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.



Often, pictures are refused because they are "unsharp". I think we should here consider not only sharpness, but also resolution. That is, judge pictures at equal size.

It is meaningless to accept 300×300 pictures or even 600×600 pictures, and to refuse 3000×2000 pictures because they are "unsharp" at maximal viewing resolution.

David.Monniaux 11:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. --che 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You have to put the unsharpness radius (the size of the blurred out image of a one pixel object) in relation to the image size (width). Dividing the image size by the unsharpnes radius you'll get the maximum image size downsized to which the image appears sharp. This size should be the criteria, not some subjective impression of unsharpness. --Dschwen 12:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Ditto with noise level: shrinking very large pictures would also make noise less visible. So noise in larger pictures should be discounted appropriately. -- Lerdsuwa 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


IMHO There seem to be a number of spurious claims of over-exposure in various images. Although over-exposure can undoubtedly ruin an image, it seems as though some people believe any white pixels qualify an image as over-exposed. I would suggest that it is not particularly relevant in some images (e.g. where it appears on small specular highlights, irrelevant and otherwise distracting areas of background etc.). I feel that using this, and other such rigid rules, is not always constructive. --brose 16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture removal candidates?

Looking at the featured pictures, I see a few images I don't really like or that are not that good in my opinion. I'm thinking about starting a Commons:Featured picture removal candidates page which will work kinda similar to this one. Any thoughts or comments? --Conti| 22:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there should be some way to remove featured status, espeacially since fp-standards change (get higher) over time. But why not just simply resubmitting them to the fp-candidates? Once it gets too much we can split it up later. -- Gorgo 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
That's an idea, but the FPC page is already quite big and takes alot of time to load (Especially when you have ISDN). And it might be a bit confusing to resubmit them here when there's no clear distinction like a subsection. --Conti| 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As standards change over time, removing featured status from some pictures is a good idea. However, I don't think starting a new page for de-featuring pictures is a good idea. When either featuring or delisting we want to determine 'concensus' and that requires a certain level of traffic visiting the page. The current FPC page clearly has that level of traffic, so it would be more sensible to run delisting nominations along with new FPC nominations, or in a separate section at the bottom of the page. De-featuring should be relatively uncommon, so a separate page to handle them is likely to be rather sleepy and not well watched.

Similarly we should look for concensus for a change. So although it can be a little confusing, a delisting nomination should look for a 2/3rds majority agreeing with the delisting. To reduce confusion, it tends to help if we don't use the words 'support/oppose' but rather 'delist/keep' (or possibly some other pair of words that satisfies most international preferences). -- Solipsist 08:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree about the principle. How about changing the nature of featured pics, so that a picture only is autmotically featured for a limited time (for instance 1 year) and then has to be submitted to a new vote? As long as it gains suficient support every year it stays featured, but it has regularily to be submitted to an approval. This was just a loose idea, I'm not sure how it will work out technically Bertilvidet 08:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well, but I'm mostly concerned about the size of the page, it's already quite huge. A subsection would be good IMHO, it could be a template so it can be seperatly watched by those who want to, while it's still on the main FPC page. I also agree that "keep/remove" sounds better than "support/oppose". As for Bertilvidet's idea, I don't think it will be very useful. Especially when the number of featured pictures increase, there will be more and more pictures people have to vote on. Just imagine what happens when we have 600 featured pictures (how many do we have currently, anyways?), there'd be almost two new nominations per day besides the new ones. --Conti| 13:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the subsection template idea. So long as it works and doesn't hit the server too much, it makes sense and adds value. -- Solipsist 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just gone ahead and created a template for FP removal. Everything ok with it? --Conti| 23:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I added some explanatory text. But I hope it does not get used too often or too frivolously. I prefer to think about positive things, adding great new works, than removing pretty-decent-if-not-brilliant ones. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I just realised, it would be good to link to the nomination. I'm going to add that in. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a good idea. I added that to Template:FPRC. --Conti| 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. But what about having a time-limited protection, so that se dont have to vote for deletion of newly elected FP's. For instance, we could say, that when a FP is elected it is protected and cannot be nominated for deletion within 6 months or 1 year. Bertilvidet 08:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and this is the type of thing I meant when I said I hope it doesn't get used frivolously. Maybe we should wait and see how it goes before making a million rules. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, just wait some months and see. -- Gorgo 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Help. I tried to to set a candidate for removal. But I didnt really manage, its not on the page, and I couldnt find the original nomination...Hope someone cares to help me fixing it. Thanks! Bertilvidet 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

the nomination is here, you can find these links on the image page under "links" -> Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/April_2005#Image:A_small_cup_of_coffee.JPG_-.3E_featured -- Gorgo 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Hmm, what delist/keep ratio should be needed to remove an image from the featured pictures list? The standard is a 2/3 majority, which usually makes sense. I'm not sure if it does here, tho. Our featured pictures are supposed to be the best of what we have here, so maybe it should be a bit "easier" to get an image removed that is not considered that good by everyone. What about using a simple majority to decide in this case? --Conti| 21:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The same question came up recently on FPC of the English Wikipedia. The easy answer is that delisting is a concensus determination like most other 'votes' and so requires a 2/3 majority. Yes, that means it is slightly more difficult to remove an existing FP, but that is right and proper. At any one time, not everyone will agree that standards have moved on, but once it becomes totally clear that an existing FP no longer meets current standards it should be easy to get the delist majority. -- Solipsist 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like a FP, maybe you should've been around to vote against it. :P Agree with Solpsist. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh, that's true. I don't try to force my opinion on anyone here, I'm just curious what others think. Theoretically, an image will be kept as a featured picture while it wouldn't make it through the normal FPC process at the same time, that just feels kinda weird. --Conti| 21:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
It must always be easier to keep a status (non-FP or FP) than to change it. Otherwise frequent changes would make the list of featured pictures very unstable. MGo 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please add FP Removal Candidates to other-language versions of COM:FPC!

The way we've chosen to set it up, they won't know it exists until it's added to that page. And please translate the text about delisting-voting if you can. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Different quality levels

What about creating different levels of quality? As the amount of featured pictures rises, we could 'bump down' some to a lower level. So people can start with the very best and then when they want more gradually move down the hierarchy. Maybe we could set a maximum amount for each level and then generate the next one down when it becomes necessary. This could be based on the suport/oppose ratio. DirkvdM 12:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

removing self nomination

Is there a policy about how to remove a self nomination? Will it be unbecoming to delete it from the project page? Sorry if this question has been raised before, I couldnt find anything about it. Bertilvidet 08:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with self nominations? Why do you want to remove them? MGo 14:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Simply started to find it a bit embarrassing with so many opposing votes - and I see some of the points raised. Bertilvidet 21:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course you can remove your own self-nomination or cancel the nomination w/o removing. Darkone 12:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Pavo cristatus head001xx.jpg

Does anyone recall how this was featured? The {{FeaturedPicture}} tag was added in Feb 05, but there's no link to its nomination template on the image description page, and the Logs only start in March 05. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is one of the pictures that were included simply because they were featured in the English Wikipedia. I'll start a delisting discussion for it. Roger McLassus 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

New icons for "keep" and "delist"

The icons for "keep" and "delist" have been changed without discussion. I'd prefer the former ones (which were identical with the symbols for "support" and "oppose"). What does the community think? I suggest a voting (15 days) about the change:

  •   Oppose I am against the new symbols and want the old ones back. MGo 14:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I prefer the old symbols -- skINMATE 13:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose me too Briseis 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the old ones look much better Kessa Ligerro 12:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Strong support a) New ones are more logical - you don't vote support if you want to keep it featured! b) Variatio delectat. c) New ones are also beautiful. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 09:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The old green symbol has a new text here saying Keep and not Support. Roger McLassus 09:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The wording should definitely be "keep", not "support". But I don't care what the symbol is. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The wordings are not for vote, only the symbols Roger McLassus 09:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I want the old symbols back Oonagh 10:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Neutral What could be less relevant?
  •   Keep new ones ;-) Lycaon 13:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Old one's are more logical. feydey 00:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose --> revert to the old symbols Roger McLassus 06:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Add to template - suggestion

Can something like

<small>This is a [[Commons:Featured picture candidates ]]</small>

be added to each nomination page to make navigating easier. I have added it to my nominated Image. Gnangarra 13:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggested something like this some time ago, but it was an unpopular suggestion, :) The easiest way to navigate is put Template:Featured pictures candidates on your watchlist (then you will see when there are new nominations), and when you vote open the "edit" link in a new window/tab. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
(Wow I just saw that the Commons page has "picture" and the template has "pictures". Gah! pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC))
I use that method now but with FAC every template page has a link back to the nomination page to enable fluid navigation i just thought it would be an enhancement. Gnangarra 05:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Template for nominated but not featured pics

Would it be a good idea to make a template for pictures that were nominated but not featured. Sometimes when you spot a striking picture you think of nominating it but then the question of possible past nominations arises - and checking this is a daunting task. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is unnecessary. You can easily check if the FP-archive is listed as one of the files that have a link to the image you opened. Roger McLassus 18:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
ya, there is always a link to the nomination under "links", so just check that. -- Gorgo 20:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have done this a few times, but checking it is easy: when you go to create the nomination page, it already exists. ;) (Actually checking the file links is easier.) So, not necessary. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

