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.



A number of images belonging to Commons users are being sold on Shutterstock. See Andrew Marwan's Shuttestock account and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Theft by a Commons user. If you recognise any of your photos you can contact Shutterstock by emailing "". The user User:MarwanAndrew is likely the same guy. Please look at the upload file list. They appear to be mainly from Morocco so perhaps are genuinely his photos, but it would be good if others could examine. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Increase minimum resolution to 4K?

Hello all,

I initiated a discussion on increasing the minimum resolution (such that pictures fill up modern 4K monitors) on Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Increase minimum resolution to 4K? and as Cart pointed out this discussion is highly relevant to FP since the Commons:Image guidelines are the same and this page gets the most relevant traffic. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose For some hard-to-photograph wildlife images, 4K is inappropriate. Charles (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, the discussion is on the other page, and isn't just about 4k. -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For most landscapes and architectural shots, our effective standards are already much higher than 2 MP. For a shot with mild "wow" factor, I might oppose a 12 MP image when I'd support a 120 MP version of the same image, but I'll go so far as to nominate a spectacular 4 MP image. What I'm saying is, at QIC uniform standards make sense because you must have a reason to decline an image. At FPC it can be simply because you don't like it. So I don't think minimum requirements are necessary at FPC, as participants will compare each candidate to what is possible and ask themselves, is this among the best we have to offer? -- King of ♠ 01:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • King of Hearts could everyone please stop (a) voting and (b) voting here. The discussion is on the other page. Voting is evil. There's a discussion to be had about whether we have minimum standards and what they should be, rather than blanket opposing on the first idea to come into someone's head. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Colin: The discussion for QI is there. If we're going to discuss FPs, it needs to be done here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • To be honest, the whole thing is a mess because "Increase minimum resolution to 4K" was proposed without, IMO, thinking through what that meant. There's a rather wide variety of views on what the minimum size might be, and don't see much point in rehashing that right now with exactly the same people on a different page. I think starting a discussion during the Christmas holidays was also a bad time. Suspect it is probably best to just mull it over for a while then someone make a proposal that properly considers all the different kinds of photography, issues with photography, issues with downsizing, etc, etc. If QI can't come to an agreement on threshold, then I don't see why FP would be any more likely. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Category for landscapes with human elements

A large majority of our FPs are either landscapes or architecture. When it fits cleanly into one of those categories, it's great, and we have many useful subcategories such as cityscapes, towers, etc. But often it doesn't. Take some of my own FPs for example:

Now QI does have a wonderful category for these kinds of pictures: Commons:Quality images/Subject/Places/Mixed. Why not have something similar here, and avoid all the mental gymnastics required to squeeze these square pegs into round holes? -- King of ♠ 03:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: This is no big problem. It's just like when we get an FP of a previously unrepresented plant or animal species; a new section/subsection is created. Someone just have to take the time to do it. Objects now fixed. For your other photos of gazebos in parks or small bridges in landscapes there is the mixed page/category Commons:Featured pictures/Places (or "Other places" as it's called in the FP template). Feel free to move those photos to that page. --Cart (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see! I thought Commons:Featured pictures/Places was just a metacat, didn't realize it was meant to hold images. -- King of ♠ 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abfertigen einer Meldung durch Brieftauben - CH-BAR - 3240471 - restoration.jpg

Um, this may be an odd thing to complain about, and I appreciate the sentiment... I'm pretty sure that this shouldn't be featured since I withdrew it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, technically you didn't withdraw it since you didn't use the {{Withdraw}} template, which is the only way you can "tell" the FPC Bot that the photo is out of the game. Most users will not take just a written "Withdraw" seriously either, they want the template. So now you have two options: Fix the thing that was wrong with it really fast or nominate it for delisting, otherwise you are stuck with an FP. Commons bureaucracy I'm afraid. --Cart (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Looking that the unique oppose vote is my vote, its should be easier to withdraw my vote than to withdraw the nomination. I think the majority spoke and you were wrong to not use the template, unfortunately it was a technical error and I think you should not charge in your consciousness to have a FP that is not, please, simply take into account my recommendations and upload a new version or just forget the subject, nobody will tell you anything. Thank you for your sincerity and concern, not all users see FPC as an opportunity to improve themselves --Photographer 02:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, well. Anyway, I should note this, though I doubt anyone will care: Because of the failed withdrawal, I think there was like, a day when I had three nominations up. Sorry. I thought it was two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Shit happens.   There were no malicious thoughts behind it, so go in peace Adam. You'll do it right next time. --Cart (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


This is to inform that AWeith, sadly, has passed away. He formerly was active on FP/QI for some time, and many of us might remember his nature/wildlife photos, including the polar bear series (this one, this one, and many others).

For those who wish, there is page of condolences in German WP --A.Savin 14:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
The condolences page seems to be locked. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it definitely isn't --A.Savin 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Lack of understanding on my part. Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Why does the bot keep puting the same notice of my talk page? I counted 4 notices for File:5000 rupiah bill, 2001 series (2009 date), processed, obverse+reverse.jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, 5th time. Yann (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It was also reproduced 5 times in the Log and Chronological. I have cleaned up those entries. The file title contains a "+". This is one of the characters that can really mess up any code and bring on strange things like this when it comes to Bots and Templates, since it is reserved for "machine code". I have removed the nom from the file list manually since it already is in the FP system. I would suggest that you re-name the file and move the nomination page to a name with an "and" instead of "+" so it can't mess up any other templates or Bots. After that you should delete/burn/salt the ground where the old faulty file name has been.
While I was fixing this, I also noticed and cleaned up the mess Charles made when he created a nom with a very strange/faulty name for File:Madagascar fody (Foudia madagascariensis) male 2.jpg. The {{Assessments|featured=1}} ended up on the Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019 page instead of the photo and the file was not entered into the FP system correctly. So Charles, please: 1) Triple check the nom name before you click on "save" and 2) Don't re-name pages without properly moving them. You have a history for messing up codes here, so please be more careful in the future. --Cart (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, file and FP nomination moved. To be on the safe side, I also moved the VI nomination page. Thanks for looking. Characters creating such a mess should be prohibited in file names. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Great. Well, technically just having them in the file name doesn't cause any trouble as long as the file doesn't interact with templates or Bots on the site. It is usually when files are nominated for something that the trouble starts. You might have seen cautions about this when you are about to create a password on some websites. You get a warning saying: -"Password may not include ...". But you are right, it might be better if some code-creator here could come up with a complete list of characters to avoid and the info could be added to the upload pages. Unfortunately, I don't know enough to put together such a list. --Cart (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the name change at nom page, Log, Chrono and FP Non-photographic just to purge them from the "+". --Cart (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, a related thing: This is also the reason why you can never write an explanation for some newbie on the QIC page about how to calculate the size of a photo (Mpx) when they mix it up with MB. If you write say "1200 x 960 = 1.15 Mpx" in one of the noms or Discussions (it has happened), it will cancel out part of the page since there is a "=" messing with the code in the template. Another reason why it might be better to define minimum size another way, like shortest side. --Cart (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Cart, do you reckon my File:' OR 1=1; --.jpg is in with a chance at FP? Perhaps it would make everyone a winner, smiles all round. Not sure I'm ready to upload File:' ; DROP TABLE IMAGES; --.jpg just yet. We'd all find out if WMF have a working backup, that's for sure. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kilt-wearing Vandal, you can always try...   --Cart (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


...I'm always hesitant to renominate. I don't think we need strict rules - they're probably counterproductive given the variety of reasons a nomination might fail, but a little written guidance might be useful, and not mere platitudes like "Show why the previous opposition was wrong" and the like - Because how does that apply to something like Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg where there was no opposition?

I propose the following guidance to start:

  • Wait at least 3 months, ideally longer. I don't think there's ever a case where renominating sooner than this is helpful.
  • If the previous nomination was opposed, either deal with the opposition, or briefly explain why you think it was invalid.
  • If the previous nomination failed to reach quorum, but was not opposed... Um... ???

Does this seem reasonable? Any more advice? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Before we do this dance again, those who weren't here the last time might want to read the,previous discussion: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Rule on renominating unsuccessful candidates. --Cart (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Five days closing when there is an alternative

Hi, Does the rule of 5 days closing apply when there is an alternative, i.e. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpg? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Having an Alt prevents the FPCBot to do an automatic five-days-closing. I have never seen (AFAIK) a manual five-days-closing, not even on very successful nominations where both noms got more than 10 votes, like this one: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 069.jpg. I can't see the Alts mentioned in the FPC guidelines at all. I think it is prudent to let a nom with an Alt run the full course as you never know if the image with less votes will make a dash and collect a lot of votes on the finish line, like the above mentioned nom did. It had 12 support votes when the Alt was added and the Alt won. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Doublons - Double nominations

Bonjour, je fais du rangement dans la page Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media - Elle est devenue ingérable et plus personne ne fait le classement nécessaire, les images s'accumulent dans une rubrique "other", sorte de fourre-tout. C'est si mal classé qu'en créant une rubrique littérature j'ai trouvé deux images qui ont reçu le titre "Featured_pictures" deux fois. Elles ont été élues la première fois dans une série de neuf illustrations d'un poème puis une seconde fois dans une série de deux. Je voulais proposer la suppression de la série de deux. Pour visualiser c'est dans la rubrique Je n'arrive pas a publier la demande de délistage, quelqu'un peut-il s'en occuper ? Les deux images :

Merci. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Merci pour tout votre travail pour mettre cette page en ordre. Ce fut un gâchis total! Toutes ces nominations ont été faites par Adam Cuerden. Il pourrait donc peut-être savoir ce qui est arrivé et apporter son aide pour cela. Petite correction, ils ont d'abord été désignés comme deux candidatures distinctes (15 August 2009 and 18 August 2009), puis ont été inclus dans une candidature (21 November 2012).
Thank you for all your hard work in getting that page in order. It has been a total mess! All these nominations were made by Adam Cuerden, so perhaps he might shed some light on what has happened and help out with this. Small correction, they were first nominated as two separate nominations (15 August 2009 and 18 August 2009) and later they were included in a set nomination (21 November 2012).
--Cart (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Je poursuit le nettoyage. Réécriture des légendes, je vide la section History pour les déplacer dans la page Historical (quand c'est un évènement historique daté)
Encore une autre image en doublon, la même, avec et sans bordure :
il faut en effacer une, laquelle ? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Merci S. DÉNIEL, j'en prendrai soin / I will take care of it. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't recall exactly what happened here, but I know around then there was the idea one should be eclectic and jump around, that then later changed to preferring completeness. I'd say that, since they definitely passed as part of the set, and that was the last (and there's no actual rule against renomination, just what the voters will tolerate), we should just consider them a featured set and the individual nominations a distraction. I mean, at worst, one is doubly featured, which is functionally the same as featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Found it. See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_13#Sets - that should explain it. It was during the period when sets were still being formalised, which is why it is a bit odd. Simon was redone for the set, to make it consistent, so the previous nom is invalid Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look Adam. The old and the set noms are on different files. In your expert opinion, are the versions identical? If so the assessment could just be removed from the first noms and a sort of redirect /forward set to the newer set nom. --Cart (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that I all but stated the set nomination was meant to usurp on the talk page, and should stick with that statement. I imagine I didn't upload over the duplicate FP as it would be misleading if the set didn't pass. But it did. Usage on wikis is erratic between the two. (And I've noticed the same duplication happens in en-wiki FP) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clarifying all of this Adam. Not your fault at all! I'm just trying to sort out the technicalities of old bloopers to set the gallery and other pages right. Sorry if the bureaucracy is tedious and annoying. :-)
So the best way of dealing with this would be to simply delist the two old versions, the same way that is now going on with Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Manhattan00.jpg, and stick with the set nom in the future. All to make it look good and proper in the file history in case someone wonders what went on later.
I would do this delist nominations of File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg and File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Lady of Shalott.jpg together for clarity, but right now one of my spots is occupied, so I have to wait until that one is done. Unless of course someone else has two free delist slots and can put this up right away. --Cart (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Une autre image en double :

Enlever la première je suppose? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct, je vais m'en occuper. Merci de l'avoir détecté. S'il vous plaît, n'enlevez aucun de ces doublons avant la fin des nominations. Ils seront supprimés à la clôture de la candidature et traités dans d'autres galeries consacrées à la PF, telles que "Chronological" et certaines catégories.
Correct, I will take care of it. Thank you for detecting it. Please don't remove any of these doubles until the delist nominations are finished. They will be removed at the closing of the nomination and also dealt with in other FP galleries such as "Chronological" and some categories. --Cart (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If it was up to me...

