original file is (other than "Wikipedia"). Something about History Channel, which certainly isn't the source you used for the current file. I don't see a difference between a scan or a photograph (or a photograph using a camera with a scanning back, just to complicate things). All these need preparation of the artwork, calibration of lighting and sensors, and the operator in each case may make their own adjustments to colour, tone, sharpness and perhaps even touch up blemishes. If the sources are different, then that's two separate files on Commons. This idea, that uploading over the top of an existing image saves "the need for bot-like editing" to update Wikipedia, is just the wrong solution to a problem on Wikipedia. Often people do damaging things when faced with a problem where they lack the tools. This mindset simply doesn't occur for photographs of things rather than art. If someone takes a better picture of a politician, or a better picture of a church, then we have to replace that picture with another on Wikipedia. We don't splat over the old one on Commons. Its disrespectful to the people who took/scanned the original image, and we see that often it means the source information is wrong, or the colours change, etc. And it is simply against policy. The only time one should upload a new file over the top of an existing one is when they have exactly the same source file (and even then it may be a problem). Policy simply does not allow the shortcut you suggest. David's File:City of London skyline from London City Hall - Oct 2008.jpg is used in lots of places and my update File:City of London skyline from London City Hall - Sept 2015 - Crop.jpg would probably be an uncontroversial replacement for all those usages. Yet I don't overwrite David's photo simply to save making edits on Wikipedia. There is value in having both, just as there is value in having two different people's photo of the same artwork. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Original file there, LoC scan. Clearly the same - the damage on the right hand side is unique to that copy, and the LoC controls that copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You may be right that they are the same print. I have no idea, though if they are the same digitisation of that print, and that is what Commons means by "the same file". Chances are, in this particular case, they are, but for paintings that's often not true. And "source" may be only the most recent link in a chain, so an image got from the History Channel may have been altered. But what is certainly true is that the current image at File:Daniel Craig McCallum by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery.jpg is not a faithful reproduction of the image at LoC -- it is your extensive restoration of File:Daniel Craig McCallum by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery - Original.tif, which you correctly distinguish as a separate file. So, the only reason your restoration is where it is at is because it was convenient to splat over the various original and weaker restorations that had gone before in the assumption (probably valid) that your restoration is good enough nobody will create a rival nor will want to use one of the older ones. You get away with this because you're good at restoration and often your copy is what Wikipedia wants to use, but can't you see that isn't really a rule we can follow in general. Otherwise anyone might fight over the "lead image" version of the artwork. Anyway, if you want to argue to change policy to suit your convenience then I suggest the village pump is a better place to start than talk FPC. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
While I can see your point, this is more a grey area in policy than a hard line: The policy is very much written from the perspective of photography, not scans, so how much of it is relevant is a judgement call. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You're a great contributor here, but yes, I think you, too, should have to explain why, if you are renominating any picture that was previously nominated and failed to receive sufficient support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I kind of feel like it'd be a kiss of death to a nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
First, I agree with Colin's comments above. But second, if you do renominate an unchanged file that had previously been unsuccessfully nominated, even if you don't mention the previous failed nomination, someone else will, so the best policy if you were to do this would be to deal with the issue head on. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This is a topic where Common sense is better to use than any written rule. Re-nominating after 6s/0o (as long as we have the 7s bar) is fine with me even without reprocess and it is unfair to oppose just due to this fact. Re-nominating anything after reasonable rework, even if the previos candidacy didn't receive any support, is OK as well. --A.Savin 11:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Alchemist, you don't mention any delay on re-nominating but I assume you are referring the recent case where the re-nomination was next month. I fail to see how quickly renominating just because one didn't like the outcome is "common sense". It's simply playing games, shows a lack of respect for reviewers, and it certainly wouldn't be "unfair" to oppose on that ground. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This was a comment by me not Alchemist. If I was the nominator, I would have waited some months of course; but still I fail to see why a barely failed nomination where there was not a single oppose vote cannot be given a second try after some time. --A.Savin 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, for the reasons I gave. That "barely failed" actually had lots of "meh" oppose nominations by people so don't oppose anything. It didn't barely fail. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think that's a useful presumption. FPC activity does vary, and certain subjects tend to attract people more, as people feel more comfortable voting on them. It may well be that, for example, the first few examples of image type X to be nominated will have a very rough time, then, later, people will be used to that type of image, have a metric for judging it, and thus voting on it will be a lot more common. Hell, I'm fully aware most restorations are getting voted on by the same group of people, and that photographs are their own thing. So presuming that not voting is an oppose isn't very useful; they may just not feel comfortable voting on a type of image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that not everyone passing on an image, that hasn't already achieved 7 support votes, is implicitly opposing. But the majority of reviewers here, I believe, are unlikely to make the first oppose vote, and unless that behaviour changes, then we have to live with the fact that an image that has had nine days and failed to achieve enough support, has been rejected by the community as an FP. But I also agree that the FPC culture does slowly change, as you suggest by attitudes towards certain images, and so it may be worth redoing a nomination if one believes that to be the case. But simply redoing a nomination a month later because one was unhappy with the result... that's not fair, and we have no shortage of possible FPC images. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
While I'm inclined to agree that a month might usually be too short of time (though I think it's not that unreasonable, on the whole - it's not like it was days later), I could see cases where it wasn't - there was, for example, a period earlier this year on en-wiki where pretty much everything was filing as a lot of the regulars simultaniously got too busy to vote, and a couple people left. Nominations were failing left and right, then it stabilised. In any case, I don't think the situation being discussed even happens often enough to justify a formal rule change. When was the ast time this even happened, and if it's more than a year ago... Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Another issue is that, given how Commons FPC works, it may not even be obvious there was a previous nomination. If the image was nominated sufficiently long ago, the FPC page will likely be of the format Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Foo.jpg - a person nominating it using the modern conventions of File:Foo.jpg can easily miss the previous nom. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Adam, I think you are scraping the barrel here: Image: hasn't been used for many, many years. If an image has been nominated before, it shows up on the "what links here" file description page, and people do have memories. -- Colin (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
From what I can tell - admittedly, I'm not as sure about things - unmodified FPCs can do quite well on repeat. Take Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sarah Vaughan - William P. Gottlieb - No. 1.jpg/2. Admittedly, that does note the previous, and was a year later, but it went very differently. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the example. It probably helped that you gave a reason other than "per 6 votes last time". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it was that "per 6 votes last time" rationale that provoked my oppose. And I note that the people who voted in your second nomination were entirely different -- which is what waiting a year can achieve. -- Colin (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to no-index featured picture discussions from search engines