French Wikipedia

Could anyone here, who knows French (wich I don't) find out what is wrong with the candatates' page for featured pictures in the French Wikipedia (here)? Nothing seems to go on there since 2004. Roger McLassus 12:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for an abridged voting procedure

Proposal 1

If the community agrees, I'd like to insert the following regulation into the rules:

Voting can be finished earlier than day 15 after nomination, if a picture has gained 10
supports (with no oppose) or 10 opposes (with no supports other than the nominator's)

Roger McLassus 15:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Good idea Oonagh 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I already proposed this here. I agree, but we should append "within one week". -- aka 15:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Appending the phrase within one week would mean that a picture can be finalized prematurely if it gets its 10th support (without opposing votes) on e. g. the 6th day, but not if this happens two days later. I can't see any convincing reason for such a qualification. If a picture has got a 10:0 majority, then it is exceedingly unlikely that it could miss FP-status on day 15, regardless on what day this majority is reached. So I suggest not to establish any time-limits for the abridged procedure at all. Roger McLassus 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, this was not what I meant - I'm sorry for the wrong formulation. A picture should stay at least one weak in the candidate list, even if it gets 10 support votes earlier. This is the approved way we handle it in the German Wikipedia. -- aka 18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
        • I know that in the German Wikipedia there is a 1-week-minimum-rule, but I can't see any necessity for it. What kind of disadvantage must be feared in your opinion if this limitation were abolished? Anyway - let us read what other members of the community think. Roger McLassus 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
          • If a picture (or article, there it came from) is nice looking, but the content is wrong in some important respect, then you can easily get 10 support votes without the chance that someone who really knows something about the content intervenes this. Because we cannot be sure that everyone checks this site every day, we have this time limit. -- aka 19:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
            • aka makes a good point, plus if we don't say minimum one week there would be nothing to stop serious sock/meatpuppeting. All you need to do is encourage 10 friends to vote, one day, it's featured! Not cool. pfctdayelise(translate?) 23:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
              • You are right. I did not take this possibility into consideration. Roger McLassus 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good suggestion. Basically the page needs to be shortened. We don't need complicated beaurucracy to decide when a picture has no chance of becoming a Featured Picture. You can read about the "en:Wikipedia:Snowball clause".
  • However, a 10:0 limit is overkill, i.e. take this image that got eight oppose and one support after three days Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Paris catacombes.jpg. I have never seen that such an image eventually became featured. Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:elephant indian .JPG has seven oppose and one support. It would just simplify matters to make a check after seven day and then remove images with more than 75% oppose. However, I don't approve of the vote-limit of 10 votes because such a system is suscetible to manipulation (as has been seen) with sock-puppet, reqcruiting voters, etc... / Fred Chess 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC) / Fred Chess 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That elephant has no support. You guys are not very careful about checking that anons are not putting up fake votes. Don't be so trusting. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Do you expect me to check everything? Just finding and pasting the links correctly was a problem. ;-)
    • I have now been thinking that it should be sufficient to remove images after a time of 7 days if they have at least 75% oppose and five votes oppose. Any immediate objections? If you don't like this you can always revert. Fred Chess 01:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • In addition, I don't like the current meta-template where a template is used that itself consists of templates. IMO we could just as well add all templates directly to this page. The nomination method is also more complicated, as several users have complained -- and indeed I had difficulties myself nominating my first images recently. Fred Chess 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that if any image has strong opinions either way then it doesnt need to wait until the end of the 14 days. I do like the idea of a minimum period before this can happen, also any serious attempt to get an image up using some form of socket puppets will still most likely succeed anyway.Gnangarra 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • nice idea, I think a 10 votes (double the minimum votes), no opposing, within 1 week (half the normal time) - rule would make sense. -- Gorgo 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal 2

  • Considering the above discussion I make a new proposal for an abridged voting procedure:
Voting can be finished earlier than day 15 (but not earlier than day 7) after nomination,
if a picture has gained at least 10 votes (not counting neutrals) of which at least
80 percent are either supporting or opposing.

Roger McLassus 14:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see the advantage of this rule, just increased complexity. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so we should not emphasize vote counts, percentages etc. too much, but rather encourage verbally well laid out and detailed opinions. And I do not find the no-chance-in-hell or sure-shot nominations particularly obstrusive. Au contraire, the may serve as examples on how certain types of pictures are received by the FPC community. --Dschwen 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The advantage is that with such a rule the list of FP-candidates (which is long and takes quite a time to load) can be shortened. It is very important to have absolutely clear criteria for wether a picture is to be promoted or not and whether it may be finished prematurely or not. Otherwise the outcome would depend on the subjective estimation of the person who does the finishing, and we would get "featuring-wars" similar to the "edit-wars" of articles. I think we should prevent this by all means. Roger McLassus 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I don't follow you. Do we have "featuring-wars" or an unclear situation wether a picture is to be promoted or not? Does the outcome depend on the subjective estimation of the person who does the finishing now? --Dschwen 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • No, we presently haven't got this situation, simply because now promotion or not is a matter of counting, which you do not approve of. But I do. Roger McLassus 18:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • So what was the point of the comment about "featuring-wars" then? It seems to me you are just contradicting yourself. In any case while I might not be a propenent of tally voting all the more I'd like to preseve the current system which guarantees the two weeks to make up ones mind, reread new comments and take them into consideration. --Dschwen 06:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • The point of my comment was that "featuring wars" are a likely to occur if we follow your suggestion that we should not emphasize vote counts. I think we should (as we now in fact do). Counting always yields a clear and objective result, while the question which arguments are well laid out is a matter of personal opinion. Roger McLassus 11:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This proposal (2) needs to count neutral votes as neutral, say you have 10 votes 6 for, 3 neutral and 1 against.
Not counting neutral thats 85% support 15% against.
Counting Neutral its 60% support, 30% neutral, 10% against.
Once you start playing with these type calculations someone is going to dispute the method. Gnangarra 13:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Proposal 2 says explicitly not counting neutrals, so it is no question that neutral votes are not included. The rule is not ambiguous. Roger McLassus 19:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That rule is somehow too complicated, what's wrong with a simple "10 support no oppose" rule? (maybe not counting nomination) Plain and simple, if that's not met we just follow the normal 15 day nomination. -- Gorgo 13:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How to fix this problem of page length

  • Seems to me the problem is actually that the page is hugely long which is a pain, especially for regular voters. Has anyone seen those small "hide"/"show" links? They can hide/expand text within a page, without reloading it. What if we try and implement that first before changing that? By default all would be shown, then as you vote on various ones you could 'hide' them. Hm, not sure that level of control is available. I'll check around and see if they could be used here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since the page length is certainly more a problem of too many bad pictures rather than of too many excellent ones, we could simply add the following sentence to the rules: Pictures can be taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 7. MGo 09:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • if the objective is to reduce the number of nominationed images quickly, then the process needs to be very clear with no mathematical calculations and all votes need to be considered including Neutrals. Similar to MGo statement If an image has 10 or more support votes with no opposing, or If an image has 10 or more Opposing votes with no support votes(excluding nominators), the Image can be promoted or removed after 7 days. Nominators can withdraw their nomination at any time. Gnangarra 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I have already inserted your last sentence into the rules, because it is not new and should of course be stated expicitly. But I cannot see any disadvantage in simple mathematical calculations. Why should they not be clear? MGo 15:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • theres no disadvantage, When you start using percentages as suggested in proposal 2 how thats calculated and whether neutral votes are counted can become contentious (as per example under proposal) Gnangarra 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Whatever rule we adopt (with or without calculations) must be formulated precisely. I see no problem in doing so. By the way - my rule stated above Pictures can be taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 7 is utterly clear. We could decide it and afterwards continue the discussion about the rules for premature promotion. MGo 15:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think its clear that the statement as Dr. Marcus suggested hasnt been oppose so conditions should included, Pictures can be taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 7. Gnangarra 00:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I am convinced that this is a reasonable amendment supported by the consesus of the community. Therefore I am now going to insert it into the rules. I'll also apply it to the pictures concerned, but only to the extent of the first step (without moving the templates into the archive yet). So it can easily be undone if unexpected opposition should arise. Roger McLassus 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
          • You know, we are having a 15 day poll on voting templates, but inserting new guidelines after two days discussion...! I'm just saying. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
            • My behaviour, admittedly, was a bit perky and so I expected some criticism, but I am nevertheless sure that this was the right thing to do. But if you (or anyone else here) definitely want(s) a formal voting on whether we should have this amendment or not, I'll start it after having undone the change. Roger McLassus 14:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No complete removal

I would welcome a line like

Picture [[Template:Featured.../Image:blahblah.jpg|blahblah.jpg]] not featured due to insufficient support
(view policy on top of the page)

or something like that, replacing pictures that didn't make it. --Pumbaa 14:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Pictures that did not make it (and the discussions about them) are not completely removed but just moved from the current FPC-page to the FPC-archive of the appropriate month. Roger McLassus 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid some (inexperienced) users might go like "Let's see how my picture is doing... Where is it? Must have been vandalism. I'll restore it..." even though the policy line tells about the deletion rule. --Pumbaa 10:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
there is a link to the archived nomination under each picture. A reason for the early removal is to keep the page short and small so you don't waste time with already decided votes. -- Gorgo 13:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for a modified nomination procedure