... I would gladly have the rest of this month without any comments on FPC. Just voting {{s}}, {{o}} or {{neutral}} and sign. Nothing else. Just to let things cool down a bit. But that is just me dreaming. --Cart (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

We could give it a try. How about one week of voluntary commitment to abstain from comments? I'm in. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose What makes FPC interesting in my opinion is the clever combination of an explicit vote (positive, neutral or negative) with a coherent comment. I would even enjoy more text sometimes to explain the supports (if we really want to improve something, that can be a direction) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you never feel like taking a break from arguing once in a while? Just to relax. Btw, this was not meant to be a vote, just some thoughts and certainly nothing permanent. --Cart (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No. "If it was up to me..." honestly, no. Probably we're not dreaming the same. Personally I enjoy FPC as it is, and think this project is working very well already. Others' reviews are always interesting. Often we agree, sometimes we disagree, but these consensus / divergences are valuable and educative only because they are reasoned and detailed. On the opposite to you, I would prefer comments without votes. But these small "rewards" coming with a promotion are good also, because they generate a motivation. In any case, the guidelines are there, and it's important for new participants to maintain the system logic and open. This is not our personal project, but a collective one. Launched in many languages. Concerning my vote, sorry it's not a support as you would probably have preferred -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I was expecting a conversation, not votes of any kind. Of course this is not our personal project, but a collective is made up of individual voices so we can always float ideas. Oh well, let's get on with the show. --Cart (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Conversations on the Project page often lead to significant improvements of our pictures with   new versions uploaded (see last week 1, 2, 3, etc.) -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppose we could suspend FPC for a couple of weeks (no new nominations) to give everyone a break from it. Go vote at Photo Challenge instead, where there are no oppose votes at all, only degrees of enthusiasm.
FPC is not just a popularity vote, and oppose votes require a reason out of courtesy. So I don't really see how it could function without comments, particularly as some oppose reasons are nit picking issues (CA, tilt, dust spot, etc) that the nominator could fix [though one could well argue that if it is just a nit picking issue, one should support, but then without a comment there would be an opportunity lost to make a small improvement]. People need to see why an image is opposed, to learn what is judged acceptable here, and to improve all our critical abilities. Much as I find Basile frustrating at times, and disagree with his downsize vote for that image, he is sometimes right and after discussion minds are changed. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I know it was a radical and controversial idea, but hey: Would you expect anything else from me?   The root of the idea was that we are free to comment at FPC to our heart's delight, but when there are users who take too wide verbal swings and the mood on the forum turns sour, it can be good to reflect on the system. Other ideas are of course equally welcome. --Cart (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  Support Les discussions (au-dessus) montrent bien le manque de cordialité et de convivialité qui règne ici. Ce qui domine c’est la compétition et ce n’est pas agréable. À la vérité on ne peut absolument pas dire ce que l’on pense vraiment. Nous sommes réduit à parler poussière et dominante de couleur. J’ai l’impression de dire « désolé monsieur Vermeer, c’est trop sombre – Monsieur Turner ça manque de netteté – Monsieur capa vous avez vu l’état de ces photos du débarquement, on peut vraiment pas accepter ça ». Quand j’ai fais le classement de la rubrique ‘’Non-photographie media’’ je suis parfois resté très dubitatif. C’est très bizarre de passer d’un chef-d’œuvre d’un grand maître de la renaissance à une histoire de couleur de Cyclamen rose fluo. En regardant la mona-lisa je me suis dit « théoriquement on aurait du la refuser, ...trop de craquelures ». Basile nous sert le discourt convenue mais ça ne fait pas oublier qu’il a peu de participants, que le plus souvent les discussions ne sont ni intéressantes ni amicales et certainement pas stimulantes.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This would open all doors for revenge votes.   Oppose --A.Savin 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

behaviour on FP

In criticism of Poco, Colin uses 'prima donna', 'go take a hike', 'vandalising' and 'sabotage' language. Am I the only person who considers Colin's language and attitude threatening and offensive? Charles (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Obviously not. This language is not acceptable, as I have said elsewhere. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know anything about processes here, but is this something that an independent admin would look at? Charles (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know which is worse, strong language or "making threats to upload fewer images or to downsize them all out of spite". The whole debacle is embarrassing to witness. Don't waste an admin's time with stuff like this again. --Cart (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Charles, yes we value politeness, but we value truth even more. I have on several occasions told Colin that his language needs a bit of sanding down when it comes to both color and volume, so he knows that. But that does not change that what he says in this case is true, as stated in his summary below. --Cart (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I did not enter into any discussion of the truth Cart of what was said. I complain about the language used. Charles (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin's language would be acceptable if he were a retarded teenager with English as a second language, but that it not the case. All his talk here is just a bad excuse. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If we are to discuss language, please do not use the word "retard" about any human. It is extremely insulting and not used that way in English these days. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is exactly my point. I assume Colin has all his mental abilities, so his language is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, considering that there are in fact some users in the QI/FP community with mental disabilities who might read this, I think the use of such words should be avoided in general. Then again, English is not your first language. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrt to "Prima Donna", I'm referring to the essay "en:WP:DIVA" which says "This page in a nutshell: Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way". That is exactly what Charles and Poco have done. "Prima Donna" / "Diva" same difference. The only person "threatening" anything is you both. Yann is clearly still upset that his green-tinted photo is no longer used on any Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Since Charles didn't bother with diffs or context, the relevant page is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg where Poco says to Basile "Dear Basile, do you want to bring this ardous discussion to this FPC? As said again and again, what you cite is a recommendation. Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go?" Which is a statement that he is now deliberately downsizing his uploads and is threatening to go further. On the linked QI page Poco write "Dear Basile, from now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from this user (which was the only one, at least among the usuals), the community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal". Again, another threat that high quality full-size images are no longer being uploaded by Poco because Basile has voted oppose at QI. Charles, at talk QI, had earlier written "I will upload fewer widlife images of encyclopaedic value to Wikipaedia projects if the QI theshold is increased. Is that what the community wants?". Both examples of throwing toys out of the pram when it doesn't go their way. In both cases the threats have boomeranged. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The "diva-like" attitude of some high-end QIC/FPC contributors has been a real problem of Commons for a longer time now. Criticism on behavioural practices such as blackmailing, which are doing harm to Commons and its reputation, is justified. --A.Savin 15:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Please be specific. Can you please name the 'high-end QIC/FPC contributors' A.Savin that you allege have been blackmailing? Charles (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My goal is not to add fuel to fire by naming particular users, but to state that "diva-like" behaviour is not welcome here and its criticism is by all means legitimate. --19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Blackmail means "chantage" in French (and reciprocally chantage is "blackmail" on the Wiktionary). Translated definition : "Trying to threaten someone with something to extort benefits". Then yes, when Poco threatens the community to leave or to decrease the quality of his work if we refuse him the QI/FP status, this is chantage IMO. Don't threaten to quit, or otherwise make trouble, if you don't get your way. Wikipedia is not about you. (1) To be linked with Poco's blame / threat : "Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go ?"(2). Prima donna-like attitude can be frankly exasperating -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Empty threats

Cart notes above that we value truth, and I agree. When disputing something as petty as a QI badge or FP gold star, threats to stop uploading or to stop uploading large files are harmful. Those threats turn out to be empty.

  • Dear Basile, from now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from this user (which was the only one, at least among the usuals), the community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal. --Poco a poco 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, you already managed that I don't upload anymore images in full resolution in Commons, but please, stop your crusade and don't continously talk about violations, lies and death tolls. What for you seems to be the bible is for me a recommendation, and I'll act consequently. Poco a poco 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dear Basile, do you want to bring this ardous discussion to this FPC? As said again and again, what you cite is a recommendation. Out of that discussion you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore to the project, how far do you still want to go? --Poco2 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Between 25 November 2018 and 9 Februrary 2019 Poco has uploaded 37 very large stitched panoramas, and 20 photographs at the 50.32MP native resolution of his camera.

37 Panoramas
20 full size

On Poco's talk page 1st April 2017: This user gave up in March 2017 uploading new material to Commons. Poco was upset about various things. The notice is removed on 17 September. And from 19 March till 14 September 2017 no new photos are uploaded, though Poco continues to nominate at FPC and tweak existing photos to help them pass. Then in September, over 500 photos are uploaded, many of which are entered into Wiki Loves Monuments 2017. Poco wins two awards in Canada, seven in Spain, three in Croacia, one in Germany and one in Russia. Most of the photographs entered into WLM were taken during the period where "this user gave up uploading new material to Commons" though some were taken earlier. Wiki Loves Monuments requires images to be uploaded during the month of September 2017 and not before. So if Poco had uploaded any of those during his "strike", they wouldn't be eligible for WLM.

WLM Winners

Both Poco and Charles contribute a huge number of excellent photos to Commons. But Poco has now twice made false threats to stop uploading or to upload smaller files. And Charles disrupted the discussion at QI about minimum resolution by threatening to upload fewer images. In England, there is a saying: "That's just not cricket". -- Colin (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, Colin, you do not understand the meaning of the word 'threat'. Please look it up. I made no threat. Stating I would upload fewer pictures is not a threat. No threat. No empty threat. Please apologise. Charles (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Empty threads? Colin:
Regarding my April-September break: I haven't been able to upload many images I took before or during that time, because the backlog would be too big. Of course, you only see what I upload, and not what I didn't.
I do downsize the panos but surely not down to below 50 MPx. To be honest, I didn't think about that, but I don't think that it would be necessary. And about those 20 images, I am surprised about that. It looks like I didn't pay enough attention. Will not make that mistake in the future. Thanks for pointing that out.
And again, I don't upload 50 MPx images, because the toughness I see in users when reviewing those images is the same as for 20 Mpx images, which are easier to take. Nobody here seems to understand that handling a 50 Mpx camera is not as easy as handling a 20 Mpx camera. So, what is then the point of uploading those images? I could also replace my camera but I am actually happy with it.
Regarding threads and so on Charles, to be honest, I don't take those "threads" coming from Colin seriously, nor I have the time Colin has time to write posts like the one above. I do have a demanding job, a family and a hobbies, mostly traveling and taking pictures, but not spending the whole day in pointless discussions. From time to time Colin is so kind to provide stats about my contributions and work here, I thank him for that :) Poco2 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ha ha ha. Not funny at all. Because when a prolific user, who is also an administrator here, says something like "The community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal. From now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from me", that clearly suggests the neighbor is responsible for the self-sabotaged work of the speaker. That is just a disrupting blame. Such frustration is sad ("you only see what I upload, and not what I didn't"). But not our concern.
You can downsize (at home), freely, but be happy of that. Enjoy your creation in any case, don't throw reproaches to the users who do not recommend that. Just try to be proud of yourself and assume that Commons warns Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. You're free to disagree. Nobody else force the rules. We're here to improve, and after such a failure, you can only progress.
That is not true that downsizing your pictures helps your nominations (poor example here). And that is not true that users reviewing high resolution images are tough. See for example this imperfect bird : "Good composition, sharp at lower but still high resolution (5000 px large)". It means we're all able to express constructive critics without sanctioning the image.
The fact to spread lies harms the project. Saying "Out of the 25th November 2018 you already managed that since then I haven't uploaded any image with 50 MPx anymore", and when you check the facts it appears to be a lamentable hoax. Better to shut up. Dishonesty = time loss for everyone. Unreliability. Ha ha ha -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
For the record, no real arguments here from Basile Morin that I could rebut. Fact is that my intention is not to upload any images with full resolution because of him. You can interprete that the way you want. The fact that some images slipped through is not a hoax but a mistake. As said, will definitely be more careful in the future. Increadible that in the meanwhile 2 users reporach to me that I've uploaded pictures in full resolution, maybe a reason te get me blocked. Ha ha ha. --Poco2 12:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Lol -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Poco, since 25th November 2018, 1 in 5 of your photos are >50MP. That's not "some images slipped through". Considering that many images are cropped quite normally, I'd expect a large portion of your images to be naturally below your sensor size of 50MP. For example, a big number of images are >40MP, which suggests a modest crop. It really does sound like your threat was a hoax. Just like your spring/summer 2017 strike turned out to be a hoax too. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, Colin, you managed your goal, you targeted me one day after the other and now I give up (cause -> reason). Good bye. --Poco2 19:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Enjoy your Wikibreak, Poco. See you in September. -- Colin (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

The Canon 5DS R - A special camera?