Per discussion with , I am proposing that the pages for the discussion of featured picture candidates (and the other categories) be no-indexed from search engines. As internal discussions of photographer's work, I see no reason for these debates to be included on Google and similar searches. Most notably, this means that critical comments about the work of a photographer can be found for the world to see just by searching their name, which is a problem and off-putting for those possibly using their real name or a wider-known alias. (@: I invite you to make any additional points I may have missed.) KaisaL (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

  1.   Support as the creator of this proposal. KaisaL (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Support I didn't know they are indexed. Yes, these kind of pages should be no-indexed. --XRay talk 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Support on the basis that we frequently see photographers with their real names, so a good reason to avoid Google searches throwing up results of what can sometimes be negative comments that may make the photographer unhappy if used elsewhere around the internet; infact the possibility of this happening does put off new photographers from nominating their photographs, or agreeing to nominations from others. I was vaguely under the impression that the noindex option was discussed, and had been implemented a long time ago, but I must have been remembering a different noticeboard. In addition it would be a nice gesture if withdrawn nominations could be courtesy deleted if the photographer wishes it, though I'm unsure if that is practical to offer.
Addendum should anyone be uncertain of the technical meaning of noindex and the implications for internet visibility off-wiki, please refer to the explanation at Controlling search engine indexing. -- (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  1.   Support Thanks for this proposal --The Photographer (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Neutral regarding the proposal to no-index featured picture discussions from search engines. I disagree about deletions of the withdrawn nominations, I think they must be archived. Nominations contain discussions, and any users/visitors should have the possibility to read previous nominations and discussions by searching in archives or by searching in users contributions. As far I know, usualy, we don't delete discussions on Commons unless they contains prohibed content. Such deletions would be arbitrary and could prevent someone to put a relevant link in a future potential discussion. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt for other editors reading this: the notion of deletion for withdrawn nominations is a comment from and not part of this proposal. KaisaL (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As above, the comment is not part of this proposal so please treat as a tangent. If there's interest in discussing how to handle withdrawn nominations differently to correctly closed nominations, that can be another thread. -- (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  1.   Support Makes sense Poco2 18:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  4.   Support Good idea. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As every featured picture has a prominent link to the discussion page, I see nothing achievable here by making it no index. Every rejected and withdrawn pictures also have the link although less prominent. I personally see none of my comments less exposed though my real name is exposed. Jee 13:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: It's fairly simple, in that the debate itself won't show in Google. This means you won't get discussion pages appearing with excerpts of criticism attached in the search results and a direct link to an internal critique of the work. The proposal isn't to hide and make it impossible to find these debates, it's to just stop them searching up in search engines. If you don't think it will be effective, I'm not sure that's a reason to oppose something that some would appreciate unless you can think of a reason they should be indexed. It's about the little things to encourage more participation from photographers, and to make nominating photos for featured pictures less intimidating. KaisaL (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
See, the wiki-world is and should be very transparent unless there is an obvious reason where you can call for an oversight. And the rule one #1 and #101 is not make a comment in public that you may later feel ashamed of. Remember every edit has a free license and anyone can quote them any where as far as the license allows. You can't prevent indexing those pages where you are mentioned. Jee 16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, although I do not agree with you that seems a more valid reason to oppose, thanks for clarifying. KaisaL (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to increase minimum image dimensions for featured pictures, and set a minimum for featured animations and video

Our current guideline is:

"ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.

Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information."

Considering the ever-increasing capability of cameras including phone cameras, and the movement toward 4K displays, I propose to change this as follows:

ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 4K UHD, (3840 x 2160) or (2160 x 3840) pixels, are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'.

Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information."
Animations and video should be a minimum of full HD, (1920 x 1080) or (1080 x 1920) pixels, unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'.
  1.   Support as proposer --Pine 05:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  2.   Oppose On the contrary, I'd get rid of strict rules concerning resolution altogether. Let the community decide in each and every individual case. That's basically what's happening anyway. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  3.   Neutral Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  4.   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  5.   Oppose Too high. There are plenty of good 6 MP DSLRs that have produced great images in the past and continue to produce great images today. Also, even if you use a 12 MP camera you'd be hard-pressed to end up with a resolution like 3840 x 2160 if you shoot birds and have to crop. -- King of ♠ 01:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  6.   Oppose nonsense ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  7.   Oppose per others. I wouldn't go quite as far as Martin suggests above, but I'd make minimum sizes more explicitly advisory, rather than binding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  8.   Oppose per others. In addition, the proposal is 16:9-centric. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  9.   Oppose I think the current rules work just fine for us. Daniel Case (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Alteration of candidates through voting period

At 15:37, 17. Jul. 2016, User:The Photographer reverted his nomination of File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg to a previous version after I pointed out the badly done photoshopping on the actual candidate. He did so without any notice on the nomination page.