  • Seeing some of the later nominations, some of which are already retracted, I propose the following. When nominating a picture state the reason for nomination in one or two scentences. And have them be something different than I took this picture, nice photo or I like this picture. I have the hope this will force the nominator to reflect upon his nominee a bit. --Dschwen 06:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
    • This would hardly change anything. There has never been any nominated picture, regardless how ugly, for which I could not formulate a nice reason why it should be nominated. And I guess everyone else could do so as well. MGo 09:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • And I believe I could deconstruct your nice reasons even easier. The point is that pictures already got nominated with the above mentioned taboo-reasons (nice pic) on en:FPC. I'm not trying to stop people who want to deliberately nominate crap pictures, but motivate well minded people to think whether the picture they are about to nominate is really exceptional. --Dschwen 09:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course you could - but this wouldn't make the list of pictures any shorter. MGo 09:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • The focus was on making people to think whether the picture they are about to nominate is really exceptional not on me being able to refute your made up arguments. But anyway Pfctdayelise has raised a knock-out argument. --Dschwen 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I tend to agree, this wouldn't really help. Also would prefer to keep the process as language-neutral as possible. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
            • That actually is a valid point which I have not thought of :-(. Probably because all discussion and opinions on the nominees are already english only. It seems that my ideal of having well founded opinions instead of just tallying collides with the ideal of language neutrality. --Dschwen 09:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
              • (warning: philosphical) FPC here is a funny kind of process. On one hand I still get annoyed when I see technical nitpicking over what I consider a stunning image. But it simply is what it is: what the Commons community considers to be the best of our content. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to quantify this or add more specific guidelines for voting will not work. I doubt any guideline will stop the oft-seen practice of a noob (to FPC!) putting up some image of their own and watching it get shot down by 10 red crosses. I think this is a human-nature thing (desire for glory?) that will not be solved by guidelines, warnings or restrictions. In the end only those red crosses will teach them. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Delisting Featured Pictures - suggestion

  • I noticed that the first picture featured on commons has been nominated for delisting. Instead of delisting from featured pictures entirely maybe they should be an archive under the year in which they were first listed, ie Featured Pictures 2003 could be created. That way we keep the history of featured pictures. Gnangarra 10:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we should have something chronological. I've just started an appropriate page here and linked it from the FP-page. It covers the last month and can easily continued backward. Roger McLassus 15:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, we have a log... which is arguably more useful since it shows failed noms as well. I hope you like maintaining new pages! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The new page is not intended to replace the log, which of course must be continued. It is just an additional list. I am willing to maintain it. But before I expand it backward I want to make sure that no one demands it to be deleted. Roger McLassus 16:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I like the format, can it have a note on pictures that have since been delisted. If you need help just ask. Gnangarra 16:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
          • See my answer to your support of the pavo cristatus head Roger McLassus 17:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have just finished the chronological list for the year 2006 (Jan - Mar). It contains the day of promotion, the file-name of the image, and the creator. I intend to do 2005 and 2004 later. Roger McLassus 21:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Now the list is complete. Have a look here! Roger McLassus 18:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

New features picture proposition

Hi there. I don't know what I did wrong. I don't understand how to include my picture of a Green flash into this page. I just followed the syntax, but this looks wrong. Help! -- Cédric 07:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble. I got it. Explanations in the edit section are not very useful IMHO... Would be better to say 1. Add new line, 2. Click on red link, 3. Then add the sub-article there. -- Cédric 08:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Votes and nominations.

Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_4.svg and Image:Personal_computer,_exploded_5.svg currently sit under one nomination.

Please could we have

  • one image
  • one nomination
  • one series of votes and comments?

If there are two images which are related in some way or more under consideration (cropped, colour adjusted etc) just make a reference to the alternative or alternatives. Or just list them at the same time in sequence. Gordo 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? Feel free to put them in sequence if there is a reason other than personal taste. I put them next to each other for easy comparability. --Pumbaa 15:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
You ask "why?". Because, it can confusing. I was confused, over several images. If I am confused, there may be other others. Gordo 16:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
And of course, it leads me to ask, "why not"? Gordo
This is a voting process. Voters must be 100% what they are voting on. The more clarity, the better the vote represents the feelings of the voters. Gordo 16:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, as I said: feel free to put the images in sequence. I like the current arrangement, and I felt that my explanation was very clear, but I think it's not worth arguing about. :-) --Pumbaa 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with nominating alternatives if the template is subdivided into chapters, so that all votes can easily be placed where they belong. Roger McLassus 08:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Resolution Definition

Resolution of FPC images appears to require a definition. There are a lot of objections with the comment Low Resolution. In the guidelines for nomination I suggest that a minimum standard be defined/set so that everybody can understand whats required. Gnangarra 01:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree.. but I would recommend not setting this limit higher than maybe 800x800 pixels in the beginning.. then we can increse if it seems rational after a period of testing, something like that.. Minto 23:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for choosing a picture are very varied. A picture may be bad in one aspect but brilliant in others and one has to weigh those against each other. This would be like making the thirds-rule hard and fast. National Geographic uses loads of beautiful photos that have the main subject bang in the middle. It's just one of the criteria. Same here. Suppose someone made an astounding photograph with an early model digital camera. A fixed rule could then exclude that despite its other qualities. DirkvdM 13:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Limits for nominating?

Could we have a limit as to how many pictures a single user can nominate within one day/week? I'm growing tired of people cluttering the page with sub-standard images. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not as a general rule, but maybe only for those who get a lot of rejections. Maybe something like "You can only nominate one bad picture per week. If one nomination has been rejected, you have to wait for a week until you can nominate another." Or something along those lines, with different values filled in. DirkvdM 12:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Simplifying the nomination process

Please try out User:Pfctdayelise/test (just the box at the top), maybe with a bit of tweaking we can make it even easier. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I used to nominate this one it was straiaght forward and easy to use. Definately better than the current build yourself method. I suggest that it gets add to the nomination page, if possible include the ~~ signatures into the wording but it hey its not difficult to DIY that bit. Gnangarra 04:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have really tried a million times to find a way to make it do the signature (for *-self licenses) but there is just no way. It sucks. But yeah, this is still better IMO.pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK! I was bold and changed it. I think it works perfectly now! It is about the same amount of work as before but much more straightforward for newbies. It also should be much easier for other languages to translate now. They can use a translation of template:FPCnom. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done Gnangarra 13:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Change presentation to gallery with links to full noms?

This page is simply too long these days... with a gallery, you can still see what new additions look like... what do people think? pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A gallery style would attract more support votes over oppose as people would tend only to vote on the ones they like. This would be a good format for something like Good Images similar to Good Articles on en.wikipedia. Maybe its time that commons seriously considered something like this, then when images are given good status and the reviewer feels its FP quality the reviewer would then nominate it for FP. Gnangarra 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality Images - suggestions requested

to add "high encyclopedic value"? --Luc Viatour 08:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I have now included "high encyclopedic value" as one of the reasons for nomination/promotion Gnangarra 12:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recent spent a fair amount of time going through the various categories related to transport what i found was a lot of ordinary shots. This led me to thinking how could we encourage photographers to improve the quality of the images they are uploading to commons. The two pages linked above are what I came up with.

What I would like is suggestions on developing the processes and the pages with the ultimate aim of getting them into general usage on commons. plaese leave page specific comments on the individual pages and concept specific comment here Gnangarra 16:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To finish the old votes?

Old the votes would not have to be finished? --Luc Viatour 09:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

add "Evaluating dark images"

it would be necessary to add this as on on wikipedia en But unfortunately the image of reference is not on common!

Evaluating dark images

In a discussion about the brightness of an image, it is necessary to know if the computer display is properly adjusted. Displays differ greatly in their ability to show shadow detail. There are four dark grey circles in the adjacent image. If you can discern three (or even four) of the circles, your monitor can display shadow detail correctly. If you see fewer than three circles, you may need to adjust the monitor and/or computer display settings. Some displays cannot be adjusted for ideal shadow detail. Please take this into account when voting. --Luc Viatour 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this image is very useful. Only after I found it on English Wiki a couple of months ago did I adjust my monitor and realized what was wrong with some of my images and why they didn't look as good on other peoples' screens. / Fred Chess 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On the same line of thought, I think my LCD monitor (ViewSonic VP171s) isn't very good at colors. Anyone know if colors can be calibrated somehow? Dori | Talk 13:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Final vote juin?

The result of old votes is not finalized for the end of June!

I cannot how proceed?