"Nobody here seems to understand that handling a 50 Mpx camera is not as easy as handling a 20 Mpx camera" -- Poco

Now Poco says his reason for not uploading 50MP is because reviewers pixel peep. Well I have long campaigned against that and have suggested various ways reviewers could choose to review a downsized version, such as by making use of a URL link (for example this is your bird at 2000px wide, 6.4MP). You are welcome to include such a link in your nomination and ask that reviewers use a 24MP version rather than the 50MP version. The new QI interface could also incorporate such a feature, if there was demand. This would permit you to upload at full size, and be judged at a modest size.

But let's examine this claim that Poco's Canon 5DS R is special and us ignorant reviewers are being unfair on him. This camera costs £2599. And the Canon 28-300mm 3.5-5.6L USM lens costs £2289. My Sony A77 costs £949 and 16-50 lens costs £499. Most of my lenses cost about £100-£200, whereas I guess most of Pocos cost over £1000. So Poco's got equipment costing many times more than mine. And the pixel pitch of that high resolution 50MP sensor is 4.13 microns whereas the pixel pitch of my modest resolution 24MP sensor is 3.88 microns. So, when it comes to pixel peeping, my sensor pixels are smaller than Poco's, and my optics are crappier than Poco's. And let's not forget Cart. Her Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 and Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 cameras both have a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns. That's nearly half Pocos's. A full-frame camera with the same pixel pitch as that would be 86MP. All of us APS-C, m43 and 1" sensor photographers with 20-24MP cameras have for years been at a greater disadvantage in terms of pixel peeping than Poco.

So, Mr Diva, when you decide to downsize all your photos because the reviewers are too hard on your fancy camera, my heart does not bleed for you. Poco, you are not a special case, you just think you are.

I am reminded of the debate in the UK House of Commons last night, where The Speaker said:

"Order!! I appeal to Members on both sides of the House to calm down. I say to very senior Members who, from a sedentary position, are chuntering really very inanely, do try to grow up."

-- Colin (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Judging a camera only by the number of Mpx is like judging a car only by HP value or so. As for Canon EOS 5DS(R), its sensor has quite a high noise level (just like all Canon cameras, unfortunately). Downsizing 50mpx to 20-30 is sometimes necessary to make the image look crisp. I have no problem with that. It's only problematic if downsizing is solely to illustrate a point ;-) --A.Savin 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A Canon is only a very little noisy relative to a Sony or Nikon sensor of the same size/generation. The 50MP Canon may sound much higher resolution than a 36MP Nikon but it is only 18% higher linear resolution. If you compare Canon 5DS R with Sony A77II with Sony DSC-RX100 then you find that my Sony A77ii is twice as noisy as the Canon, and the little 1" Sony RX100 is six times as noisy. The difference between the Canon and e.g. a D800 is only about 1.3 times as noisy, which is not really important other than to fanboys. One simply can't escape the laws of physics: smaller pixels capture less light photons so are inherently noisier. And the pixels on all modern APS-C, m43 and 1" sensor cameras are smaller than the Canon 50MP camera. Really there is nothing special that permits Poco to justify downsizing all his images to avoid pixel peeping, while the rest of us upload what we shot. I think there is an argument for modest downsizing of large stitched images, and situations where light levels require high iso, or where the lens is far from resolving what the sensor does. But there is no argument for treating the 5DS R any different to any other camera. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
"smaller pixels capture less light photons so are inherently noisier" -> yes, that's what it is about: two cameras with the same sensor size, one is, say, 24 mpx, the other 50 mpx. So, given the same sensor size (36x24 mm), the one with 50 mpix has much smaller pixels. This causes higher noise level (c.p.). That's why a 5DS(R) is an excellent choice for sunny day landscape/cityscape shots, but no good choice for night / blue hour / available light etc. --A.Savin 16:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
A 50MP camera has only 1.44 times more linear resolution than a 24MP camera. The pixel pitch of a 24MP full frame camera is 5.95 microns, 1.44 times larger than the Canon 50MP. In tests, it is only 1.3 times worse for noise than a 24MP Nikon D750. That's really not a significant degree that would mean the camera is not a good choice for X/Y/Z. We're talking a third of a stop or half a stop difference in light. The reviewers try to make out that differences between cameras are greater than they really are. The 5DSR is no worse than any APS-C camera and better than any M43 camera in terms of light captured per pixel, and in testing is less noisy than any of those. Plenty folk here have cameras that are several generations older. And lenses that are orders of magnitude cheaper and more plastic. I'm essentially shooting with a 53MP "full frame" camera but always cropping the result down to 24MP APS-C size. So, nothing special about the 5DSR at all. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes but you have to add the fact that Canon is lagging behind Nikon+Sony wrt noise performance ;-) --A.Savin 17:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, fanboy :-), but not by very much. In fact I made a mistake: the pixel sensors are of course square so a 24MP FF camera has 2x the theoretical light gathering capability than a 50MP FF camera. However light is measured in powers of 2, so that only corresponds to a theoretical 1 stop benefit. And in practice the D750 is only a fraction of a stop better, according to DXO, than the Canone 5DSR. But at base ISO this is all beside the point in good light. The feature other than noise that affects pixel peeping is sharpness. And this is a function of linear resolution of the sensor and the quality of the optics. Here, we have already shown that the 5DSR is similar to a 20MP APS-C camera. But in terms of optics, the $$$$ full frame lenses kick my $$ plastic APS-C lenses into the dirt. No contest. And no grounds for complaint. If Poco wishes to swap his 5DSR and lenses for my A77ii and lenses, and gain all the supposed FPC pixel peeping benefits of my 24MP camera, I'd be more than happy. Nothing special about the 5DS at all. It's just an overgrown APS-C camera. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot not working?

Hi, It seems the bot should have closed this nomination (more than 10 votes and no opposition in 5 days). What's wrong? Yann (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done manually. The same situation was here: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpg. Looks like question templates and striked out votes make bot confused. MZaplotnik(talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Striked votes are usually ok, but you never know which template might confuse the Bot. It's good to always keep an eye on your nom. Thanks for fixing it! --Cart (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

FPC Bot not working

FPC Bot did not do its last two passes anywhere, so at the moment you will have to do with me as stand-in for the Bot (I'm thinking of adopting a Stephen Hawkins synth voice) and perform the tasks as listed on User:FPCBot#Parking. I would however like the Bot maintenance people Daniel78 and KTC to take a look at this and see how we can get this thing running again. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why it's not running. It's not running in the sense not that the bot fails on running, but that it's not been told to run at all despite nothing changing on the cron job. The crontab were moved from Trusty to Stretch a few weeks back, but it ran without problems for the last few weeks. Also got a couple of error message from puppet recently, but that was a week ago. I'll wait and see if it just starts running again. -- KTC (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok KTC, I'll wait with doing the Bot work and see what happens. People might have to wait for their FPs for a day or so, but I think that's acceptable. --Cart (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: I can always tell it to run manually (which I'll do in a bit), but obviously would like to know why the cron job isn't active. -- KTC (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
You can experiment as much as you want. :-) The important thing is to get it going in the long run. We'll wait. --Cart (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: The 21:00 job did run, but there's nothing for it to do thanks to your work earlier. Looks like the server just took a day off. Come back this time tomorrow and we can see if things are back to normal again. -- KTC (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
KTC: So the Bot did run and marked one nom for review. Let's hope it does its job and archive it on the next run, because that's what didn't happen the last time. Fingers crossed. Btw, shouldn't it have closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2017.06.21.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge.jpg as a fifth day feature today? --Cart (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: 21:30, 15 March 2019‎ + 5 days = 21:30, 20 March 2019. The bot last ran at 21:00 so wasn't quite five days yet. -- KTC (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
KTC, ah yes, you are right and it seems to be working ok now. Thanks for taking a look at it! --Cart (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Voting issues with Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton and Joalpe

For the last two years, Joalpe's only contributions to FPC has been to support RTA's nominations

In the Canidae nomination, ArionEstar writes "Joalpe como sempre com as melhores contribuições fotográficas" (Joalpe as always with the best photographic contributions). I don't know what this message means, or what Joalpe's contributions here are. Joaple describes himself as "Wikipedia Education Program leader, User Group Wikimedia in Brazil" so there is clearly a Wikimedia Brazil link with Joalpe and RTA.

It is quite obvious Joalpe is being canvassed off-Commons about the RTA Featured Picture Candidates. Most of the above candidates failed, though Joalpe supported them all, in one occasion his support was vital and in another his was the 6th support of 9.

I think Joalpe should strike his current two support votes and decline from supporting images associated with User Group Wikimedia in Brazil. FPC is not here to pat one's friends backs, or to uncritically support local projects, but to identify the finest images on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Colin: “Joalpe as always with the best photographic contributions” because I consider that he contributes massively and magnificently to the collection of animal skeletons (Category:Maceration at Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP) as well as Llez contributes to the collection of shells (User:Llez/Shells by H. Zell).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArionEstar (talk • contribs)
Do you mean that it is Joalpe who takes these photos for the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP? Is he the author of the photos in that category? If so, that would exlpain a lot. --Cart (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Seems to me that the photographer is Wagner Souza e Silva. And Joalpe (alas João Alexandre Peschanski on his user page) and Sturm are the uploaders -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I can see that Joalpe recently uploaded a couple of dozen photos for this museum, but not these. Not really sure why the uploads are being done by different people. There are apparently 625 images in Category:Collections of the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP. They are all useful images and a valuable project for Commons. But are we going to see them all nominated at FPC in various arbitrary "set" groupings? I don't think this "set" approach is appropriate for FPC since the sets proposed so far are very much disallowed per the rules (they are just an arbitrary small collection, fewer than the full set would require). Additionally, it is clear RTA hasn't reviewed the quality of the images against our standards, since there are images that fall far below FP. I would much prefer someone review the category and find a handful of outstanding skeletons, etc, rather than attempting to maximise the number of FPs.
But coming back to the canvassing, I think RTA and Joalpe should stop abusing FPC in this manner. ArionEstar also should be careful how he reviews nominations by friends he admires. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Colin, please just stop. I have zero interest in this discussion. Why I edit how I edit is definitely not of your business, as what you bring to table is not much different than trying to figure out a conspiracy theory that at its best is a by-product of your own delusion. To whomever might be reading this nonsense, I am of course very happy when pictures I have uploaded or that were made available in the context of GLAM-Wiki initiatives I am involved with are improved by a volunteer and eventually nominated for some sort of on-wiki recognition. This happiness sparks my interest --which I don't normally manifest, as --just like this discussion by the way-- my impression is that interactions in spaces of nomination in this project are often toxic and consequently unfruitful. I don't believe we have a rule that only habitués are to participate in this community feuds. Please, stop pinging me Colin --this discussion is over. --Joalpe (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It is quite incredible to believe that Joalpe monitors the FPC page daily and just accidentally comes across RTA nominations, which spark his happiness enough to support. Since Joalpe chooses to respond with insults and reject discussion, I propose Joalpe be topic banned from FPC. I hope RTA will also agree not to notify in future any other Wikimedia Brazil contributors when nominating at FPC. Canvassing for votes is not cool. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


First, I already requested the mutual interaction block with you Colin, but you didn't wanted to accepted. I really tried to find the last time that you said something positive around my contributions. Yet, I didn't find. You always negative around my contributions, and have personal issues with me. You do not know that, but you already hurt the community with the last "discussion" using my name. So I kindly request you stop think about me.