I don’t know how you feel about this, I think it’s very bad practice (I wrote so in the nomination) and playing games with FPC, for several reasons:

  • Previous voters might have voted differently on the actual candidate. So, it smells like collecting support for one image and then putting another one in its place, transferring the feature!
  • Any judgement previously expressed in the voting is compromised (in the actual case, readers might think, "What the hell did he mean?").

Do our guidelines cover this? If not, we need a rule against this IMHO, saying

  1. that any candidate is judged by users as nominated originally, we don’t need any version mixup through voting until no-one knows which vote refers to which version
  2. that nearly any alteration on it (expect very minor fixes, e.g. dust spot removal) makes it a new candidate that has to be nominated separately,
  3. and that even minor edits have to be clearly announced on the nomination page (maybe by "  Comment Edit:"), so any previous voter might reconsider their voting.

Any edit on actual FPC violating this rule should lead to immediate refusal of the candidate.

Furthermore, I think the FP note on the file description page needs to say which version of the file given the featuring applies to (this information is given on featured Wikipedia articles as well, though articles undergo much more editing than files of course). Example: This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) in the version as of hh:mm, dd-mm-yyyy and is considered one of the finest images

--Kreuzschnabel 16:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

  •   Comment I agree while editing a picture can change dramatically all the result, the same RAW file can give a bad or a good result according to the editing work. And of course when I vote, I vote also for one editing work and not for another. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
For info to meet at the end of your comment, it is possible to protect an image from uploading, maybe once promoted an image should be protected... Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The protection idea has some issues. It wouldn't affect admin FP photographers, and we would probably start getting protected edit requests from photographers if they needed to make a minor change that we would normally have allowed during the FPC (removal of a spot that they just noticed, etc). INeverCry 18:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Once a file has been nominated, only minor changes should be allowed. I don't like the idea that I may vote support for an image, and then that image is changed to something very different, making my support vote go for something I didn't even see when I voted. Changes like the above should be plainly prohibited, and, if done, should disqualify the image. We already have the alternative procedure if a nominator or other editor wants to present an image where significant changes have been made as a clearly indicated alternate. INeverCry 18:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INeverCry + Kreuzschnabel. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For any of those 3 proposals. Reading them I've the impression that we would be overreacting. The source of the problem here is that The Photographer applied a relevant edit to a running nomination for which votes have been made, and didn't mention it in the nomination page. That was not okay. The solution for that would be to introduce a guideline to ensure that it shall be ALWAYS documented in the nomination page that there is a new version and what changes have been applied in it. If you like, all those who had voted should be pinged, but I wouldn't go further than that and increase burocracy and introduce restrictions in a well working system. Poco2 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So I vote, and then the photographer/nominator changes the image significantly, and I have to have the bother of being pinged to see if I want to change my vote? What if I'm not around for a few days to see the changes? My vote gets counted dishonestly in that case. This kind of practice subtracts from the integrity of FPC. INeverCry 18:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I do not think the system is working too well now. Increasingly, images are being edited through the voting process, following advice such as cropping or brightening, until the image being discussed has become a quite different one from the one I gave support a week ago while I wouldn’t support the edited one, maybe for overprocessing. More and more, voters change their vote therefore. As for pinging, I just feel bothered by being asked to re-review a nomination again and again. It feels like assisting image optimization. That’s why I really do think that any considerable edit makes a different image which demands a separate nomination. – Generally, IMHO a candidate on FPC has to be the final result of an image creation process, and it’s that result which is to be discussed here, not some raw material that still needs major editing. We do not create, we do judge. --Kreuzschnabel 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • You are using the worst case (the picture is edited in a way I wouldn't support anymore) to try to establish a heavy process that would jeopardize one of the main points of FPC: improving the images. You are not willing to re-assess a picture if there is an update but you are expecting that the nominator nominates again and again until all meaningful feedbacks to improve the image run out. Well, that would be the case for those wo want to improve the pictures they nominated, others may ignore improvement proposals to avoid having to go through the process again. So, at the end of the day you are either punishing the nominator (they will get fed up) or hindering the improvement of the pictures. Poco2 20:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What happens if someone votes for an FPC, and then they have to take time off to travel, or they're sick, or busy with work, and they come back to see that the FPC has passed but it isn't the same as what they voted for because changes were made after their vote? Why should voters be less important than nominators? INeverCry 20:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • INeverCry, how often have you got this problem?. On the other hand, I can tell you that I had several times the same problem, but in the other direction with people opposing for a picture, that was improved, but they couldn't change the vote on time. But, my god, that's life and this kind of off-WM things should not play a big role about how we define our guidelines. Furthermore it isn't clear to me the consecuences of documenting which version was awarded FP, is that an argument no to improve it never ever again?. Please don't immobilize FPs and FPCs based of hypothetical cases or fears about what could happen, we need lean processes. Poco2 20:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Another interesting question would be how often does an image that needs significant changes during FPC actually end up passing? With your own works, Diego, when I see your best here at FPC, I know without the slightest doubt I'm supporting. You've had many images here that pass with a landslide of support because the images are just beautiful. That's when FPC is really enjoyable for me, not when I have to keep checking back to see if some tedious changes have been done and whether they "worked" or not... INeverCry 21:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, that's up to the reviewer. If a reviewer believes that the image needs important improvements he shouldn't support or he should oppose until they are implemented. Following the proposal here that would always be a oppose, as an essential improvement (which would be an essential change) cannot be done for that nomination. Please, understand that you'd punish everybody here not only those noms where some tediones changes are done. I do very often improve my noms, specially when others nominate them as there is no way that I keep my potential 15,000 FPCs (I've been often surprised by successful FPs nominated by somebody else that I couldn't think of) up for a flawless FP nom. Poco2 21:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know, INeverCry, I reviewed it and looks good enough :) Poco2 19:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Strongly per INC and KS.--Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Diego, please understand my proposal is in no way about punishing anybody for anything. My point is to keep the processes of a) optimizing an image and b) judging an image being kept clearly apart. In which way does my proposal affect your nominations? I only propose that any edit should be announced within the discussion (which, to me, is a matter of course, a question of respect towards those who bothered to vote on my nomination), and that the results of major edits (i.e. any editing that is likely to change others’ opinion, such as croppings) should be nominated separately because you never can make sure that any voter for the previous version will take notice of the the change to reconsider their voting. Again: I want final results to be nominated and assessed here, and if they still need editing, it’s not too much asked IMHO to withdraw them and put a fresh nomination on, so the votes on the different versions stay clearly separate. I don’t see any punishment or hindrance in that, just a cleaner assessment process. --Kreuzschnabel 22:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry for almost a day of delay, the change is already commented in the nomination page. I have always said the changes in the images on the nominations and this is no exception. I think that Kreuzschnabel proposal is excesive --The Photographer (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s exactly my point! Firstly, the edit has not actually been announced (i.e. simultaneously) but rather mentioned more than 7 hours after the revert (15:37 vs. 22:51). Secondly, there has no minor edit been done but the image itself has changed dramatically (from badly done cutout to busy bokeh) so it’s virtually a different rendering. I think this is not OK even when announced in time, because you cannot make sure that each previous voter has a chance of re-revieing the (different) image and reconsider their voting. Minor edits are within reason, severe alterations such as this are not. You should have withdrawn you nomination and put up another one with the altered image. Nothing against this from my side. But never do change candidates within an ongoing review process. --Kreuzschnabel 06:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • I understand your point, however, this has more to do with common sense of voters and nominator and you can see a good example of what I say here. --The Photographer (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - At QIC, there are many instances of photos being edited to pass the criteria. Here, we've often had the same thing. However, I absolutely would support a rule that requires all changes after nomination to be clearly specified on the nomination page, with everyone who's voted automatically pinged. I also think that radical changes that go beyond spot removal, noise reduction, mild to moderate changes in light and contrast and suggested crops should trigger automatic opposition if the nominated picture is not withdrawn. However, I'd leave that up to the judgment of nominators and reviewers, rather than try to create a definition of "radical changes" and enforce it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s more or less exactly what I suggested. No radical changes on active nominations. Did I make myself so unclear? --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'm afraid you do, because I would allow changes much more substantial than just dust removal. A crop can change a picture's composition so significantly that I change from opposing the picture to solidly supporting it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        • And wouldn’t you agree that, after such a significant alteration, it would be wiser to open a fresh nomination on the altered image, instead of having votes for both version mixed up in one nomination and risk misuse of the votes of those who do not agree with the alteration but don’t notice the alteration either before voting period ends? I prefer the former. I do not want to forbid changes, I just propose to open a fresh nomination on a candidate that has been significantly changed during voting period, withdrawing the nomination on the previous version, in order to certainly know which voting has been given for which version of the image. That’s all. TL;DR: Minor edits: announce them and go on. Major edits: close the nomination by withdrawal and open a new one to avoid voting mixup between versions. Nothing is forbidden, it would just be clearer to assign votings to image versions. --Kreuzschnabel 10:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Your opinion is noted, but as I said, I don't see the great usefulness in trying to define "major edits" in a binding rule, especially as some crops produce a negligible effect while others change a photo greatly, and the number of pixels often isn't what makes the difference. The other thing is that to a large degree, I think you're trying to find a global solution for a specific problem that was already solved by individuals deciding to object and vote against the nomination in question. Why create a rule when current consensus voting procedures are arguably working fine? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, please. I do hear you - but what we need is common sense and transparency. And fewer rules. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I am myself surprised that such a rule seems necessary, as for me it’s a matter of course not to change a candidate while it’s being discussed. Some do not think that way, though, and I do not want my support on any candidate to be transferred to a considerably different image which replaced it. --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • As for me, I would oppose !--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild oppose We should have reactive candidacies where appropriate. If I point out a small problem in a restoration, for example, I'd consider it being fixed better than the vote carrying on unstoppable, possibly to the point of featuring the image with the problem. There is a limit to how much editing should be done, and you should notify all pre-extant voters after any really significant change, but it's hard to legislate that cutoff point. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question What happend if a picture already FP is altered by the author? --The Photographer (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I've had featured pictures be given major recrops or desaturations or the like by random people before. I tend to just revert and notify the modifier, but we don't really have any procedure for checking for alterations to FPs. While "Oh, I missed a dust speck" isn't a problem, we probably should be actively monitoring. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s why I suggested to mention the file version the feature has been given. --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
      • A good idea, but it will need some sort of check to spot when they don't match. In some cases it's going to be a simple, expedited update ("he removed some dust specks") in other cases, a clear revert ("someone cropped the hell out of it... ignoring the warning that CSS image crop was in use and cropping it would break its usage on Wikipedias"), and sometimes, it may be we should rerun it ("A problem was fixed, but this substantially changes the file") - that said, we're going to need to lift the 2-nom limit a bit for that last type; the whole system's pointless if no-one actually asks for a re-review. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