Since June 21 more no picture “featured” is added to “featured pictures”. And I do not know the manner of doing it me --Luc Viatour 07:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I classified pictures, J hopes that it is well done? --Luc Viatour 12:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Featured picture delisting candidates

Where does one go to vote on these? Can the link be added on the Featured picture candidates page, please! - MPF 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nominations Messed Up, Sorry

I have added two nominations and even though I thought I followed the instructions to the letter, I messed up somewhere along the line, something I am quite used to doing. My apologies to all, I made an attempt to fix it but I think I might be making it worse so I will leave it to someone else to fix and, while rapping my knuckles, maybe tell me where I went wrong . . . . --KenWalker 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly against the Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose template

I am strongly against the use of the   Strong oppose tag. It serves no useful purpose other than humiliating the proponents and intimidating the reviewers. This last point is important since analyses should be done carefully, taking into account the criteria agreed in the Guidelines and the sensibility of the reviewer, not a first emotional impression or the strong opinions of others. Note that a strongly oppose vote is not a veto (although some users think the contrary) and has exactly the same weight as any other vote. And the main objective of the voting process is (or should be) to recognize and promote the best pictures, not to expose and punish the worse. For these reasons, I propose the   Strong oppose template to be banned. Alvesgaspar 10:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC). -- I suggest a voting about the subject. -- Alvesgaspar 13:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

    •   Support Point well made, I agree with Alvesgaspar. The strongly oppose is redundant and does not add value to the vote itself. --Tomascastelazo 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment Although valid and something a would support, nominating objects for deletion should not be done here but using the proper procedure. Please add {{Delete}} to {{Strongly oppose}}. Siebrand 15:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It should not be just deleted, but replaced by the ordinary oppose-symbol. Roger McLassus 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not suggesting to delete the symbol, just to banish its use in the present context. -- Alvesgaspar 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Support I never use the stongly oppose template. It is unnecessary. If there are very good reasons to oppose a picture, they should be formulated and not simply expressed by a symbol. Roger McLassus 15:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it nearly time that we require FPCs first pass through QI? (At least user created images) QI should be a gentler introduction than FP, IMO, and definitely there they should never use this template. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Support--MichaelMaggs 21:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What is QI? It sounds like a scrabble word. :) ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "Strongly oppose" template on the English instructions page, as well as added some language about being polite in one's opposition. I've been literally horrified with some of the unecessarily vociferous opposition I've seen at FPC. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 18:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Support I also never used it and think it isn't necessary. I also agree with Roger McLassus that the reasons for an oppose should be formulated. A plain oppose without an explaining word helps nothing to improve the picture or to learn sth. Maybe a compulsory comment to an oppose wouldnt be the worst idea. --AngMoKio 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Then we should get rid of    Support to balance it out.--Digon3 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I like    Support but if one goes the other should too. And good job Bastique for making changes to encourage more collegiality...   Support banishing use of this ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support. Alvesgaspar made a compelling argument. And I agree with Digon3 that   Strong support should go too. I very much prefer well explained opinions over reliance on voting symbols. But please note that in earlier times (like a year ago) there was an opposing trend (rely on symbols rather than words), since this page was supposed to be multilingual. Well, I can live with english being the de facto language of this page and the benefit of productive discussions outweighs the language issue by far. --Dschwen 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Remove both symbols implying strong opinions. That's the easy part. The difficult part is to have meaningful comments, tolerance, patience and constructive criticism :) --Adamantios 08:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support ack Roger McLassus. --Grombo 09:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Lycaon 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Too many people forget that the only reason Wikimedia projects have featured content, is the raise standards and encourage editors to contribute. There is no need to score points and overly negative comments are counter productive. -- Solipsist 14:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • PROPOSAL: Since the outcome of this voting is completely univocal until now I suggest to finish it after one week (which will be on Friday). Roger McLassus 17:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
To get rid of:
  Strong oppose: 10 support, 0 oppose
   Support: 5 support, 0 oppose
So both should not be used here any more. Roger McLassus 07:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Photography critiques

  • Is there a page where you can simply get some critiquing of your images without going through the FPC process? If not it would be great to have one assuming people would be willing to spend some time critiquing for the sake of helping someone get better pictures rather than some sort of reward for good work (QIC also has the reward mentality, and not much traffic). How about Commons:Photography critiques and how many people would be willing to participate? Dori | Talk 17:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I just created this page and inserted a picture of my own to get it started. Roger McLassus 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Speed up promotions

It is painful to go trough a list of 40 or more nominations when most of the cases are already decided. As with the negative ones, in which the normal evaluation period can be shortened to 7 days, I propose the following procedure for the positive cases:

When, after 7 days of evaluation, there is a minimum of 5 supporting votes and the ratio support/oppose is, at least equal to 3/1, the picture is automatically promoted to FP (examples: 5-1, 6-2, 7-2, 8-2, ...). Other ratios may, of course, be considered.
  •   Support - Alvesgaspar 11:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Although a minimum of 7 would be better. --Digon3 00:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • should be according to the delisting rule: "Pictures can be taken from the list if they have no support (not counting the nominator's) on day number 7 (day of nomination + 7)." So just a simple "at least 5 supporting votes and no opposing after 7 days" -- Gorgo 12:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That works --Digon3 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't agree with the 'no opposition'. -- Alvesgaspar 20:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Removal from the FPC list for pictures with no support as it currently stands, makes sense. But dont remove the images with supporting votes, these images (which are clearly of a high standard) should stay for the 15 days so that: a) The creator/nominator can recive their dues and b) the image will act as a guide to other would be creators/nominators and a guide for how the FP process should work. Snowwayout 20:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree that feature pictures should have more visibility. But this place is too messy for that purpose. Why not a monthly contest of FP, during which all pictures of the last period are exposed? - Alvesgaspar 09:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ack Snowwayout. -- Lycaon 09:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Snowwayout and 1) there's no need to rush these things. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 20:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Comment You wouldn't need to have own guidelines for it. Just snowball clause it. Shouldn't be a problem. Jon Harald Søby 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose norro 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i would rather recommend to add new nominations on the lower end of the list. This way a nomination doesnt get forgotten on its way downwards. Instead it would make its way upwards in the list.--AngMoKio 19:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image Size for FP and QI

I have started a discussion article on what should be the size requirements for images being promoted to COM:QI and COM:FP. The discussion is Commons talk:Discussion on Image size please participate, from this discusion a proposal for specific requirements can be developed. Gnangarra 07:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's thnak the creator, uploader and nominator of images

I think it's a good idea, as it is the case in Wikipedia, to send a little congratulation message (template of course) to thank the author, the up-loader and the nominator for creating and nominating the future FPs when their nomination is approved. It is the least we can do to thank the author of his hard work and for giving his images under free licence. What do you think? --Arad 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Extra effort but it's a nice touch to receive a little thanks, yes. ++Lar: t/c 03:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a good idea COM:QI already puts this on the uploaders talk page, I agree something similar should also be used for FP Gnangarra 03:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Schlagwortkatalog.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Yes. I certainly agree. It is very rewarding for contributor to have such a notice in his talk page. At least it makes me smile every time. --Thermos 20:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My appolgize

In these months, I added some pictures into "Picture of the Day" (POTD), I didn't notice its guideline and didn't putting them in the "Featured Picture candidates". I even didn't realize that I need to do so, until User Digon3 remind me. I think it's disrespect to other users and seriously appologize here. These pictures are:
Again I'm sorry for the violation. -- Kallgan 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I was wrong about that, sorry, see here. --Digon3 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

New color scheme for voting templates

Anyone else dislike the new colors on the templates? --Fir0002 www 06:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes me. Came a little surprising too. :-) --Dschwen 08:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Me too. It was not really necessary to change that --AngMoKio 09:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Another disliker :-( Lycaon 10:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Dislike. It is kind of hard to read, and I didn't see any poll for it. --Digon3 13:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for changing them out of the blue, but I still think that way it's clearer to know if the user   Support,   Oppose, etc. Let me demonstrate: Below I'm writing a 'vote' like those you could find in the Hebrew Wikipedia. Even without knowing Hebrew, can't you easily tell how many people supported and how many Opposed?

Now, what's so wrong about the colored templates? Yuval Y 14:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It clutters the space. The symbol is more than obvious ... Lycaon 14:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
It does, and the new symbols are very hard to read (and distracting). Please change it back and then take a poll to see how many people like it before making such a big change. --Digon3 14:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Some people can't read the words fast enough, and counting the small symbols seems quite awkward. The point was that instead of READING the words, you could easily FIGURE OUT according to the colors. But, if you want me to change them back to black, I'll do as you asked. Sould I also take a poll or not..? Yuval Y 15:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Only if you want to. I would ask Roger McLassus, he is the one who does the vote counting most of the time.--Digon3 15:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, we'll see... It just seems like "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"'s 32nd chapter... Yuval Y 15:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories or Galleries should be requested for Featured pictures

Part of Commons is not only to have beautifull pictures but to have usefully beautifull pictures. Featured pictures (and mainly candidates) should be properly categorized or included in a meaningful gallery. I don't see this as a criteria and suggest it be added. --Diligent 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  •   Support Excellent idea.Jnpet 02:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support Alvesgaspar 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not categories or galleries? Either is fine. If you make only categories OK you will guarantee to annoy a certain contingent of users (just as if you did the opposite and said only galleries were OK). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I took your suggestion into account and updated the text of my suggestion accordingly. Diligent
  •   Oppose The idea is great, but the FPC rules are not the right place for it. Every picture should be categorized or gallerized appropriately. If you see one that isn't and you have a minute to spare, just do it. Let's not inflate the FPC rules with generalities which are beyond its scope. --Dschwen 21:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support--AngMoKio 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • A good idea as such. Perhaps it could be implemented as directive that unless the submission is self-explotanary, it is recommended although not required, to suggest a category. --Thermos 20:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nom floods

This page should advise against flooding the list by nominating a great deal of photos at once. – flamurai 05:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

See section above regarding "strongly oppose" template

In the first place, the poll above was a poll regarding the use Strongly Oppose template. Because of that, no other outcomes should have resulted or any decisions made. The nature of the Strongly Oppose template was that it first, and foremost was insulting.