Second, if I'm a head of GLAM project or a major partner, as João, and an independent volunteer spend hours and hours editing photos to transform they in a high quality, a support recognising the effort is expected. There, in the set that you are opposing, we have more than 24 hours of my life spend in editions, and from the Wikimedia Commons community, I only hearing " isn't IMO enough".

And what's the problem to João support the images? Just because you don't agree he is wrong? Cart have more support than João to my images, you will also request his ban?

..., I'm not a member of any WUG, none, zero, nenhum. I also was very vocal against they first creation of the group. And next time that you accuse someone, bring proves, or at least read about what you are talking about.

Cart, no, I know that most of you do not read the outreach: or even the WMF blog, but João is a power house that brought here several thousands of images trough GLAM projects and educational programmes, that receive recognition globally, not only because of the volume, but the most because the educational potential. check it, and if you want, I can send several other links to his contributions, and you be able to see how rich the work is.

I'll give a example, he is the head of Museu Paulista GLAM, and he is also a professor that runs a educational project.

So what he did?

He request to his students develop a research around all paintings, all paintings, of the Museum, and the result are articles like that (before and after João intervention). Not only that, if you enter in the article you will see this file File:Audio file of Independência ou Morte.ogg, this is audio description of the painting, the Museum create a workshop to teach his students how to create audio descriptions of the paintings to blind people. So this Category:Projeto Commons da Faculdade Cásper Líbero (JO/2017) are all audio description, created by João initiative as a professor, that are describing paintings of a whole museum, that would never have money to deal with that, and they're here, open, and in their wikidata entries, and wikipedia articles... And this is one of the most important Museums in the whole country, and one of the largest and we don't have much, and our museums are normally on fire [1], and this one is closed to the public do to renovation, but now people can access the collection via Wikimedia Commons.

Moreover, not only people can see the work, but also machines, see the painting entry at Wikidata d:Q10301958, this is example that should be followed, for the near future Structed Data, this is the benchmark.

And this is just one of 7 or something, GLAM that he is currently running.

That's why Arion have reasons to admire his work. Simple as that. Not because some conspiracy, sock puppet, meat puppet or any other reason that was suggested here.

Nothing more to add in this discussion, Colin shouldn't be interacting with me. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 16:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I would love to have a faithful friend who comes along at COM:FPC everytime I nominate something and always votes there in support. Unfortunately I haven't. </irony> Seriously, I have all due respect for WM Brazil activities and uploads, but our rules clearly say that a minimum of 7 support votes and at least twice as many support rather than oppose votes are required for FP promotion. This rule should not be bypassed -- neither via sockpuppets, nor via meatpuppets and/or canvassing of any kind. --A.Savin 16:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
RTA, you might manage to bully User:The Photographer (aka User:Wilfredor) to stop reviewing your nominations, but I am not so easily put off. I support when the image is among our finest, and oppose if I feel it is not. Attempting to silence critics is a form of censorship that Commons reacts badly to. I am typically far from the only oppose vote you get, and the recent "set" at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/MAV I was widely opposed without my contribution. I think since both RTA and Joalpe have been found out to have a meatpuppet relationship, and neither party have responded with honesty or respect for our process, I propose both are topic banned. I'm quite sure all the good people at Wiki Brazil contribute fantastically to Commons, but Barnstars and friendly messages on talk pages are the way to reward that. Commons FP is not a popularity contest where you can invite your friends. -- Colin (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"far from the only oppose vote you get"
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Superfície - bordo trifólio.jpg (your link)
Seems true.
"Attempting to silence critics is a form of censorship "
"I propose both are topic banned."
"It is quite incredible to believe that Joalpe monitors the FPC page daily and just accidentally comes across RTA nominations"
But the nomination is:
"Bases on previous discussion, I gather all Canidae skeletons displayed at MAV - edited by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - uploaded by Joalpe and Sturm"
The João was tag, as an uploader
"I can see that Joalpe recently uploaded a couple of dozen photos for this museum, but not these." (my highlight)
Interesting, almost of they was João uploads.
And he can't vote in favour of his uploads, and I'll not check after someone tag him, and uploaded a new version of his files.
I still respecting my interaction ban, so I'll not list your votes... that are particular interesting.
"I already requested the mutual interaction block with you Colin, but you didn't wanted to accepted. I really tried to find the last time that you said something positive around my contributions. Yet, I didn't find. You always negative around my contributions, and have personal issues with me. You do not know that, but you already hurt the community with the last "discussion" using my name. So I kindly request you stop think about me."
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: If you are not willing to interact with Colin, you may wish to respond to me. I'm also a long-term participant of FPC and I find it unfair if some people push their vote count by mobilizing people from other wikis, who otherwise never cross at FPC... --A.Savin 20:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin, it's his uploads in the last vote.
Why should him not vote in favour of his uploads?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously, we are not talking about cases where someone supported their own nomination. Let us take Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rombicosidodecaedro parabidiminuído.jpg with 7xsupport, when it was canvassing of Joalpe, then the promotion is to be undone, simple as it is. --A.Savin 21:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin, we are talking about that, because Colin is creating all this because of that.
This is just one case, that by coincidence João vote by the end.
I'm open all of FP that I did, just one case.
this was close to not, and have no João vote.
You are taking the exception as a rule.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
But it isn't just one case. There are six listed without explanation for Joalpe turning up to support. Btw, I have nominated far more candidates than you have, and not once have you ever even voted on one of them, no support, no oppose. You only see the response to your own candidates, and think negative thoughts about anyone who opposed. There have been weeks when I've opposed more photos at FPC than you've nominated in all your years here. -- 21:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
I thought that was A.Savin, weird sign choose.. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
"Close to not"? Got 10 supports and no oppose in <3 days and promoted after 5 days :) --A.Savin 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
A.Savin, we need 7, 10 supports... it's close.
But what is your point Alexander? It's quite clear that Colin is doing that for personal issues, if you go to top of this page you will see this happen with another volunteer.
There's one coincidence, and the others supports are not decisive to the discussion, he presented 7 supports by João to me, Cart have more supports trough those years, I believe Ikan Kekek also have more, and if I had time I could create a rank of most supporters, and I can bet that João will not appear in the top 5.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
My point is, that you and Joalpe seem to be doing unfair play on FPC and that at least one of your nom should be disqualified. I'm failing to see any connection with Cart and Ikan, perhaps you can show me an example where they might have voted for personal reasons and/or due to canvassing? --A.Savin 22:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So what you are saying to me is that João is not allowed to vote in whatever he want?
Again, go to the top of this discussion, and you will see Colin hunting another volunteer.
This are not prove of anything, João follows the work of GLAM and vote when he wants, simple as that. Not all my nominations have votes by João, and only one was decisive.
And I believe that you didn't understood what I told you, João supported me less than Cart, less than Ikan in votes for FPC, only that. And they are not a meatpuppet, they just decided to do that.
Do you know how a conspiracy theory is created? A person took some took some random facts that supports his idea, and created a whole fictional romance, including non true ideas as "I can see that Joalpe recently uploaded a couple of dozen photos for this museum, but not these." to seems more reasonable. Looks similar?
I do know why you are entering in his ideas, but he do not have any prove in his allegations, and they are not real.
I could be including more photos to the community, but no, I'm here trying to dismiss allegations... all images listed are from a GLAM that João was part of they, all my personal photos do not have João votes, not all my nomination for GLAM photos have João vote, Colin do not have any prove in his allegations, so I do not understand why I'm having this conversation.
Think in what I just told you, peace.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 23:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you keep banging on about my motives. I've voted on a mere handful of your nominations, yet voted on hundreds, perhaps thousands of others over the years. There is really nothing special here. But making it out to be personal, throwing insults rather than addressing the facts, is a sure way to make your problem clear to everyone. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
RTA. (1) There is no interaction ban between us for your to "respect", not that the above nastiness shows any respect nor lack of interaction towards me. Of the small number of FP candidates you've nominated, I have supported at least two. Other people get oppose votes too. I'm far from the only person to have opposed your images, or to have incurred your wrath for doing so. I seem to recall you being most unpleasant to AlchemistHP. You can't just go round banning anyone who has the guts to oppose some of your images. I'm afraid all you have written above is personal attack, but you have not actually addressed the fact that you have clearly been canvassing votes from someone you know will support your photos unconditionally. It is one thing to insult and attempt to silence anyone who criticises your nominations, but quite another to be caught cheating. -- Colin (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Other suspicious candidates or additional supporters:

User:Horadrim~usurped user page says he is an editor encouraged to be here by Joalpe. 3 of his 5 contributions to Commons have been to support images by his friends. I think it is clear that work supported by Wikimedia Brasil is being uploaded by a group of volunteers, who are encouraging each other via FP candidate supports. While it really is great that this team have worked hard to produce these good pictures, you all really should learn to recuse yourselves from voting in support of each other. The bias is particularly obvious where the nomination has many opposes and yet you all still support. That's why it is best to keep out of each other's nominations. All the noise and insults RTA flings above, and his "prove it" demands on candidate page, are the kind of reaction I'd expect from the guilty party in a cliché-ridden crime drama. FPC relies on everyone behaving professionally and ethically. It only takes 7 votes to make an FPC but if you can rely on getting 3 guaranteed support (yourself + 2 friends) then that's just not acceptable. Each of you on your own make valuable contributions here, and really are welcome here if you play fair. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island (71943).jpg

I supported this image. But I don´t think the evaluation is correct. Paulenc05 voted twice and so the result is 9:5. So it isn´t really featured. What´s to do in such cases? --Milseburg (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Milseburg: Thank you for spotting this, unfortunately mistakes do happen. This photo by Rhododendrites will be delisted just like other images that were promoted due to double votes. There was no malice behind this, but it is not the first time Palauenc05 makes a double vote, so I would ask you to please be more careful in the future. It is not always such tings are spotted by other users or the user closing the nomination. I will fix this. --Cart (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Disappointing, of course, but true it sounds like it should not have been promoted. I'm surprised the bot doesn't check for double votes. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like that is not one of the "six million forms of communication" it is programmed for. --Cart (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That's why a a human is supposed to verify the bot's count. Don't just assume it does the job right. -- KTC (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Hi, File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal.jpg was featured in September 2018. However File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal retouched 2.jpg was featured on the English Wikipedia on January 2019. Some people might think the second image is an improvement. Is it worth a new vote (Delist and replace)? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO, no. I think the retouched image is marginally better than the original at best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on the discussions at en:wp and the history of the file, it appears all but two of the 18 votes at Commons were for the restored version by Bammesk which was shifted to the "retouched 2" file and further worked on a little there. The file Commons voted for was reverted back to an unrestored version towards the very end of our nomination. So I think technically we should shift the COM FP over to Bammesk's image (which is the version WP eventually featured).
I think it is confusing enough when a file is modified during a nomination on Commons. But if nominated at both projects simultaneously, we could get a real mess like this. I suggest that is it probably best to nominate on one project at a time. -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
...And thus I'm happy there is no FP in the french Wikipédia ! Featured on "Commons" is enough IMO. Featued Pictures on various WP is just useless and confusing. I never submit pictures by me on WPs. That's why you are welcome to support this, because I did not nominate it by myself ! Ha ha --Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Jebulon: On the other hand the French WP is THE WP which makes most use of Commons FPs. As soon as an image is promomoted, a French editor tries to fit it into an article in some way. Almost all my FPs can be seen in fr-wp articles. Good job! :-) --Cart (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Cart: Nothing strange IMO: it is one of the goals (THE goal ?) of "Commons": being a repository of media for illustrations of wikipedia(s) articles. Some say it is "one of the goals", some other say "it could be a goal", I say "it is the MAIN goal"... Of course your excellent pictures are very welcome on FRWP !!--Jebulon (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
By considering that the main goal, you devalue non-Wikipedia Wikis such as Wikivoyage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