6-month block of Livio

One of our most frequent contributors here, Livioandronico2013 has been blocked for 6 months (!). Since the block stems from an issue here at FPC, I'm posting about it here. I've started a discussion at AN/U: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Unfair_block_by_A.Savin. INeverCry 20:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Set gallery works poorly on multiple rows

When you nominate a set, {{FPCnom/Set}} uses packed galleries to display the set. When all the elements of a set have the same aspect ratio (as is often the case), especially if they are of the same view, you expect them to have the same size. Unfortunately, this is not the case if the set wraps around to form multiple rows. If you have two rows, the first row will be completely packed, so the packed gallery logic will tell the images to fill the entire row, even if it means exceeding the dimensions prescribed in {{FPCnom/Setgallery}}, but images in the second row will only be as large as prescribed, causing the first image to be much larger than the second on certain monitors. Any suggestions on how to fix this issue? Pinging Adam Cuerden who created the template. -- King of ♠ 05:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It is not good to specify both height and width in "packed" mode. See en:Help:Gallery_tag. I made an attempt; check the result. Jee 06:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Additional functionality like that should probably be dealt with in phabricator, or by changing to mode=noframe and very specific heights and widths. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@King of Hearts, Jkadavoor: For the record - the bot doesn't really even aattempt to handle set noms well at the moment (they require a fair bit of hand tweaking on closure), so you may as well just switch them to mode=noframe heights=YYYpx widths=ZZZpx when they're all the same or similar; I'd suggest this not be the default, though, as it's only good when they're quite similar, and it's harder to set up well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Color profiles

Recently, we've seen many pictures uploaded with missing color profiles, and several users jumping to point that out. It says in the image guidelines that images should be tagged but does not indicate that this is a requirement. I feel like this is not something that users can have subjective opinions about (e.g. noise; how much is too much?), but a hard line like GFDL-1.2: either it has a profile or it doesn't. So instead of this ambivalent state we're in right now, I think we should discuss whether to make this a formal requirement at FPC. -- King of ♠ 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm using DxO Optics Pro evaluation version (which will expire soon) and found that it will not add embedded ICC profile even though I choose it while exporting to jpg. My understanding is that because sRGB is already chosen in EXIF. Today I read this and it seems there is only a problem if conflicting information is stored in different places. Jee 04:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I will download DxO to see what the problem is. I am skeptical that any professional image software for photographers will fail to have the option to include a colour profile when exporting. But if that's the case, then I'll be filing a bug report to DxO. I certainly know that GIMP (as well as Lightroom and Photoshop) can embed them, but it can be confusing how to set GIMP up. It has been known for a very long time that profiles are essential to ensure images are rendered correctly, especially by browsers. In the distant past, all monitors were more-or-less sRGB and no software or operating systems could do any colour management. This has changed. See User:Colin/BrowserTest. All our current browsers (with the exception of a modified Firefox) only use the colour profile to determine the colours in an image. They all ignore the tags. There is a perception on some old web sites that EXIF tags make a difference -- they do not and never have done. Without a profile your browser will simply not colour manage the image at all. This means it takes the raw RGB values from the JPG and renders them on the monitor without any attempt to calibrate how red and how green and how blue to make each pixel. So a supposedly sRGB image, on a wide-gamut monitor, will look really really bad (weirdly saturated). And a supposedly AdobeRGB image on a standard-gamut monitor will look really really bad (dull).
There have been requests for people to include colour profiles in their images at FPC going back more than five years. For those people able to run programs on the command line of their computer, I can post some instructions later to use EXIFTOOL to embed the correct profile into a JPG. Without a profile, it is like me telling you that my living room is 4 x 5. Is that yards or metres? If we aspire for FP to determine professional-standard images fit for publication, then this sort of metadata is simple essential. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Colin. BTW, I noticed that all files I processed using RawTherapee have embedded sRGB profile. But interestingly they don't have it in EXIF. So it seems both software use different technique. (I tried to save a file in Gimp; it also using EXIF; not XMP/embedding.) Jee 08:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to find out what I discovered about GIMP. I seem to recall it wasn't obvious how to export with a profile included, but it is definitely possible. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I would support making this a requirement. I want to see nominated images displayed properly, and I would expect that nominators want the same. A big part of why I participate here is simply to see outstanding and beautiful images. I don't want to miss out on that because of a missing color profile, and I don't want photogs/nominators to lose out on accurate reviews of their images. INeverCry 08:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I should point out that Phabricator T134498, which I raised, is an attempt to mitigate this issue. It only affects thumbnails and only for images that lack an embedded profile and where it is reasonably safe to guess they are likely sRGB. Although Giles has implemented a fix, I have no idea if it will be accepted and when it might be incorporated to Commons and Wikimedia. But it doesn't affect the source JPG image. If you look at that 100% or you download it (and Commons' purpose extends beyond Wikipedia to usage elsewhere) then the colours are still undefined. And if it gets adopted on WP, it won't affect existing thumbnails unless you purge the image. Wide-gamut monitors and displays are becoming increasingly common, not just for photo professionals, but for the latest TV standards and the latest mobile phones (e.g. Apple i7 has DCI-P3 display). -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support making embedded color profiles in jpg files nominated for FPC a mandatory requirement. As we get an increasing number of properly color managed browsers, image editing programs, and an increasing occurance of wide gamut displays, now even on smart phones like the iPhone7, it is overdue we get more specific. (It would be nice to have a gadget, such that it was easier to check a nomination for a properly embedded sRGB color profile). Still, the default recommeded color profile should be sRGB although it does not span as many colors as, e.g., AdobeRGB (only relevant on wide gamut screens), as the non-color managed applications will present color way of what was intended - it is perfectly OK to also upload alternatives with other color profiles, e.g., ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB as they may give more optimal results on wide gamut displays or on high quality color-managed printers. Reusers can then use this version for, e.g., high quality prints. But it should be the sRGB version which is promoted as it is still the most well supported color space by many applications and displays. See this blog post to better understand better this rather technical discussion. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