The other decision, did not take place, as far as I'm concerned. Given that most folk involved in the vote were involved because of the civility problems, and were involved in the poll before the   Strong support (aka {{Love}}) template was brought up, the secondary decision was invalid.

However, regardless of whether it took place or not, some people seem to feel that the decision being written down above was, in fact, binding regardless of the irregularities in the poll. Be that as it may, the second decision was the removal of the   Strong support (aka {{Love}}) template from the "voting" instructions.

It said nothing about individuals voting using other graphics or icons.

It said nothing about modifying other people's texts or manipulating what they typed.

I find that sort of behavior extremely ill-mannered. Guess what...there are no rules or policies regarding what people actually type, merely instructions as to how we'd like you to type.

For the self-proclaimed enforcers of the above rules, perform your enforcing in a civil manner. Do not remove icons from people's text or change their phrasing around. Feel free to add notes underneath their comments, requesting they remove the "banned" template or however you deem appropriate to respond. Do not be surprised if you get flamed. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 18:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the removal of the love/strong oppose templates from the instructions is sensible, as it simplifies matters for new users to FPC. However as a fix to incivility issues, "banning" the templates does nothing - its what is said not what template is used. Refactoring others people's comments isn't really on either, discourage the use of the templates but don't arbitrarily replace them. In fact I have no serious objection to the use of any template, though usage of {{Strongly oppose}} should restricted to a few circumstances. As an example:

  Strong oppose This image is a copyright violation from

If I encountered a clear-cut copyright violation on FPC I wouldn't hesitate to delete it, but I would leave a note on the FPC as a courtesy to the voters. If I wasn't an admin, I would use strongly oppose on the FPC of such an image at the same time as tagging it for deletion.--Nilfanion 19:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bastique, the decision of removing the "strong support" tag was irregular. Maybe we should have said something at the time, but as a matter of fact we didn't. If someone proposes a new poll, I'll vote for the maintenance of that tag. As for modifying other people's text please clarify what you mean. I am taking care of the closing process of this page for the last weeks and is not my intention to manipulate anything, I'm only following the procedure of other closers before me. Alvesgaspar 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm referring to actual changing of what another user typed, not closing the poll. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The only thing I did was to substitute the   Strong support tag by the   Support one, leaving a short note explainning why. But again, this is the common practise I have observed during the last months. Do you think that is wrong? Alvesgaspar 10:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    I have to say, when it happened to me, I was somewhat taken aback and was annoyed, but I left it at that and never used the   Strong support template again. No, I don't think it's appropriate, but you were simply following just what others were doing. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering about modifications to Quality Images, or Featured Pictures for that matter.

You see, when I went through my watchlist, apparently one QI that I provided, had been processed quite a lot and in my opinion, for the worse. I was wondering if anyone might suggest an appropriate way to react to such image modifications?

I fully recoqnice that images provided by "post processing limited" users, such as myself, may well benefit for some further PP-work (and I certainly appreciate, if someone has time to do it) - but however, if the community has identified certain picture as QI or FP, shouldn't such images be left alone at least in connection with Wikis (and I certainly understand that licenses used entitle others to modify images as they see fit) or submitted to new voting or something?

After all, how I understand the purpose of QI and FP, is that like grammatical corrections in articles, they are designed to improve the quality of the project as a whole. At the moment I am simply considering of revoking the modification and perhaps writing a message for modifier's talk page to the effect that " the image has been voted...would you please either leave them as such, or submit modifications for new vote...". I fully recoqnise that the modifier may well be rather new user and meant well. I certainly do not intend to "hammer" him/her with a message like "You f*cking moron... Don't you understand...", but to approach with a constructive way. However, if we take worst case scenario, perhaps modifying QIs or FPs images could be a new way for "vandalism", which would certainly not be beneficial for the project.

The images I am talking about are below. The original QI, which shows quite sufficient feather detail on the back of bird and the modified one which is clearly overprocessed to the point where all detail is lost.

So what do do? Please, advice me.

PS. For purposes of conversation, I have posted this issue on both QI and FP talk pages. --Thermos 20:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If a change doesn't improve a photograph, revert it and ask them to upload it as a separate edited version (explaining why you think it isn't an improvement). That should not cause offence. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as the original image isn't overwritten anyone is free to create an edit. I agree that pointless or harmfull edit can be really annoying, especially when the get spread into articles instead of the superior original. In that case I suggest reverting and pointing out the FP or QI status of the original. --Dschwen 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Should really everyone be allowed to vote?

I searched in the previous discussions and didnt find a discussion about that topic, that's why I want to bring it up. I was wondering if it would make sense to let only those people vote who uploaded a certain amount of media-files (including placing them in categories or galleries) or have a certain amount of edits. Sometimes i have the feeling that people pass by those votes here and think they should somehow vote a little, without thinking too much about the votes and without giving comments about their votes. Those accounts often have only few edits (mostly only on the FPC-page).

If only people would be allowed to vote who have a certain amount of edits and uploads (it is like that in the german wikipedia) it would be more obvious that the voters work for the benifit of wikimedia, it would encourage people to upload and edit, and it would reduce the amount of double accounts (socket puppets) taking part in votes (if those exist..?!). People with not enough edits could still be allowed to give comments (without a vote) about pictures on FPC until they have enough edits and uploads.

This is just an idea. What are your opinions? --AngMoKio 20:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  •   Support I agree. Have to admit, was a bit disappointed loosing Arothron Mappa as FP because of one vote, and that last vote from someone who had apparently registered the very same day. I couldn't help but think "sock puppet", but not holding any grudges. The oppose I got for Octopus marginatus because it was only 300px also shows that some degree of understanding is required. I am really into under water photography, and I do enjoy the acknowledgement for good photos submitted. I certainly value the comments by the regulars like Alvesgaspar, Tomascastelazo, AngMoKio, Digon3, Lycaon,MichaelMaggs and others. It certainly encourages me to improve my photo technique, but more importantly, it encourages me to upload images of species which can be used for various Wiki projects. If you take a look at the number of red links in Wikifish project articles, you’ll see that fish images are truly needed, not to mention crustaceans and cephalopods. Loosing FP because of one vote from someone passing through isn’t encouraging and indeed makes one pause and wonder why one should be giving away these images. Then again, I get encouraged when I see images I’ve uploaded to commons, actually being used in various articles in different languages, FP or not.Jnpet 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support the main idea of AngMokio. But the rules should be simple and the conditions easy to verify, so that any user can monitorize the voting and apply them. Otherwise it will be a burden to the closer. One exception though: I think the uploader should always be allowed to vote. Alvesgaspar 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree the uploader should be allowed to vote. There are several tools to see how much a user uploaded and how much edits he/she has - so it would be quite easy to find out. And many voters are well known so it wouldn't be necessary to look up everyone. --AngMoKio 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unnecessary bureaucracy. If FPs are really failing on a consistent basis due to sockpuppeting or the like, encourage more regular users to vote more often. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that you have a limited number of regular users but a (possible) unlimited number of socket puppets. And the next question is how to encourage regular users to vote more regularly. --AngMoKio 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support I had to sleep over it, not an easy subject. From my point of view, it's mostly about people judging too easily. Adamantios 09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ack pfctdayelise. Making too many rules. We can identify if sockpuppetry is involved fairly easily and make a judgment call based on that. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 16:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
how can you identify if sockpuppetry is involved? --AngMoKio 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Bastique and pfctdayelise. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I thought commons is open to everyone Gnangarra 08:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't believe you should earn the right to voice your opinion. And frequent edits don't necessarily mean more expertise either. With that logic we could just as well weigh peoples opinions by the number of their own FP count.. --Dschwen 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say at all, that someone has more expertise when he/she has more edits. I only said that it is more obvious that someone is working for the benefit of wikimedia and that it is not just someone who passes by and gives some votes without thinking too much about it or even just to disturb. --AngMoKio 14:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But this is contrary to assume good faith. Wikipedia even allows editing for unregistered useres. We are already imposing the limit of allowing only logged in users to vote. --Dschwen 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree it is contrary to assume good faith. But in the wikipedia you can remove nonsense easily because you can recognize it as nonsense in an article. If someone places a contra in a "nonsense-vote" (often even without a comment) just to disturb, you can't recognize that...but if that person worked for the community for some time, it is more likely that he/she doesn't want to disturb but really means the vote and has really thought about it. --AngMoKio 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The obvious solution would be to give more weight to commented votes. This slightly complicates the closing process, and the closer would have to write one or two sentences, but it would encourage (constructive) criticism and discourage drive-by-voting. --Dschwen 09:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Comment It seems we are looking at the sockpuppet issue from the oppose side, that's to say some one uses a sockpuppet to oppose an image. May have been my fault as that was my initial comment. Mea kulpa. The other end of sock puppetry is of course someone doing it to give more support to an image then what it's due. Could have FP that didn't deserve to be. Just thought I'd add that possibility as well. My support stands. Jnpet 15:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  •   Oppose. I am a photographer and involved member of other wikis, but I only come here for a few things. I would probably be disallowed from voting under this new scheme. I don't think that's fair. Obviously no anonymous votes, as per the rules, makes sense. Cheers! -Stephen.job 09:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New template FPpromotion

Following Arad suggestion above, I created this template:

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


I intend to start using it while we discuss the details. What do you think? Alvesgaspar 15:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That is a good idea, hence, support. --Thermos 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Its a good idea my only thought is use a different background to QI images Gnangarra 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. It's blue now. Alvesgaspar 14:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  SupportJnpet 02:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What about this blue and the matching border? --Dschwen 15:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, looks good. --MichaelMaggs 16:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  •   Support agree it looks good--AngMoKio 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I just don't like the "Featured picture" in red. But I don't know how to change it. Alvesgaspar 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    I toned the blue down, fixed the redlink, and modified the text a tad. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 15:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better now. But I think the phrase "Your picture ... nominated by you" is not right. Should be either "The picture ... nominated by you", if we want to address the nominator, or just "Your picture ...", if we want to address the nominator and/or the creator and/or the uploader. Alvesgaspar 15:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Well, we need to add more templated variables...including {{#if}} structures. I'm not totally up on these yet, but will take a look. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Okay, I've modified the template to include two possible variables. The template above is created by {{FPpromotion|Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg}}.