It's been a while since I withdrew a nomination, and I forgot what procedures I should take when moving the nomination to the log. Could anyone point me to a step-by-step guide to this, so that I can add the link to my "Useful links" user sub-page, to refer to now and in the future? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

[2] --A.Savin 20:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Did I do it right, just marking it as a confirmed "not featured" nomination for the bot to take care of? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
A good start, but not quite there. You forgot to tag it as "not featured" in the title plus the space before the closing template. I've fixed that for you. The Bot is supposed to archive these (as well as FPDs and FPXs) but it is malfunctioning so it will not pick this up on the next run. (Speaking several times with the Bot people has not helped.) The nom will probably sit there for the full 9 days since it is supported by someone other than the nominator. If you want a clean list you must move it manually to this month's log. Thank you for helping with this grunt-work. :-) --Cart (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. Thanks for helping me. I'll move it to the log. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

FPX tagging

Lucasbosch, Boothsift and some others, it is great that you are involved in the voting process but please don't be so liberal with the FXP tags. If you just let the nom run for five days with no support other than the nominator, the FPC Bot will take care of it, close it, archive it and remove it from the FPC list, but as soon as the FPX tag is slapped on a nom all this has to be done manually by one of the maintenance crew. You are of course welcome to help with the closing and archiving too, just read the guidelines very carefully first. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

W.carter, thanks for the heads-up. Would it be OK to add the failing FPC review tag 24 hours after the FPX so the bot will take care of the archiving? – Lucas 08:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, you can always close it as a failed FPC after 24 hours, but the bot will not pick it up and archive it, this will only happen after five and sometimes the full nine days due to the FPX tag, so you have to do it manually. The bot is tasked to take care of all reviewed FPX, FPD and Withdrawn noms on the next run, but it is malfunctioning and ignores them. I have asked the people who run the bot to fix this on several occasions, but so far nothing has happened. I see that you closed and archived Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Twizel landscape.NZ.jpg some 12 hours after tagging it, instead of the usual 24. Please always wait the full stated day out of curtsy to the nominator. Contributors are from all over the world and different time zones and everybody should have time to react to an FPX. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
W.carter, I reinserted the nomination. – Lucas 10:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, as per this: like Cart mentioned, there is really no need to FPX an image with no support votes in 4 or 5 days because FPC bot could close them automatically very soon (5th day rule as mentioned in instructions (Featured picture candidate policy)). Please use FPX more selectively because in cases like this one the process gets stucked because 1 day must pass ather the FPX tag is placed. MZaplotnik(talk) 21:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Correct. The FPX should mostly be used on noms where it is evident directly or within 1-2 days, that it has no chance of getting promoted. Using it to actually prolong the nom beyond the fifth day is a bit pointless. --Cart (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Noted – Lucas 07:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies

Think I got an hour overlap between the Carmen nomination and the Coldstream Guards properly being ready to close, because I forgot about Daylight Savings. My apologies for the brief triple nomination. Only realised it when I spotted the timestamp now (after Coldstream Guards has fully met the requirements to pass). Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

FPC Bot not working (again)

Hi, It seems the bot didn't tag some candidates as it should have been. It run at 15:02, 5 April 2019, while there are 2 candidates which should have been closed as for the 5-day rule. Any idea? Regards, Yann (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any fault with the bot on this run. The bot ran at 15:02, and File:Common blackbird (Turdus merula mauretanicus) female.jpg will hopefully pass at 17:20 and File:SES-10 Launch - world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket (33361035200).jpg will be up for 5th day closing at 21:53 today. They are not at the full 5 days yet. We'll see if the bot picks up the first one on the next run at 21:00 and the other at 05:00 tomorrow. Or were you thinking of some other noms? --Cart (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, may be I am confusing the calculation... Yann (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

My apologies to Yann

I would like to apologize for adding an alternative nomination without having consulted to the nominator. I thought that I could create alternative versions when the author was a photographer not belonging to the community of wikimedia commons. Thanks Yann for rollback me. --Wilfredor (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures

I think the section Sculptures of the FP category Commons:Featured pictures/Objects is extensive enough to propose a fission between them, but I do not know how to do it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the section is getting a bit big. Are you suggesting that the section is divided in two or that the sculptures should have a page/category of their own? Like it is done with 'Vehicles" and 'Plants'? I think Christian Ferrer might fix this, if we ask nicely. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour, je suis aussi d’avis que ça mérite une modification. On a le même problème avec Gallery of Non-photographic media. Je me dis qu’on pourrait avoir une nouvelle section « Art » (même niveau que objet) et dedans des rubriques – Sculpture – Peinture – Dessin – Musique et théâtre. Je suis prêt a vous aider si nécessaire --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oui, cette page, Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media, devient très longue. S. DÉNIEL, vous avez fait du très bon travail pour l’organiser jusqu’à présent. Christian fait du bon travail en créant les nouvelles pages des catégories de FP et vous parlez français les deux. Si cela ne vous pose pas trop de problèmes, puis-je vous demander si vous souhaitez discuter de ce qui peut être fait à ce sujet? Je suis convaincu que vous pouvez trouver une bonne solution. --Cart (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok it's done, see Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures, I moved "Monuments and memorials" to that gallery too, as I think it's relative. Feel free to sort the images in the sections of your(s) choice(s) or /and to replace the section ""Monuments and memorials" to the former gallery. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! I have done some basic sorting of the page. Good choice to add the monuments to that page too since many of the works in it can be sorted as sculptures too. I moved "Fountrains" to the new page too, since they often are a mix of sculptures and water. --Cart (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
With pleasure, thanks you too for your help. There is maybe other galleries that can be created, I remember that Alexander Savin had the idea for a gallery for aerial photography too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to share your photography advice

Wikivoyage (the travel guide) has a short article on voy:Wildlife photography. If anyone's interested in the subject and wants to provide travel-related advice, then please feel free to Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and expand the article. It's just about four short paragraphs, and the most specific advice so far is that you might want a telephoto lens. I'm sure that someone here knows a lot more than that.

(No need to directly cite sources in their articles – the focus is on good advice, written fairly.) There are probably several photography-related articles that would be easy to improve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, WhatamIdoing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comparaison de photographies de Poco a poco

Gallery of photos for comparison - Précédente comparaison

Précédente comparaison

Images peu retouchées Image proposées excessivement retouchées
4 août 2018, 14:47:15 6 août 2018 à 13:14

Comparaisons supplémentaires : photographies prisent entre 10:25 et 11:05 le même jour par le même photographe dans le même site avec le même appareil.

Images peu retouchées Images excessivement retouchées
6 août 2018 à 10:28 - Un ciel presque uniforme et pas saturé 6 août 2018 à 10:54 - Un ciel avec un dégradé très saturé
6 août 2018 à 10:26 - Le ciel avec un très faible dégradé mais qui n'est pas blanchit à l'horizon 6 août 2018 à 11:05 - le ciel est plus clair sur l'horizon
6 août 2018 à 10:30 6 août 2018 à 10:25
— Preceding unsigned comment added by S. DÉNIEL (talk • contribs) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anything wrong with the color of the photos above. I live in a place where clear blue skies are common in the summer, and I have experienced all these fluctuations in my photos. Light by the sea and light over a desert are rather similar since the are few features or towns to disturb it. Looking at the photos in Category:Rixö (they are all mine), you can see how much the sky color can change. The saturation will vary depending on what way you are facing with the camera (angle of camera towards the sun) and how much you zoom in on a subject, that becomes most evident in some panoramas. These two are good examples: File:Part of Rixö old granite quarry by Brofjorden 2.jpg and File:The north-south stretch of Bro Fjord.jpg.
In some cases like this: File:Old huge crane claw in Rixö quarry 2.jpg, I actually had to desaturate the sky from raw or it would look unnatural. I guess people living in areas where very high clear air is uncommon will think that photos of the sky in more untouched areas is fake. Having read so many comments about "too blue sky", desaturating the sky (even if it is just like it looked in real life) is a pretty common thing for me to do since no one will believe me anyway. People are more prone to judge from what they are used to and it is easier to say someone is cheating than to think that nature actually can be so beautiful. --Cart (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je ne le traite pas de tricheur, je n'aborde pas les choses de cette façon. Que la nature soit si belle n'a jamais dissuadé qui que ce soit d’essayer de la retoucher. Je dirais même que c’est le contraire, trops d'hommes ont l'audace et surtout l'inconscience de croire qu'ils peuvent faire mieux. Parfois ils y arrivent, mais il faut avouer que c'est rare. Je reconnais être un peu plus soupçonneux que la moyenne, mais il n'en reste pas moins qu'il y a une frange sur la dune et quand il y a frange ... il y a grosse retouche.
Si Poco ne veut pas d'explication sur les votes il lui suffit de ne pas les demander. Il devrait apprendre que traiter un interlocuteur de simple d'esprit n'est pas non plus la meilleur méthode pour clore une discussion. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Please, S. DÉNIEL, stop this mudslinging. If you have any problem with me, then either talk to me direcly in my talk page or adress your issue at COM:ANU, but don't use the public and commons spaces for that. Thank you. --Poco2 18:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • S. DÉNIEL, I looked at the last two images with Jeffrey's metadata viewer. Sometimes it lets you see the Lightroom adjustments, but it doesn't always tell the whole story -- a file may have been in Lightroom then Photoshop, then something else, then back to Lightroom. Here it looks like only Lightroom was involved, my guess. The image you said had small adjustments was exposed about 1/3 stop darker than the other but then the exposure in Lightroom was lifted about .7 stop brighter. The other photo did not have its exposure brightened. Both had identical adjustments to contrast, vibrance, saturation, clarity, highlights and shadows. Both images were downscaled to 92%. I don't see any indication of a Lightroom graduated filter in the sky, though we cannot tell from the EXIF if a physical ND grad was used, or a polarising filter. So, the image you claim is excessively adjusted was actually less adjusted than the other one. And the difference between in exposure is about 1/3 stop, which is well within any reasonable adjustment a photographer might make. Personally I prefer to limit adjustment to saturation or vibrance too much and avoid taking highlights down -100, but such adjustments are very common at FP. The biggest difference between the two is that the left one was shot at 80mm telephoto and the other at 28mm wide angle. That's the difference between a 17° vertical angle-of-view and a 46° vertical angle-of-view. So the brighter photo is looking at the narrow bright part of the sky near the horizon, whereas the dark one is looking at a large area of the sky. I don't think you've found evidence of excessive retouching. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the problem. You can take photos; for example one to the north, other to the east, so that the sky has a completely different color (Je ne comprends pas le problème. Par exemple, vous pouvez prendre une photo au nord, une autre à l'est, afin que le ciel ait une couleur complètement différente.). Tournasol7 (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Le seul problème est de savoir si j’ai le droit d’avoir un avis personnel ? Ça ne semble pas être le cas. Mon avis est complètement minoritaire, mais seul la pluralité du vote garantit son intérêt. Si je ne peux pas développer un point de vue contraire sans qu’on y voit une vendetta alors ce n’est pas moi le problème et le vote perd tout intérêt. Pourquoi obliger les participants à expliquer leur vote et ensuite dire que ce n’est pas bien qu'ils répondent. Décidez une fois pour toute si vous voulez des explications ou pas. En l’état je préfère vous dire que personnellement je ne répondrais plus a ce genre d’injonction qui entraîne systématiquement vers des polémiques stériles.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course you are entitled to your own personal opinion, but you have stated that opinion here in a rather loud and hostile way, bordering on an accusation. It can easily be misinterpreted as if you are stating facts. On this forum, we try to keep things less like heated debates and more per COM:MELLOW. --Cart (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je m'en excuse. De mon coté je comprends les propos de poco comme remise en question de mon opinion et une accusation d’incompétence – ce qui montre bien que cet exercice ne peut pas fonctionner. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Beware of old users here.   They know how to turn a debate with countermeasures, without crossing the lines, so you will get defensive and overreact. That way they can make you look like "the bad guy" instead. You need a lot of diplomacy, patience and keeping calm here. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oui merci, je le comprends comme ça. La première contre-mesure c’est la demande d’explication.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
S. DÉNIEL, there is opinion and there is being wrong. Here you are just wrong. The photo you claim is excessively adjusted is actually less adjusted than the photo you claim is only a little adjusted. In addition, you failed to take account of the view of a wide-angle vs telephoto lens. You made assumptions which turn out to be wrong and which led you to make a false accusation. This is the point where most people think about apologising. -- Colin (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: RAW with FPCs