What difference would knowing the color profile have on how we evaluate the images? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • You would see the colors the way the author intended to (provided he's set up everything properly on his side). - Benh (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support making this a requirement. - Benh (talk) 12:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I'd propose to automatically delist all current FPs with missing profile. - Benh (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hundreds, maybe thousands? A bit over the top... Then you could also propose to prohibit Commons from working with the Internet Explorer or other browers that, unlike Firefox or Safari, generally do not support any hardware color profiles. I have a calibrated wide gamut screen and using IE is just ugly... Perhaps someone could write a bot that is able to "repair" FPs and other files that are missing an embedded profile? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I think there is merit in proposing a tool (like the crop tool) that one can use to pick an image and request a colour profile be embedded. There is a public domain licence-free sRGB profile that comes with ArgyllCMS ,which is also very high quality. All the tool needs to do is call EXIFTOOL with the relevant parameter, and the profile gets embedded. Argyll CMS also comes with equivalents for AdobeRGB and others, though this issue is only really common for people who export sRGB settings and some part of their toolchain or export settings is letting them down. One thing the tool could do, is apply the same logic as the above Phabricator task, to ensure that the profile wasn't incorrectly inserted into a JPG that already had a profile, or that appeared to not be sRGB based on EXIF tags.
I don't think there is any merit in delisting, when the fix is fairly easy. Remember also the Phabricator task above, which proposes to hide the problem on Wikipedia -- but only if that task is actually adopted and released.
Where do we propose new tools? I reckon one of our tools writers could knock this up in an evening.
Btw, if there is anyone here with a Apple desktop computer and a wide gamut screen, come chat to me about User:Colin/BrowserTest, as one person has suggested the latest Safari handles images without embedded profiles correctly (i.e. assuming sRGB). I agree with Martin that IE (and Edge) are totally broken if you use a wide gamut monitor. And all mobile devices are broken too, though if anyone gets an iPhone 7 then let me know how the BrowserTest performs on that. -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
But how do we fix those file without the missing profile, and without the exif to tell which one should be embedded? Even though it's likely it is sRGB, I'm not aware of a way to be sure of it. At least we should delist those files without any possible reliable fix. (?) - Benh (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Benh, most JPGs out of camera do not embed a colour profile. I don't know about newest models of Nikon/Canon/etc though. It's a widespread problem but nearly always if it is sRGB then the EXIF ColorSpace tag is present and = 1. Any other colourspace is supposed to set the tag to Uncalibrated, so with those, we really have little idea other than it is not sRGB (though there may be hints elsewhere it is AdobeRGB, and other spaces like ProPhoto are very unlikely, though some people do use it mistakenly thinking it gives them more colours. The problem is if people use very crude paint programs to edit files, and lose all the EXIF. But such people probably aren't adjusting the image that accurately anyway. And for some photographs with extreme conditions (very high key, low key, sunsets, etc) the accurate colours are maybe less important. For standard conditions, and for photographing/scanning works of art, accurate colours are vital. -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
One issue may be that there don't appear to be strong standards for greyscale. How should we handle those? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to find our previous discussion on greyscale before saying much more, but gamma (the function that maps from 0.255 to the brightness on your monitor) is part of the colour profile. For a b&w photograph this may well matter. For a b&w poster/ink/art then whoever photographed/scanned/restored it may well have adjusted the range of brightness very approximately to be high contrast, and therefore it doesn't matter much. -- Colin (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Bot messed up the log page

In this edit, here, CommonsDelinker completely messed up the page. By removing the deleted file completely, instead of redlinking it, the whole Featured picture candidates page was transcluded onto the log page. How do we avoid this in future? I know it doesn't happen often, but it's a pain when it does; that big page transclusion made the log page hard to edit due to its size...   INeverCry 10:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

PSA: Firefox on Windows may be upsampling images

I would like to invite anyone using Firefox on Windows 7 or later to take a look at the last two paragraphs of Commons:Image guidelines#Your monitor, which I just added, and test your monitor by looking at this image at 100% magnification. Even if you are not using Firefox on Windows, it's a good idea to run this test anyways to make sure nothing funny is going on.