If you do this: {{FPpromotion|Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg|uploader=Foo}}, you'll get:

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg, uploaded by Foo and nominated by you on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


If you do this: {{FPpromotion|Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg|nominator=[[User:Bar]]}}, you'll get:

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg, which was nominated by User:Bar at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schlagwortkatalog.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.


That way we only need one template :) Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggested requirement: SVGs should pass validation


I just realised that we have no requirement for our SVGs that they have valid SVG code. Or at the very least we should require that they are run through validators, and that all the resulting errors are only trivial. To me it is obvious, that SVGs with buggy code should not ever be featured.

Here is a page about the troubles of SVG validation:

And a validator:

I welcome comments on this topic. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good in theory. How hard is it to fix the errors with freely available tools? how bad is not validating? do the images still display? If this means a big improvment in quality or reusability for not much effort on the part of the creator, all for it. If it's a high hurdle, not so much. I do not know the answer to those questions though... ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably 99% of images drawn in Inkscape should validate perfectly :P --WarX 16:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Delisting candidates on another page?

I keep missing Delisting candidates through not scrolling down to the bottom of this very long page each time. It would be much better to list these on another page, so that interested users could watch that separately from the main nominations page. --MichaelMaggs 13:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this is already possible Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal -- Gorgo 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Picture of the Year and Picture of the Month contests

POTY 2006 discussion has moved to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006


  • The Featured picture candidates page seems to be in a mild crisis (see graphic). After some enthusiasm in 2006, the number of nominations have stabilized in around 100 per month and the number of promotions in less than 30, which is barely enough to feed the POTD. January 2007 is a bad month for FP. Only one picture has been promoted so far and the perspectives are not good: a large percentage of the images that are probably going to be promoted were created by the “usual suspects”: Mdf and Fir0002.
  • I believe we can do much better, both in the monthly number of nominations and in the ratio of promotions. For this we must be able to draw the attention of new creators and nominators and also to bring back those good collaborators who, in the meantime, fled to other projects.
  • I’m proposing the creation of two contests - the Picture of the Month and the Picture of the Year – with the aim of bringing some new excitement to the FP forum and contribute to better images being uploaded to Commons. The basic ideas are explained below:
    • Picture of the Year: during the month of January, a picture will be chosen as Picture of the Year, from all the FP of the previous year. A special page will be created in which the users can nominate their preferences (1 picture and 1 vote per nominator).
    • Picture of the Month: each month, a picture will be chosen as Picture of the Month, from all the FP of the previous month. A special page will be created in which the users can nominate their preferences (1 picture and 1 vote per nominator).
  • For now I’m only asking your feedback on the general idea. If the consensus is to go ahead then I’ll think about the details and ask for some help to create the adequate pages. Alvesgaspar 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Nice idea! However I my guess is that POTM and POTY will be held by the usual suspects as well :-), so it'll be motivating for those two guys at least... --Dschwen 15:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a philosophy, stated on my user page, to promote other people's pictures. I think we should make people aware of this "altruist" PoV, they should (according to their interests) promote the pictures of the center of interest they have (me: arts for example). And why not a star for the "promoter of the month" - you'll get people to care about the other photographers and not self-centered in their own production. And you'll get more proposals. Other than that, I support all initiatives which draw on this page the best productions of Commons and give them visibility. --Diligent 16:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • From the begining it was my idea that no author could nominate his own images to the contest... Alvesgaspar 16:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I concur. While I don't mind this so much on Featured pictures, I certainly think in this case it is entirely appropriate to promote other's images Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree as well. On FPC it wouldn't be enforcable, otherwise the number of nominations would go down even further. --Dschwen 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I like the idea! There should probably be a vote out of some of the finest quality of the images. Arjun 17:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note, I was not trying to make a new rule ("no self promotion") but to entice people to promote not only themselves (for the "usual suspects" mentionned above) but the others. Let's say that if all of our 10/20 regular contributors to FPC voting make an effort to search and promote ONE good picture we find on Commons PER WEEK, part of the gap will be closed. --Diligent 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I remember a discussion on IRC, about adding Good Pictures. With a focus mostly on the technical asspect of the image, and less on the artistic, and a much simpler process. AzaToth 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds an awful lot like COM:QIC :-) --Dschwen 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The graph shows me, that there were many nominations but nearly the same number of promotions. This means to me that the qualitiy of submitted pictures is the same as before, but the quantity of submissions has grown to a high level. It is not easy to pic real good pictures from a flood of bad, blurry, underdeveloped or too small pictures. Sometimes it seems to me that people were spamming commons with a mass of their ugliest pictures to use up hard disk space on the servers. To raise the quality of the pictures(and to have more FPCs) it would be good to be able to fast delete bad pictures right after upload. My second idea is, that the "quality picture candidates" should be handled similar to the featured picture candidate process. That means, that people can give their pictures on that list to get a photocritique and maybe a promotion as "Quality picture". The quality picture and photo critique site combined together. What do you think about that? Like to hear your comments. --SvonHalenbach 19:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Photocritiques was meant as a casual place for chatting about specific pictures with the aim of getting feedback and help for improvements. I fear that joining it with one of the reward based systems will take away that casualness (and politeness) there currently is. --Dschwen 23:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I totally disagree to making a Poty or Potm contest. This adds just more work to admins and brings no new quality contributers to us. We need to make a single contest (made public by wikinews) to encourage people to make pictures for the Wikipedia project. The three best photographers would get a bit famous. They were displayed with a photo of them on the mainpage of commons if they want (instead of the picture of the day). That would bring completely new contributors to commons. --SvonHalenbach 20:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But this is being proposed by a guy who already does most of the heavy lifting on FPC. [1] [2]. Opposing to his proposal for those reasons makes no sense IMHO. --Dschwen 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What you don't know is that I intend to run away as soon as the flood of new nomination begins, leaving the burden to you (wow, I believe it's starting now!) ;-) - Alvesgaspar 10:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In general i think this is a nice idea, especially the poty. But this only encourages people to contribute when those potms and potys get honored and get shown were many people see it. In a way i have to agree with SvonHalenbach - the FPs or the potds (or potm/poty) should be shown on wikipedia-pages. This would make Commons in general more known to others and someone with a good picture would get a day of fame ;) --AngMoKio 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You could even promote a Picture of the Week - this will change nothing. Let us place instead an invitation on top of every page for nominating excellent pictures to be featured. -- AM 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's a good idea, but I'm not sure if this is going to encourage the same usual suspects or bring more nominators. --Arad 01:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ikiwaners comment

declined FP 1
Declined FP3
declined Quality image

Thanks Alvesgaspar to take up this really important topic. I would support the idea of a Picture of the year as you suggest it. There could be some reasonnable prize to win and a press release be done. This alone won't change the situation. I'm also against some Picture of the month since it makes no sense when just so few images get featured.

Let's have a look at our current quality assurance here: We have over 1 bio of images. Having a look at Special:Newimages you can estimate that there are about 1% carefully chosen photographs. About 5% is some copied flags or semiautomatically generated maps. So about 94% is never in a wikiproject used garbage.

We currently have no system to tag those 1% potentially wikipedia-article useful images. All we can do is to categorize them that a article writer will find them more easily. COM:QIC doesn't really work since pretentions are quite high also there.

So let's come to those few pictures out of the 1% that get nominated for FP. Have a look at the archives and you'll see that our pretentions have grown into the sky. Even the very good images from professional US military photographers dont get featured (1) because they're somewhat unsharp at 12 MP. Friends we're not a database with paid photographers that could nominate the really best pictures of the world. You get what you pay for! Many of the declined FP are better than anything I could ever create. That's disencuraging for nominating my pictures and for looking around for good foreign pictres. Cold comfort that Wikipedia DE is worse: They have ~250 "Exzellente Bilder" to illustrate ~500'000 articles. They can illustrate 0.05% of their articles with a really good image according their standard.