Its a recurring topic about Poco and this issue would be resolved if Wee add a new rule to upload the RAW without alteration how a FPC requirement. I think that FP images should be uploaded with their RAW --Wilfredor (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would help. While a RAW file can detect if someone has adjusted the image by e.g., cloning something out or into the scene, it fundamentally needs interpretation. The first step of this is the RAW converter and you will get different results of each different software, or if you apply different profiles in Adobe. The next step in interpreting the raw is adjusting exposure, etc. The camera only takes the exposure it is programmed to take, not necessarily one that will faithfully render the scene as a JPG. Perhaps the camera under or over exposed, or the photographer deliberately underexposed to avoid highlights clipping. As photographers we are not just there to photocopy the scene like a machine, but to produce a work of art. We tend, on Commons, to prefer our artwork to be realistic-looking. There will always photographers who overcook their photos. I've got a photography book that I'm reading where the photograph has used a graduated filter or ND filter or polarising filter in most of his photos. In some, I don't like the result, particularly if he over does it and the sky is darker than the ground or water. But I only know he used them because he said so in the description -- the RAW file or EXIF do not say what filter is used.
Here, I don't think processing is the issue. I think S. DÉNIEL has naively assumed that photographs take in similar locations at similar times should look similar. But if you change lens from telephoto to wide angle, or change direction or just expose slightly differently, a big change can result to the image. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Adding to the above, it will not work in the long run. Try getting a RAW file from a Flickr uploader, Google Art or NASA. Not to mention all newbie photographers who start out on FPC without even knowing there is such a thing as "RAW". We have several examples of users who have dared to nominate their first very good Jpeg, got some advice and worked their way up to skillful images from RAW trough Lightroom and Photoshop. FPC must be open to all to participate and learn.
There are also photos taken under bad conditions that were salvaged and turned into beautiful and totally natural-looking images even though they have in fact been heavily processed. Where to draw the line between those cases and where extremely unusual colors or light are there straight out of camera. Demanding RAW would also exclude all HDR and focus stacked images. Do we really need all 111 RAW files from this photo, choking up the server?
What we need is not "more supervision" but more Assume good faith. --Cart (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Je suis d’accord, le Raw ne sert a rien. Je ne l’ai d’ailleurs pas demandé. Je ne veux pas de preuve parce que je ne suis pas un accusateur. Pour la plupart, vous partez du principe que je me trompe, c’est surement plus facile comme ça, mais, je reste persuadé que Poco rencontre énormément de problème de WB et qu’il collectionne les phénomènes lumineux particuliers. A part écrire en commentaire des photos de Poco qu’il est vraiment chanceux/malchanceux avec la lumière ça va être dur d’être honnête et de bonne foi dans les votes. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've had an FPC here rejected because I did the scan, carefully readjusted the colours afainst the original object... But wasn't believed because they were different than the scan. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) Adam Cuerden (UTC)
  • Adam Cuerden, all I can say is that it's a sad day when we start to trust machines more than our fellow co-editors. --Cart (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Wilfredor: you talk about a "recurring" problem? excuse but you blamed yourself in that FPC and you would probably do it again. I also see how worth your apologies back then were...Regarding the proposal to force users to upload the original RAWs, too I consider it useless, huge effort, little use and apart from tricky case as those mentioned by Cart, it looks to me like bureacracy, lack of liberty, and so on, ...without me.
S. DÉNIEL, a pity for you to learn that you are just distrustful, as I haven't see any proof to be so, at least concerning my pictures. Cart, for a change I concur with you AGF is what definetely lacks here Poco2 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC) PD: S. DÉNIEL, Wilfredor, there is a a very reasonable custom around here to ping a user when started a discussion about him. Btw, it would be great if you just forget me for a while. I've better things to do.
Poco, I tend to agree or disagree on subjects, not with specific users. Some days we end up on the same side of a discussion, other days not. --Cart (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Poco estoy simplemente citando la conversacion anterior en la que yo estaba equivocado, pues es un tema ya recurrente y requeteconversado, no te estoy acusando de hacer alteraciones. S. DÉNIEL Le processus de développement fait partie de l'expression artistique de la photographie et, évidemment, la réalité est différente pour chaque personne et l'interprétation de la réalité est également différente. Vous ne pouvez pas pénaliser un photographe pour avoir apporté de simples modifications afin de rendre la représentation de sa réalité plus plausible. Colin, Cart, I understand your point, maybe it could be more a recommendation than a requirement, and yes, it`s exactly what I have done for years with the aim of preserving what the camera captured at that moment, however, we are adults I do not see the need to distrust or accuse to someone of fake alterations especially with Poco that has shown excellent work for years. I myself have been accused of generating photos with unreal colors that I took in Venezuela(a Caribbean country with different light, tones and shades that a photographer from Siberia or Quebec could see). We have had black and white FP, HDR and other kinds of alterations that make me think about what should or should not be described as unreal. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Poco, I suspect the reason Wilfredor did not ping you is because this entire topic has your name on it. As Cart notes, perhaps you should stick to arguing about the facts (raw, processing, etc) than repeatedly dismissing users like some annoying flies. Anyone participating here on this forum should be open to criticism of their behaviour, photographic practice or review practice. You appear to be extremely impatient and dismissive with anyone who questions your methods. The rest of us active reviewers know that questioning the light/colours/contrast on a photo is very routine and part of our ethos of delivering honest images for an educational project. Sometimes, like this case, the reviewer gets it wrong. Your ridiculous suggestion at the top of this section, that questions about your processing of raw files should be escalated to AN/U, is, I'm afraid, just another indication that you really need a break from FPC. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose any rule on RAW and/or obligation to submit it, but   Support encouraging users to save the RAW when taking a picture and to use them for post-processing. --A.Savin 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Err, why do you assume that FPC were necessarily taken in RAW and not JPEG straight out of the camera? What about those from external sources such as NASA, or you know generated in some special way? -- KTC (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
    Every digital photo is of course taken in RAW ;-) It's just that some years ago, memory cards for cameras had rather small capacity (remember "Sony Memory Stick" etc.?) and to save it, many people (myself included) had suppressed the record of RAW file along with JPG's. But nowadays I doubt there is any reason to reject RAW. --A.Savin 00:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not every digital camera exports RAW and not every photographer is proficient in using a RAW converter. I don't want the barrier to FPC to be a requirement to use Lightroom. And FPC is about more than just photos from Commoners -- I've never really understood the restriction at QI, as it does our users no favours. For those with low bandwidth connections, uploading RAW is not practical and it is a chore enough to document the JPGs properly. -- Colin (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I didn't mean that users should be encouraged to upload RAW, I mean they should be encouraged to let their camera save RAW (if possible), to use RAW for post-processing, and to preserve the RAW files for possible future attempts. With today's memory cards of 32 GB and more and hard disk drives of 1 TB and more, usually no problem IMO. --A.Savin 12:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Your images are generally of architecture, i.e. things that don't move, possibly (relatively) long exposure with the camera on a tripod. One or two frames, taken in RAW, and edit in peace at home. If I were taking photos of action shot say at a sporting event or even current affairs, the SOP is as high an FPS as possible for that split second perfect shot. Not ony does RAW not offer me much, it would actively hinder me by reducing my FPS. -- KTC (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
          • First, I don't understand what is "SOP" (apart from "sockpuppet") and "FPS". Second, not all my pictures are of architecture and things that don't move. I've submitted numerous uploads of people, of animals, just as example. Third, even if you do only reportage/action photography, you still choose some sample of the best shots (mostly not more than 100-200 per session, I would estimate) to upload and so it it still should not be a big deal to save the RAW material for the selected pictures, given the volume of today's hard disk drives. And fourth, I only wrote that I support encouraging photographers to use RAW whenever possible, but oppose any obligation to submit RAW -- so what's actually your point; it's of course still up to you to shoot RAW or not, this you should know better. --A.Savin 19:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Standard Operating Procedure = SOP and FPS = Frames per second. I understand what KTC means. When you set your camera to save both jpeg and raw for each photo, you get a much lower FPS so you might miss that perfect shot between to "camera reloads". Setting the camera to only jpeg, you can take many more photos in a second using continuous shooting, and you will probably get thát perfect image. With my Panasonic, I can take up to 10 shots/sek if I want the raw file too, but up to 50 shots/sek if I set it to jpeg only. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OK. There are also quite fast (Mini-)SD cards, with what I use 10 shots/sec with RAW+JPG is no problem, and not sure if I'll ever need more (at least for photos, not for videos). ;-) --A.Savin 20:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But in sports photos where a football can be kicked at 130 mph (58 m/s) and tennis balls go at 160 mph (72 m/s) ([3]), a lot can happen in a second. --Cart (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question : it's technically possible to download a RAW file in Common? If we wanted, for educational reasons, to provide a RAW? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • S. DÉNIEL, Commons does not support hosting RAW files. As noted below, there is Commons Archive if you want to upload raw. But there is no consensus to require photographers to do so. -- Colin (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Any obligation to publish the RAW version. If needed, we have the Commons Archive to keep RAW. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Please note! This suggestion is not a voting matter but regular comments/posts are welcome as always. --Cart (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   OpposeAs I had said, this should be a recommendation, not a requirement. BTW, I think Colin is right, maybe Poco a poco needs a break. The photographers are people more sensitive than the rest of the population and it is not a sensitivity to light only. Sometimes we go through moments of depression in very cold climates/cultures or we simply win all the awards that Commons can give us anyway, I have also felt like Poco in some moments, but it is always good to assess the criticism and observe everything from a positive angle, what I value most about FPC are not the stars that I can win but the negative votes because it help me to improve. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I personally strongly oppose [the obligation for us to upload RAW files]. A photographer's RAW is like a painter's canvas. It's the most fundamental and basic form of the photograph. It's like displaying the original 35mm film in a gallery — ridiculous. With all due respect, I disagree. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, per A.Savin. It is a good practice to save the RAW file (even though for me and my low-end computer, processing it is a truly arduous process). ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Is a Delist nomination counted in the 2 allowed nominations? Regards, Yann (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