Here's my story if anyone's interested to hear: Recently I bought a new Windows desktop with a QHD (2560x1440) monitor. It's an amazing monitor; I can't believe I've been editing images on a puny 1600x900 laptop display for so long. Anyways, I recently noticed that somehow my images looked less sharp after being uploaded than on my local computer. Upon further investigation, full-res images on Firefox appeared more zoomed-in than the same images displayed on Chrome. And what's more, they appeared the same size on both browsers on my laptop! This was a very puzzling scenario, but I ultimately found out this was due to Windows being set to 125% scaling in Control Panel -> Display on my new desktop (but 100% on my laptop). Apparently new versions of Firefox try to mimic Windows's display scaling, which is enabled by setting devPixelsPerPx to -1.0, so setting devPixelsPerPx back to 1.0 will restore the original behavior (note that this will also make all the text and everything smaller than you were used to in Firefox). King of ♠ 04:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Dunno, I use the latest version of Firefox on Windows 8.1, and everything looked fine to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I had noticed the same with my wife's laptop, which is set to 125% or similar. It could falsely make someone think an image was rather soft at 100%. The fix KoH suggests will help. Per User:Colin/BrowserTest I have some browser recommendations. If you have a standard gamut monitor and are still using the default Windows sRGB profile for it, then any browser will do wrt colours. If you have installed the manufacturer's colour profile and are using the default/standard mode on the monitor (rather than, eg, an sRGB calibrated mode), then you want your browser to take that profile into account. In that case, avoid IE and Edge. Also avoid naive paint/photo applications which aren't colour managed. Same if you have bought a hardware colour profile tool and installed a profile that it generates. If you have a wide gamut monitor then it is essential you use either the manufacturer's colour profile or one generated by a hardware tool, and I strongly recommend you use Firefox with the about:config fix I describe on my BrowserTest page.
As an aside, if you are fortunate to have a 4k or 5k monitor, then (unless it is 42" huge) you are almost certainly using Windows at 200% and I recommend setting Firefox devPixelsPerPx to 2. MediaWiki-based websites like Commons and Wikipedia look fantastic on a high-DPI monitor because modern browsers can interact with well-written websites to request images that are twice the resolution of the standard ones. Thus the 600px previews on the FPC page are actually fetched as 1200px images for a high-DPI monitor -- they appear the same size as the 600px image would on a standard-DPI monitor, but look amazingly detailed. When run at 200%, a 5k monitor has the same desktop area as a QHD (2560x1440) but is twice as sharp, and can display 14.7 megapixels onscreen. At those DPI levels, many of our pixel-peeping concerns such as noise or 1px CA disappear. Conversely, a 2 megapixel image looks as unsatisfactory as a 640x480 image looks on a HD monitor. This encourages me that we should continue to push for high-resolution images at Commons, as today's "downsized for the web" is tomorrows "completely useless even in thumbnail", and we should be less concerned with how a high-resolution image looks at 100% on a standard DPI screen. -- Colin (talk) 08:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello some of our fp galleries, such as Natural have a lot of images and sometimes it is a bit hard to open quickly the page. For easy navigation and understanding, I'm going to create new sub-galleries for the countries that have several dozens of images. The first created, as exemple is Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Good move. Jee 15:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Error in one nomination page screwing up the whole page

I can't tell what it is, but something in this nomination is resulting in nothing displayed under the image, either on the nom page or the main FPC page. Can someone look into this? I have tried this on two different browsers (Firefox and Edge) and the same error occurs. Daniel Case (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind; while I typed this it appears to have been fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My Excuse to all users in FP voting on Simone Biles

Here is my excusement to all involved in Simone Biles voting. I was voter too, till erased. I was also blocked, so i could not write nothing/nowhere.

I will make my statement where this is case, on Block PetarM anytime soon, probably in a day or two. Users are welcome to cooperate to resolve some situtaion.

And one more excuse for nominator - 😄 ArionEstar. --Mile (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden spiral stairs (Nebotičnik, Ljubljana).jpg

Jee, good someone can FPed my shot. But i think biger support vote was on this picture. I think wrong one won. --Mile (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Mile, the "oppose" votes have "double weights" compared to the "supports". So the "cropped/alt" had only 10*1-3*2=4 votes whereas "original" had 7*1-1*2=5 votes. Jee 07:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • J i didnt know they combine, i thought + votes go first. Do we have that in "rules" ? --Mile (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The rule is "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page." As you're contesting my choice, I'm moving this to COM:FPC talk for a wider opinion. Jee 07:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC) (Moved from my talk for a wider opinion)

FPCBot doesn't work?

I found several pictures not removed by FPCBot. Does the bot run every day? May be the bot removed only some images and stopped working. --XRay talk 18:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign for The Photographer

Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign: NN3 MKII Starter Package for The Photographer.

The Photographer has taken many high quality photos for Commons, and like many photographers here likes to take high-resolution photos by shooting lots of frames and stitching them together to create a panorama. However, this is very hard to achieve (particularly for interiors and buildings) without having parallax errors that spoil the stitching. The best way is to use a special panoramic head on a tripod. In addition to high-resolution photos, The Photographer also wants to create 180 × 360° panoramas which require a special viewer to appreciate them. Several photographers on Commons are now creating such images and they are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there. I think that in order to photograph these 180 × 360° images, The Photographer needs to set his goals a little higher and aim to buy an 8mm fisheye lens in addition to the panoramic tripod head.