The conclusion:

  1. If it's possible to do an very basic automatical image quality check we should establish it. (number of overesposed pixels, resolution, description)
  2. lets get somewhat more reasonnable both at COM:QIC and COM:FP. As you see on the right many of the declined pics are pretty good! Thanks --Ikiwaner 22:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • automatic image quality checking would be great, but it would a) consume a buttload of computing power to catch up with the 1bio images, plus it is technically difficult. I tried that once for my own pics, and wrote a program which extracts spatial frequency coefficients from the raw JPG data to judge if an image is sharp. I got it tuned for my particular camera, but noise can easily be misinterpreted as sharpness. Well, lots of pitfalls. --Dschwen 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% --Arad 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Nominated & declined FP, but used in 10 articles
Not nominated, used in 2 articles
  • I think it’s a good idea and I’d support a POTM and a POTY, and I think the way Alvesgaspar proposed it is exactly how I would set it up. I’d also like to add that I fully agree with Ikiwaner as well and I’ll illustrate my point. I was one of those frequent self nominators and it was great to get some constructive feedback on the photos learning where I could improve on the shots (and it was great when a picture got selected). I clearly understand now that I am having DOF problems as well as back scatter problems on my photos which I hope to improve upon for my next dive trip. I didn’t mind that these pictures did not get FP, as long as the reasons were clear. At any rate, they serve to illustrate articles and every picture I’ve uploaded is used on at least one article (some of which I’ve created myself). Just nominating the picture gives the image exposure and has frequently resulted in articles being created. What did turn me off to FP though, was my Blue-ringed octopus nomination. Here was a picture that was quite clear (I thought). Problem with that one was back ground noise, the little fellow’s natural surroundings. This resulted in the picture not being selected. When it comes to DOF and back scatter, I may be able to do something about it, but there is nothing I can (or want) to do about a creature’s natural surroundings. The point is, though, there was apparently a substantial demand for a picture of the Blue-ringed octopus. That picture, plus a second picture of the same subject, spread quickly and is now found on 12 articles in 5 languages plus the Wiki Species project. I even found it used as a “favorite” picture on two user pages, and this only after a month (December 4) since it was uploaded. (Where were all these people when I needed the support?) How many FP get that kind of spread? It might not have gotten an FP tag, but the usage gives me huge satisfaction in the knowledge I’ve contributed something useful. Perhaps a new category: IP or UP for Important or Useful Picture for images used on 10 articles or more on any wiki-language or project? Or is that difficult to track?

Conclusion:   Support Alvesgaspar’s proposal regarding POTM & POTY &   Agree with Ikiwaner regarding FP criteria. Jnpet 03:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view if you make the standards too high, you will get, over time, less people interested in participating. I think even QI might have relatively high standards, but I could be wrong. Perhaps it's not that the quality is declining, but that the standards are increasing? I know I'm not likely to ever submit another picture to FP, no matter how unique or striking the shot might be in my own mind, because I'll never be a good enough photographer to hit the bar there. But that's ok, as long as the images are still being used to illustrate our work. FP isn't a be-all/end-all, just like Commons isn't. Commons exists to support other projects, not for its own sake. FP and FP contests and suchlike should be evaluated from the metric of... does their existance encourage overall increase in quality and breadth of coverage and utility of our projects? As Jnpet says... a pic that got picked up by 10 projects has high utility regardless of whether the great photographers that judge FP think it was good enough for FP or not. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Simonizers proposal

  • I   Support Alvesgaspar’s proposal regarding POTY, but I dont think that we have enough excellent picturs per month for a POTM contest. How do you find a Category Contest instead? For example the admins announce that the new category you can nominate excellent pictures for is "mountains". Then the people have some month time to make and nominate "mountain-pictures" and finally we vote about the best one. What do you think about this? -- Simonizer 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general idea, please go ahead and think about the details. I have even thought of making the POTY thematic, meaning we would have not just one POTY but as many as the existing FP categories (or groups of categories). Alvesgaspar 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • About Simonizer's idea I think it will be necessary for the pictures nominated to have been previously promoted to FP or QI. Otherwise we'll get a flood of substandard images. Alvesgaspar 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY page sketch

  •   Info I believe a concensus for the implementation of the POTY contest is already taking form. Please see the stub of the new page here: Picture of the Year 2006 -- Alvesgaspar 13:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • May I suggest a move to Commons:Picture of the Year 2006, or Commons:Picture of the Year/COM:POTY with subpages for archived years. --Dschwen 13:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The nominations should also be signed to make clear they are not selfnoms and that everybody nominates only one pic. --Dschwen 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • About the name of the page, go ahead, you are much more knowledgeable about this place than me. As for the nominations, there is no harm in puting pictures in the gallery even if they have zero votes. We can't insert all the FP because they are too many! - Alvesgaspar 13:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    Picture of the Year 2006 moved to Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. Note this creates a subpage of the presently non-existant Commons:Picture of the Year page. Cary "Bastiqe" Bass demandez 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I created a redirect from Commons:Picture of the Year to Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 for now. Later this page can be filled withe some introductory text, the latest POTY and a link to the current voting page. Further subpages like Commons:Picture of the Year/2006/Ballot could then be used to archive the nomination process for each year, provide transcludable templates of the pic and a description in multiple languages etc. --Dschwen 16:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  •   Comment regarding the rules, it says no anonymous or self nominations. Is it assumed that this also means no self votes? Just want to make it clear as it doesn't clarify if an image you created/uploaded gets nominated by someone else, you can then vote for it yourself. I would assume that no self nomination also means no self voting, but perhaps that needs to be made clear. Looks great by the way! Jnpet 01:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You are quite right, no self voting it's what I meant. By the way please feel free to improve the page, that is only a sketch. Alvesgaspar 09:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I started a list of suggestions at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006 for honoring the winners of the POTY contest - Alvesgaspar 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think Alvesgaspar is right, we need more FP. So I support his idea to do a pic of the jear. And I fully agree with Ikiwaner. We should not kick off a picture so fast. But I also have an idea: If we create in addition to Quality Images and Featured Pictures a third label like useful picture or so, wich indicates pictures with a high usability for wikipedia-projects and wich can be set without discussion to any picture that is used in at least 3 wiki-projects we would be able to sort between those 94% and the good 6% --Jeses 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Although less than 3 days have passed since this discussion item was opened we already have a significant amount of opinions. I propose the following conclusions:

  • There is a clear consensus for the creation of the POTY contest. Only one user, out of 12, seemed to be against the idea. In order to discuss the details and implement the idea, I copied the relevant entries to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006. Please collaborate in the preparation of the event.
  • 7 users agreed with the creation of the POTM contests, but there is a reasonable doubt about its viability and effectiveness due to the small number of pictures being featured each month. A nice alternative, the creation of thematic image contests, was proposed by Simonizer. I have opened below a new discussion item on this subject (Thematic image contests) to where I copied the relevant entries;
  • The question of the implementation of FP selection criteria in Commons:Featured picture candidates was raised by Ikiwaner and commented by some other users. Because this is an independent and relevant issue, I suggest Ikinawer to open a new discussion item on the subject. - Alvesgaspar 13:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

POTY 2006 discussion has moved to Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2006

Proposing new voting icons

Hi guys. When I first draw the currently used voting symbols in June 2005, this was just a trial how and if the community would like it. I then didn't realise how widely they would be used. For this reason I didn't put that much time in creating them and the result were voting symbols, which are not as good as they could be. Due of that, I gave it another try and especially factored the following points:

  • a clear outline (the actual symbol and the entire icon)
  • a well-balanced colour palette (I used the tango color palette [3]). The entire icon set is made of two tones of grey and three further colour tones.
  • well-known symbols resp. metaphors (even if I'm not that sure with the keep symbol, but it's widely used here on commons)
  • strict validity of the SVG's source code (checked with w3c's xml validator, e. g. support_symbol [4])

Furthermore the icons are less flashy due to the used colour palette. That has always annoyed many people on german wp.


I would like to read, what you are thinking. I confronted them with the current ones. I would appreciate a more consistent set of voting icons and this is my proposal. norro 22:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed your symbols are now widely used (not only in Commons) which means they are well designed and nice to look at. Congratulations. As for the new versions, I think they have too much detail for the size they are normally used. For example, the colour grades of the outer circle are not easily perceived in 20px. The same happens with the yellow sector of the clock. I'm sorry but I think the first version is better for small sizes. The only modification I suggest is to abandon the elyptical shape (I'm not sure about the shadow) and to make the grey of the "info", "neutral" and "wait" symbols a little darker (like in the new ones). Why is the   Info symbol missing? And the   Comment symbol in the upper row? - Alvesgaspar 10:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for your comment Alves. I added the information icon coherent with the other icons. I don't really know, why the current comment icon is not displayed. I tried to add it to the table. norro 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    But what do you mean with “too much detail for the size they are normally used”. The colour grade of the outer circle is not a detail, but just a thing I added to give the icons a slight 3D look. For me they seem even bigger and clearer than the current ones. What icon(s) do you mean exactly? The wait-icon? norro 21:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One obvious case is indeed the "wait" icon, where the yellow sector is barely visible. For me the colour grade of the outer circle is not very effective in giving a 3D look because it is too thin and light. I would try using darker colours, like in the old ones, the grades will be more obvious. - Alvesgaspar 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work. They please my eyes, apart from the grey square border which I'm not too fond of. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, Lumijaguaari. The grey sqaure border is not part of the icons, but of the table I used to confront them with the current ones. norro 16:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Or IE's lack of transparent PNG support. --Dschwen 09:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thematic Image Contests