My interpretation is that you get up to 2 regular nominations and up to 2 delist nominations at the same time, counted separately. Either way we should determine a consensus and specify it clearly in the instructions. -- King of ♠ 01:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my opinion is we should be allowed 2 nominations and 2 Delists at the same time, since the two initiatives are completely different. But a Delist is long to process at the end after acceptation -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Bonjour, Sans parler des règles, il y a le fair-play. Il ne faudrait pas que ça ressemble a une proposition de remplacer deux images de quelqu’un par les siennes (je déliste un golden-gate pour proposer à la place ma propre photo du golden-gate). Cela dit yann propose souvent des images qui ne sont pas de lui. Si les propositions de nomination concernent des images dont il n’est pas l’auteur, je me dis que cela devrait être autorisé. Dans le même ordre d’idée, je ne trouve pas fair-play que Poco a poco propose deux de ces images et que Cmao20 en propose une troisième. Si cela respecte les règles ce n’est pas courtois pour les autres. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
I know we have to set a limit, but, honestly, given it's meant to clean up the FPs, unless it's being abused I really don't see much reason to set a hard limit. That said, as some idiot will abuse it, perhaps five delists at a time would be reasonable. That said, Delist and replace noms should probably count as non-delist noms. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Delist is fairly rare. Occasionally someone gets the idea that images that wouldn't pass today should be delisted, and I suppose if we had no limit, they might post lots of delist noms. Has anyone every had the need to delist more than two at a time? -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
no, it's just that someone who wants to do cleaning (like a job apart) does not want to have to stop the nomination because it's another job. But 2 nominations + 2 delists = more work for admin (& some fair-play problems in my opinion).--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
The closing and archiving can be done by any user who knows the system (or can read the instructions). Most of the users doing this are (like me) not admins. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
ok, it is not written in the rules in french, no link. The explanation page is: What to do after voting is finished? it's complex and requires practice. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the translation of most pages is badly or not completely done. --Cart (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have always seen it as counting Delist and FP-nom are the same; a nom is a nom. Delist includes 'Delist and Replace', so if you have two fresh photos there, you will get two new FPs. But it would be great to sort this out and see what the community says. One caution though, this section is not like QIC where users are required to review as many noms as they nominate. On FPC there are rather few users who actually take care of the closing, archiving and sorting of noms into FP categories. Making this a 2+2 rule would increase the workload once the noms are finished and for that we would need more users active in that part of a nomination. As I have said before, people are very happy to nominate things, but taking care of the rest is less popular since it involves more work and less glory. --Cart (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I nominated a delist and replace in addition to 2 running nominations. In this case, "Delist and Replace" won't give a new FP, it would just replace an old one by a better one. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Correct, Commons will not get a new FP. I was referring to a the user with the new photo(s). I might also add that closing a Delist requires much more work than closing an FP nom since the Bot takes care of most of the steps with the FP but with the Delist (not to mention the Delist and Replace!) everything has to be done by a human. --Cart (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I will take care of the closing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yann, volunteering to do the admin on that occasion doesn't establish a general rule. If this is the first time in FPC history that someone has felt the need to have two active new nominations and a delist nomination, that tells me there isn't an urgent need to change the "two nominations" rule. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin, I do close nominations time to time, and specially when I see pending closures not being taken care. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying that what you alone do or promise to do, has no bearing on what the general rule for everyone else is. -- Colin (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

In terms of doing the administrative work here, maybe we need some stats on who are the highest-volume causes of work (nominators, withdrawers) and who are the highest volume fixers of work (closing noms, updating FP lists). Then maybe some not-so-subtle hints could be made. Further, maybe FPC needs a guideline (not enforceable rule) indicating expectations wrt reviewing effort vs nominations. Since a nomination requires at least seven reviews to pass, it seems reasonable to expect regulars here to contribute at least seven reviews per nomination, on average. I know some nominators require a lot more reviews on average per FP gained; seven is the least. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

No desire at all to feel forced to review a certain quota of FPs like in QIC. Many reviewers here participate just because they like photography, and they don't nominate any. Some neutral comments are sometimes much more productive than a simple support. 7 FPs minimum will force the people to vote for pictures they may be completely uninterested in, just because "they have to". We are volunteers here, not slaves of a mission. Closing a Delist nom is long yes, perhaps we can suggest the nominators to close their own noms and do the maintenance in case of success. Suggesting this as a productive operation in the guidelines, but not making it an absolute imperative, we can be busy sometimes -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A new (?) record

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

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

Places/Natural subgalleries

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

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

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

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

Categories for set FPC noms

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

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

A bold suggestion about films - Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

John Cotton's Notebook

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

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

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

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

A lot of People

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FPX tagging and working around FPCBot bugs

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

The Bot was originally designed to handle all templates and situations you mention: {{FPX}}, {{FPD}} and {{Withdraw}}. Unfortunately, this doesn't work anymore for some reason. I have told the Bot-people about this several times and asked them to fix it with no success. In the meantime I have more correctly "resorted to manually archiving" hundreds of nominations during my time here. I do what I can to keep the list nice and tidy, just like A.Savin, MZaplotnik, Basile Morin and a few others. Perhaps someone else can have better luck in getting the FPC Bot fixed. --Cart (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think writing the text about the nom being a former FPX takes about as much time as it does to archive it. And you also have to wait for the Bot to come and (maybe) collect it. Another way of making the FPX "invisible" to the Bot would be to just 'nowiki' the text and place the closing tag after it. Like this:
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Some good reason. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Becomes
{{FPX|Some good reason. --[[User:W.carter|Cart]] <small>[[User talk:W.carter|(talk)]]</small> 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)}}
But maybe it doesn't look as good. --Cart (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
The bot should now handles FPX as designed. -- KTC (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Hi there,

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2019 at 11:01:47

Export Videos to FV and de-list them

  •   Oppose What is done is done. Those past noms should not suffer for what we do today. They are just being moved to another space. --Cart (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per W.carter Ezarateesteban 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Why would promoted videos be suddenly delisted? I can't think of any good reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Vulphere 15:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I guess "delist" was a poor choice of wording on my part below. What I'm saying is that Commons:Featured pictures/Animated should contain only animated GIFs from now on, and featured videos should be on a separate page (whatever it is called). Newly featured videos promoted at FVC should have a status equal to that of old videos promoted at FPC. -- King of ♠ 00:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Export Videos to FV (without delisting from FP list)

  •   Support They are just being moved to another space. --Cart (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 13:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 14:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - In other words, just rename them FVs instead of FPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and Ikan – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose There is absolutely no sense for video to be both featured picture and featured video. Video is a video.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piotr Bart (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Piotr Bart Like King of Hearths said above, there has been a poor choice of words here. The idea is to export videos from FP to FV without removing their Featured status. They should not have both assessments and they should not have to go through featured nominations again at FV. LIke Ikan said above, we are renaming them from FP to FV. --Cart (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't move videos to FV

  •   Oppose Good videos belong in FV. --Cart (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose.--Vulphere 09:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose -- Piotr Bart (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  •   Support in the case of animated GIFs only. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose GIFs are an image format so IMHO should stay in FP. – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per Lucas -- Piotr Bart (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't move Animated GIFs to FV

  •   Support GIF is an image format and not one that should be encouraged for animations at FV. (please don't change headings in poll/votings) --Cart (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry I actually forgot about the GIFs when I created this poll -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support GIFs are an image format after all even if they can be video-like. – Lucas 16:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 16:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the key distinction is whether a file is fundamentally an image (which may happen to have moving parts) or a video. The former could technically be a video, but GIF is a better format with more seamless inline integration in Wikimedia projects (e.g. the Pi animation). The latter could technically be a GIF, but it would be a very inefficient storage mechanism and the quality would be compromised. In short, FPC is for images and should contain appropriately formatted GIFs, and FVC is for videos and should contain appropriately formatted video files. Choosing an unsuitable format is grounds for rejection of a candidate. -- King of ♠ 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King of Hearts -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 03:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Moving animated diagrams to FV may encourage folks to use more modern image formats like Animated PNG and WEBP. GIF should no longer be encouraged. -- Colin (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Discuss here

  •   Comment We should also delist all FPs which are videos, and add to the FPC criteria saying that videos are not eligible (animated GIFs are still OK). -- King of ♠ 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm ok with exporting all the video FPs to FV, but they should not be delisted just moved. We don't alter past assessments for what we do today. That would be like delisting all old FPs with 5 support votes now that we have a 7 criteria. I'm with KoH that GIFs should remain among the FPs since that is an image format. --Cart (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment King of Hearts, why retain animated GIF at FPC? It is the "poor man's" video format. There isn't anything you can do in a animated GIF that can't be done better in a video. You can even loop video, should you wish. I don't think we should encourage this at FPC in 2019. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's put it another way: Does FV want the GIFs? If not, where should they go? Plus, should non-animated GIFs stay at FPC while animated should be at FV? Not saying that we are getting a lot of static FPC GIFs, but that format is allowed at least. --Cart (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I'm starting a poll, whether GIFs should stay at FP or should they be de-listed and moved to COM:FV. Discussions never ends and are often too long to read. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ahem, that heading change doesn't look quite right. The above votes were made about moving animated/videos/anything that moves from FP to FV, now it is changed to moving just GIFs. Please revert this. --Cart (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Non-working too big mass ping
  • @Cart, okay now ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 10:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    What about creating a mass ping list ? Might help users who don't know to scrape a page ? -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ...ok... a bit messy. No, no mass pings yet since this thread is so messy! And I don't know what you mean by "users who don't know to scrape a page". Slow down a bit, please. People are at work now (just like me), these things take time. What happened to the poll about moving FP videos to FV? Did it just disappear? --Cart (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't want this poll to run for more than 9 days, so I created this mass list by scraping (Web scraping) the candidates page. Everyone is now aware that there is a poll going on, so I guess 9 days limit is okay. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Eatcha the software doesn't let you ping that many people. I didnt' get a ping. I think the above poll is very confusing and, one again, I plead with folk not to open polls until you have established a consensus. Discuss first. Then the poll just confirms your assumption that consensus has been reached. I'm not sure many people will understand what is meant by "delisting" if they are moving to FV. And by "export to FVC" do you really mean to export as new candidate nominations or as actual featured videos? -- Colin (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I mean to move them as actual featured videos --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinged users
  •   Comment Eatcha, it looks as though you are using FV and FVC in a bit of a mix, thinking that they are the same, but they are in fact two different things. Exporting FPs to FV, means they will keep their established Featured status. Exporting them to FPC means they will be exported to FV Candidates to be tried again in new nominations. That is why things can look a bit confusing above. I hope this is just a typo, so could you please check and sort it out. --Cart (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - GIF is an image format. If any non-animated GIFs are considered FPs, why would anyone want to move those to FVs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, the voting should really refer to "Animated GIF". Though I don't think we would have any non-animated GIF, and if we do then surely that's a candidate for delisting anyway. Static GIF was superseded by PNG years ago. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
      I didn't noticed any non Animated GIF on the page I referred to(in the level 2 heading), I'm adding it nom. Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 15:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the argument that "GIF is an image format". Any video format can also be used to display still images or animations. GIF is a terrible moving image format just as it is a terrible still-image format. GIF is very inefficient for moving images, having to store every frame rather than inter-frame compression, has very limited 8-bit 256-colour pallet, and only basic 1-bit transparency support. Lossless alternatives are Animated PNG which now has wide browser support and works on Wikipedia, and WEBP which has browser support but not MediaWiki support yet (shows still image only). Both of those are significantly smaller, have true 24-bit colour, and true alpha channel transparency. We should be encouraging image-makers to produce APNG or WEBP (content with the latter will encourage Wikimedia to support it). There is no fundamental difference between a long animation film and a short animation showing a heart beating or moon phases. If we are to distinguish between FP and FV then perhaps the distinction is that FP would retain "animated diagrams" or some equivalent term, as they share some judgement qualities with SVG images/diagrams. I don't see any reason to support GIF or animated GIF in 2019. -- Colin (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I can agree that GIF is an ineffective and outdated way of producing high quality moving images. From now on it could be discouraged from getting a Featured status, in favor of more modern file formats, but that is a different discussion. Now we are stuck with a bunch of old featured animated GIFs and we have to decide where to park them. Just keeping them in a small section of FP is better than letting them loose among the videos at FV. IMO moving them to FV would send a signal that GIF is an ok format to use for featured moving images today. I think it says a lot that Eatcha who is the new modern animation user who initiated this discussion "actually forgot about the GIFs when I created this poll". --Cart (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
GIF may have one lasting benefit (for now): looping. Something like File:Geneva mechanism 6spoke animation.gif would be far less valuable if it was a video that played once then stopped playing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not intrinsically a GIF-only feature -- MediWiki could offer markup to loop video. The auto-repeat is a major pain when you actually want to read an article and someone's added a spinning distraction to the page. -- Colin (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't underestand why WMF not add Basic features that allready exist and easy to add to Mediawiki (I'm software developper and i know what im talking about). When im using commons is like use a 90s HTML Basic page and every nice feature need to be developed by commonners externally of Mediawiki itself. Its like stop Mediawiki évolution is a polítical decision of WMF, Kill toolserver and useless features like image preview (when you click over a image on wp its not going directly to commons) is in this polítical too. Wilfredor (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There are a lot of us who understand a bit about software who wonder the same thing. I would gladly scrap all this structure and coding for something current. Problem is only how to do it. --Cart (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In fairness, they do ask the community for ideas/votes on new features to develop (I seem to recall last time, we asked for the 360 pano viewer, but forget what happened about that). And for defects/minor enhancements, there is Phabricator where you can search for tickets or create some, and if there is a ticket then you can comment/support/subscribe to it. I don't think the interaction between WMF and Commons is very good, and if you look at the Village Pump, every time WMF tell us about some change, there are a bunch of "Nooo... I like it like this; don't you dare change it; let Commons opt out of this; why wasn't I consulted" comments. The layout format of pages on Wikipedia really sucks and makes it hard to illustrate articles well. Most other information websites have a much lower ratio of text:image and are then easier to read and more enjoyable to view. On the other hand, it is flexible enough to work on desktop PCs, mobile phones and other smart devices including reading out the first few lines. And yes, the wiki syntax is a barrier to most non-nerds. However, one thing they developed early on was support for high DPI displays: the thumbnails on Wikipedia viewed on such displays are 2x the resolution of normal displays, while the font size remains the same. So Wikipedia thumbnails look a lot sharper and clearer on such displays that many websites which simply scale up their thumbs. Video remains a bit awkward though (enabling looping isn't rocket science), and is further limited by being restricted to only free video formats. -- Colin (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Colin thanks for show me this point of view. Maybe WMF is like a public company, There is no apparent customer or a need to improve the service, but some people who donate independently what is done because the wikipedia content is already too complete. If we were users that pay for a service (example flickr, 500px, ...) we could demand certain functionalities or technical improvements. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there were animated image formats other than GIF; please excuse me for my ignorance. But when I say "animated GIF" above, I really mean "any moving image format which is not primarily used for the kind of media one would call 'video'". -- King of ♠ 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit withdrawn or FPXed nominations