Please see the discussion about the Crowd-funding campaign on User talk:The Photographer#Generosity Crowdfunding Campaign and visit the Generosity Crowd-funding Campaign page to consider donating. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Is a PayPal account needed to donate? --Code (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
No, if you want you can donate with credit card or bank transfer. --The Photographer 19:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

FPC bot is bugged

Hi, The FPC bot, which adds a pre-review template and archives nominations once reviewed is seriously bugged. It doesn't archive FPX or withdrawn nominations, and or even nominations reviewed before the due date. Daniel78 said that he won't do any change to the code, but he accepts patches. Anyone willing to help? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Featured sounds

I now noticed that there's even a Commons:Featured sounds, but it hasn't been active for rather long.

If I'd nominate a sound file, then where should it even be nominated? In here or there? What's the situation with sound files anyway and should there be something done with that topic? Kruusamägi (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Over there, but probably no one will vote on it. It's been inactive for a long time. -- King of ♠ 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
That's the thing, that there doesn't seem to be any point of nominating it over there.
Should there even be any more focus on sound files? I could likely get some interesting ones to Commons, but if there's no interest towards this kind of stuff, then I don't see much point of wasting my time on it. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be worth restarting, or considering reworking FP into Featured Media... We do loe out on things because we don't ask for them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I was also thinking about featured media:
  • revitalization of featured sounds doesn't seem probable, but when something gets added to it, it could change that;
  • changing that seems somewhat useful, as there is lot of media content besides images, that should be in Commons;
  • "Featured picture" does seem to refer only to photos and not to that.
But I couldn't do that alone + I'd like to see if there's even any interest towards sound files at all. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
On spanish wikipedia We have a Featured Media section used for sounds, videos and images. --The Photographer 16:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
As a musician, I'd be quite interested in listening to nominations for Featured Sounds, on whichever page they are linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help fix nomination

I am trying to nominate this photo at FPC, but since it was previously nominated and received only the vote of the nominator, I had to edit that nomination, and now the title doesn't appear at FPC. I have no idea what I did wrong or how to fix it. Please help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind - seems to be OK now, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


In a recent email discussion with User:Storkk, he suggested that feature picture photographers may be interested in Patreon ( This is a crowdfunding platform where fans sponsor creative artists to produce work on a regular basis. For some people, especially those who produce content on Youtube, it has produced a generous source of income. How well it would adapt to Commons photographers and those of us without six million Facebook followers I don't know. But I offer it as something you guys may want to investigate. -- Colin (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that this is such an obvious win that I am really surprised this hasn't already caught on on Commons. How this would work specifically for photographers would need some thought, but I think it would clearly be worthwhile investigating. Storkk (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC) I realize it may be somewhat unkosher, but I mostly redacted a lengthy diatribe I wrote, since it didn't clarify anything further than what I've left as my comment here. It is of course available in the history. Storkk (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

August 2016 ?

Good evening.

Please could somebody explain why our current nominations are staying also in this page ?. Thanks.?--Jebulon (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It happens whenever an image nominated that month for FPC is deleted, and CommonsDelinker mistakenly delinks it. I've BOLDly deleted Commons:Featured picture candidates/ as I feel the convenience of the redirect is outweighed by this annoyance which happens a couple times a year. -- King of ♠ 00:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot.--Jebulon (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

360 Panorama template

Sorry to spam you guys

I'm duplicating an issue I raised on the template talk page and village pump for maximum reach and because there are probably more experienced users around.

My talk with user:Charlesjsharp made me (even more) realise that we currently have issues with correctly conveying an immersive panorama (360 or even full spherical 360x180°) to the viewer. They are presented with an equirectangular view which is misleading and is not what shall be viewed. It's not optimal that there are 2 or 3 links to get the actual user experience the photographer tries to convey.

It's a bit frustrating because I feel we don't miss much to provide a much better experience. I'd like to have a template for that:

  1. it shall be based on the current panoviewer, which is based on Pannellum
  2. because it's based on pannellum, it would allow any framing and offer the possibility to drag right from the frame to move the point of view.
  3. it shall fall back to a plain picture if the browser doesn't support it.

And in very short, it should be handled like how Facebook handles 360 panorama in the webpage and app (we have to keep in mind that wikipedia is viewed on mobile devices app too)

So my questions :

  1. Is anyone capable of writing such a template quickly?
  2. if not, I can try. In that case, can we use raw html in templates? I remember raw html could be enabled or disabled and I doubt it's enabled on Commons or wikipedias.
  3. In case it would be necessary, where can I get special access to wikimedia's servers to fine tune tools or plugin? I don't want to harass the maintainer of Panoviewer.

Maybe this should be handled by MediaWiki software itself. Any clue to where I shall ask for help?

Thanks for any suggestion - Benh (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You could open a request in phabricator and ask for somebody in wikimedia tech and wikimedia labs. WMF is not open to community request and It could be done using some external tool. --The Photographer 17:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Benh: Can you link me to the template, I will see what I can do. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
@Benh: TheDJ is working on a 360 video viewer and I just asked about the progress, you might ask him as well. --WPPilot (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @とある白い猫/16: There's no template currently (the Pano 360 one excepted, but it just creates a link). And everyone else, I've thought about it and it will just be impossible (or too hard) with a template, so I'm just resorting to the mediawiki source code. I don't want to get your hopes too high though, because I'm also playing with Docker in the meantime (to setup a debugger and all) and it's a bit new to me so I might be a bit slow. Could do it quicker, but just want to learn. I'll check with WPPilot and on Phabricator if I get something on my side. Thanks! - Benh (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

A proposal to make notification about incidents where content creators are reported for sanctions at any administrative boards

Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 18".