  • I   Support Alvesgaspar’s proposal regarding POTY, but I dont think that we have enough excellent picturs per month for a POTM contest. How do you find a Category Contest instead? For example the admins announce that the new category you can nominate excellent pictures for is "mountains". Then the people have some month time to make and nominate "mountain-pictures" and finally we vote about the best one. What do you think about this? -- Simonizer 09:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general idea, please go ahead and think about the details. I have even thought of making the POTY thematic, meaning we would have not just one POTY but as many as the existing FP categories (or groups of categories). Alvesgaspar 11:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • About Simonizer's idea I think it will be necessary for the pictures nominated to have been previously promoted to FP or QI. Otherwise we'll get a flood of substandard images. Alvesgaspar 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Category contest is a great idea. Full support! This way we could enlarge categories which lack of good pictures. --AngMoKio 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would think that would have to be a separate contest from the POTM contest. If, as has been pointed out, there isn't much to select from in FP, then wouldn't it be even more difficult to find an FP on a specific category? Having said that, this could be a way to bring attention to commons by getting people involved from other projects and portals. For example, we could have a list of categories, but each category is actually owned by the members of a specific project or portal. We can announce this "category images", members of different projects can then make a request for a category in their name, for example "Wikiproject Fishes recommended images" or something similar. We can provide a voting process guideline similar to FP or QI, although I believe it should be a simpler process, since in this instance I'd imagine there would be more emphasis on the image's value balanced with the quality. The members of the various projects then select and maintain their own set of images. This might encourage the article writers and project members to get involved in sifting through the material available and tagging the ones that they identify as useful for their projects. By linking it to their project page, under "to do": "Nominate and vote on recommended images" or "recommended images needing articles", or "recommended images; species identification", etc. Anyway, just some ideas.Jnpet 03:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Display of nominations

I believe part of the problem is that FPC is not well set up to handle many nominations as well as many comments. This linear type of page doesn't work well. Having each nomination on its own subpage does work well. I envisage that we rework the page display to better cope with more nominations. Maybe a page on the toolserver. Maybe like a frame at the top or side with a thumbnail of each image (+ maybe other information like date nominated, nominator/author, even if we could get auto-counts for the votes so far, something like that would be cool), and when you click the thumbnail, the full nomination loads in the window below. What do folks think, worth investigating? I think this linear wiki page interface just doesn't work well for a high volume of nominations. This is related to the previous discussion, because making voting easier to manage and more inviting will encourage more people to take part, and the regulars won't get so grumpy if there happens to be a high volume. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC) PS. I call my vision "MyFPC". :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But, we don't have a high volume of nominations. We have a lack of nominations. I like seeing the pics and the comments at once. The only thing I dont like is that after writing a comment or voting you are not taken back to the FPC page automatically. -- AM 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to nominate some of mine, but after seeing how the voting goes, it seems unlikely any would be accepted, so not going to bother. Stan Shebs 18:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with AM. Right now this is not a problem and I do not see a huge increase in nominations in the near future. But you never now... --Ikiwaner 16:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename Commons:Featured picture candidates to Commons:Featured media candidates

Why not? .ogg are not pictures and are in scope of this. --Cat out 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be a separate page. There is not nearly as many and the standard expected would not be the same. And the name 'Featured picture' is traditional. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki Link

In the Interwiki Link list at the left "English" is appearing twice - and the first link is wrong and is linking to the Queen's house article in the English Wikipedia. I can't figure out where in the source this link is set, so I can't get it away. Can anyone repair this? Thanks in advance! -- 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. --KFP 15:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

FP deleted

The image Image:Glarus Kloentalersee_edited.jpg, promoted to FP in Feb 11, was deleted by User:Gmaxwell, according to this record. Anybody knows why? - Alvesgaspar 10:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Version merging (see Image:Glarus Kloentalersee.jpg). --Leyo 13:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion, I did run checkusage and corrected the relevant links, nevertheless I must have missed one or it was not jet in the list. --Ikiwaner 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Not a big deal... Alvesgaspar 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommended resolution guidelines

This pic is larger than the current size recommendations, but only 180KB and awful quality with very low resolution, and clearly should not be allowed to meet featured pic guidelines

The current advisory text states "At least 2 million pixels (e.g. 2000 x 1000) seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons". This is actually a picture dimension, not a picture resolution. It would be quite easy to create a picture that meets these dimensions, but with very low resolution (maybe even under a hundred kilobytes; such a pic would look awful, with dreadful compression artefacts).

Could I suggest that (for .jpg pictures at least), the wording be changed to "At least 600 kilobytes seems reasonable right now. Images of lower resolution are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons". My suggestion of 600KB is based roughly on what has been getting featured; if others think the resolution should be higher, or lower, please say so. Obviously .png pictures (using many fewer colours in diagrams) would need different criteria.

Thoughts, please! - MPF 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You definitely have a point, but I think it should closer to 1 MB, like 700 or 800. I think there should still be a dimension rule, but it should be less than 2000 x 1000. --Digon3 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to keep the minimum on the high side, say 800Kb, if only to encourage users to post larger, better quality images. --MichaelMaggs 22:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my first thought coming here for the first time today was that the requirement is unreasonable. I agree with a size requirement but 1000 x 1000 or 1024 x 768 would be two more reasonable options for minimum size. Cat-five 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In terms of the "bit size" requirement, I'm not so sure about upping it. JPG compression techniques vary (progressive vs baseline etc., which can result in smaller file sizes without quality loss). Also, the file size for a jpg can correlate to "image complexity," where an image of high-quality may compress better because of the way jpg "sees" it -- think lots of one color (sorry that's a bit vague, I believe I just anthropomorphized a compression technique). Just a thought. --Cody.Pope 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cody; 'dimensions' is the way to go, as file size in Kb depends on too many variables. The only restriction, with a few exceptions, should be that the image should fill the screen, which makes a 1000px horizontal dimension a reasonable request. I'd like to chip in the following points:

  • There are some formats for which 1000px is too small, specifically panoramic, where the vertical dimension needs to be 800px (horizontally 2400px and beyond);
  • Some subjects can't be properly evaluated unless they are able to be enlarged, vis landscapes, macros and (again) panoramics;
  • Some, however, actualy display better at 1000px - portraits, fine art images (both photos per se and copies of artwork), photo-journalistic, street etc, which should be primarily evaluated on their pictoral value, not subject to pixel-by-pixel scrutiny first and foremost. We should definitely lower the bar for these, IMO, stipulating a sVGA minimum (800x600);
  • Images optimised for >1000px display will look better in the encyclopedia. Im not sure how pertinent this point is, but I would sharpen a 3000x2000px image way, way different to the same image at 800x600px. The result is that I need to make separate Wikipedia versions of the images I submit for FPC. Is this the norm?

I general think there is a danger of valuing resolution over content and failing to honour honest, quality pictures as a result. Sure, there are fields (macro is the obvious one) where resolving prowess is right up there in the crit list, but I think the conditional 'strong mitigating reasons' should apply only to those images submitted at sVGA size, while the rest be admitted, perhaps according to the subject and format criteria above, with a 1000x760 'full-screen minimum' stipulation. mixpix 11:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a guideline for nominators, so it's an easy way to encourage people to submit only high-quality pictures and to think twice about trying to nominate low-res images.

Since most cameras nowadays have a resolution > 6 megapixel I would rather like to increase the minimum resolution to 3mp than to lower it. -- Gorgo 01:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello all. I was thinking of getting involved in FPC over here on Commons but was a bit wary after being harshly bitten at Wikipedia's FPC over my justification for an oppose vote, I got angry and stormed away from their FPCs never to return. I was wondering, what are some of the major faux pas' around here. How can I avoid looking ignorant? I read the criteria, which seem open to interpretaton due to their "informal" quality. Should I be all good, as the kids say, or do I require more indoctornation. I've kind of been hanging out around here, thusly wary to join in the conversation for fear of being completely triviliazed. Thanks. : )A mcmurray 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! Feel free just to jump in. Mostly, we're quite friendly over here, and if you follow the guidelines you won't go far wrong. If you have reasons to support a negative vote, most people will respect that. Quie a few voters, though, think it a bit rude to oppose with out providing any reason at all, so I suggest you avoid that. Happy voting! --MichaelMaggs 22:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a newbie over here too for exactly teh same reason as you, enwiki FPC is to not mince words awful compared to how it used to be but so far commons seems to be much nicer. Cat-five 20:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding an alterative version

I am sure I have just messed up in the way I added an alternative version to a listing. The nominated image was one of mine that had been minorly modified heres a link [[5]]. I have since been back and recreated the whole panorama from scratch and it is a vast improvement on any other version IMHO. Reading this page and the discussions I see no clear way to add an alternate in from the candidate list, if I add the original to the top of the list it will appear as a separate entry rather than a side by side which it clearly should be. So if I have messed up the original nomination page then sorry and maybe someone who knows how it is actually supposed to happen could fix it and maybe write a note explaining the procedure? Mfield 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

check this example [[6]]. This is a good way to add an least the established way. --AngMoKio 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 2".