Hi there,

The FPC is patched and updated so you are not required to do any manual work (except for the SET nominations). If a nomination is tagged with FPX or withdrawn templates you are no longer required to close the nomination manually. Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) - ping me 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'm keeping my fingers crossed. :-) --Cart (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Btw, I hope it is like we discussed that the Bot will wait for 24 hours before archiving the 'withdrawn' nom, in case someone change their mind or someone else takes over. We have all seen that happen... ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's as described. -- KTC (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Author's description

I was thinking that in the description of a featured image, we could create a row of information called "Author's comment". This comment would be an Audio, a narration of the author recorded by the author, that describes the moment in which the photograph is made and what he wishes to communicate. This audio could be full of emotions and adds the sensitivity of the moment. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Sounds good, but what about non-English speakers ? Are you planning to make it compulsory ? What about deceased Author ? -- Eatcha (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Or those who simply wish to remain anonymous? Providing your voice in a recording is a bit like including a photo of yourself in the file. It should never be mandatory. --Cart (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
The idea is to leave more information about the photograph and not about the author. This is not something like self-promotion with a photo of the author. It is a way to complement the information about the image. It must always be done in the language that is most comfortable for the author and should never be mandatory as it is not mandatory geolocation but it is very useful.Wilfredor (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
You don't recognize people by hearing their voices? In any case, such words are better to leave in a written commentary (not the same as description), in any language, since that can be translated and understood by anyone. --Cart (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Cart I think that the spoken language adds things that the written language can not contribute (intonation, idioms, warmth of the voice and volume, strength), many times it is not what you say but the way in which you say the things that make the information arrives in a better way, this simply can not be translated. However, this is an additional supplement. My concrete proposal is to add a section in the description of the image called "Author's Comments", that way it is easier to understand what the author wanted to convey in a subjective way. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Never assume that all people function the same way you do. I have no problem with adding the parameter |Author's Comment = to the description template, but it must be up to every user if and how they want to use it, for a sound file or for text. You might like to express yourself by talking; I prefer to write. I think having my voice on a sound file attached to a photo would be an invasion of my privacy. What I write here is (CC-BY-SA 3.0) and my photos are (CC-0) but my voice is strongly copyrighted. You do realize that any such voice recording can also be used, sampled, twisted and made into things you would never say, right? --Cart (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Cart I'm not saying that all should record an audio, I'm not saying that this should be a requirement for FPC, I'm just asking what works for me, for other people work other ways, other options. Obviously I am not being clear in what I write because you can not understand me, it is an example of why speech is important to me, but the descriptive field can be left open to a video, an audio or an optional text. --Wilfredor (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Source file should be uploaded

The authors should upload a TIFF or PNG image without any alteration of color or photoshop (exactly what the camera's sensor captures), and in that way we contribute to safeguard the original source. In this way we can appreciate the changes made in a photograph by the author and in the future these changes could be improved (Example: noise correction tools improve with the years) --Wilfredor (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Not this again. Why do people assume that a nominated photo wasn't only saved as a jpeg on camera? And FPC have no limitation to only accepting images from Commoners, what about images originating from Flickr, US Gov, etc.? -- KTC (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
+1. Hear! Hear! First: It could be seen as if we were "policing" peoples' editing. Second: I very much doubt there are that many users who go back to their old files and do some reworking. I'm not even sure that would be ok, since then it is not the version people voted for if it's an FP or QI. --Cart (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A raw file is not something that can be directly displayed. So there is no one original that is an equivalent to PNG or TIFF. Someone/thing has to make a guess about colour tempeature / white balance. The demosaicing algorithm includes a lot of assumptions and noise reduction, especially chroma noise. Many modern lenses are designed to have some distortion or aberrations that are defined by the electronics and embedded in the image so they can be removed by the raw converter. The colour space of the sensor needs translated to sRGB which requires calibration that every raw converter does a bit differently. And so on. I think dcraw is capable of producing an image with no NR or corrections and the result is awful. Lightroom cannot do this -- it will always process the image. But the problem is that one can't then input that PNG result into another program and get a better image. We only really have raw converters, not "awful PNG improvers". So, only the raw files are useful in the way you describe, and we have for a long time had a resource to upload them to if desired... but there is little desire. There are so many great photos produced all the time, unless one of us captures a one-in-a-generation event on camera, there isn't probably anyone interested in reprocessing my photos in future. And then add to that the fact that my processing of the raw file is part of my artistic expression, and something nobody else can quite repeat. -- Colin (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Colin The future use of the work we are doing here may have repercussions on how people can observe the history that we can not understand at this time. There are processes to lose not too much information on transform process from RAW image to PNG or TIFF and yes, it is true, there will always be information loss, but also we will have much more information available to do development/rebuild or edit the image. With respect to the development that is an artistic work, it could be done by another person and an analogy would be the photographic development work done by Christopher Nolan of Odyssey 2001. --Wilfredor (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Short answer: Never. Long answer: Developing an image (RAW) is part of the photographers developing process. I think most of the photographers will not agree to modifications made by third party. May be noise reduction or something else will improve in the future, older photographs are older photographs. I've seen a lot of modifications made by third party that are not acceptable. On the other hand: There are HDRIs or stitched images, sometimes a lot of gigabyte of data. You can't handle these data. If uploading RAW data is required IMO a lot of photographers will leave Wikimedia Commons. --XRay talk 04:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This is basically what has been done in commons archive--Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. I certainly have had gigabyte HDR tiff files, and no intention of uploading those anywhere. I don't think the future will improve e.g. noise reduction all that much. Noise in a TIFF or PNG cannot actually ever be removed, only camouflaged. Other than removing the colour filter array on a sensor, we are close to the best that can be achieved by a single photo since the noise in many images is shot noise due to the individual photons being random and too few. The latest phones are using multi-shot-noise-reduction to an extreme level (e.g. taking 20 images rapidly and merging), which is a cleverer way to remove noise at source. I also think the sensor tech will soon eliminate the burnt-out white from over-exposure filling up the sensor well, and provide HDR as standard. But really, Wilfredor, I don't think we should be caring as much as we do here about noise. It is rare that it spoils looking at an image as a whole, and noise can become completely irrelevant if an image is printed, as that process softens the result somewhat, and the dots are individually invisible. Much of our pixel-peeping concerns are due to us still looking at images 100% on a 100dpi monitor. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Colin I understand your point, however, this contrasts with some negative votes in FPC that suggest greater sharpening and size, less noise, give more importance to these things than to the composition itself. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I think many of us like to produce an image that is the best we can. So when we notice others could have taken an extra effort to fix noise, CA or sharpness issues, we point it out. It is good when folk share the best way to tweak an image (and I remember you fixing the sky in my aircraft image to be smoother than I could do) but perhaps less good when we make this a reason to oppose or hold off supporting. I think most folk here view the JPG as their finished creation, rather than a first draft uploaded with the source materials for someone later to try and do a better job. Most images still fail because of bad light, bad composition, bad timing, bad camera technique, and none of these can be fixed other than to take another photo. -- Colin (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Whenever this come up, I can't help but think about uploading the 5PB of source data for this featured picture. I hope the foundation have enough hard drive space! -- KTC (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
this is one of those rare exceptions :) --Wilfredor (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Some weeks ago, we already had a similar discussion, and there clearly was no consensus to establish any kind of obligation to upload source RAW files, as something that is both far from reality and not generally necessary. How often should we repeat it? If Wilfredor has so much time, perhaps he better should invest it to learn how to categorize his own photos properly. --A.Savin 08:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

A.Savin I have more than a decade in commons and I do not know how the categories work, I do not even think they are necessary in the future due to wikidata. I like your comments always positive waiting for good faith :* --Wilfredor (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I have more than a decade in commons and I do not know how the categories work -> wow, brilliant. If there is some day a monument "To the Unknown Commoner", this could be its inscription. --A.Savin 06:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I will not upload any RAW files to Commons, what I contribute here is an export of the RAW file with my personal settings, not the RAW file itself. Wilfredo, please, give up this topic, it has been already almost 6 years since the first discussion. Poco2 11:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

FP Portraits

The new FP gallery Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait is now up and running. --Cart (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, great job, Cart! Thank you!!! Poco2 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Minimum size/resolution for FP

This has bugging me for no end for years now. Rules clearly say "minimum 2 megapixels" (unless strong mitigating circumstances) yet we see image after image opposed based on "too small", "resolution not high enough", "this is 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019" etc. If the majority think a 4 megapixel landscape is too small, then change the damned header already! Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with bumping the minimum requirement (and giving both total pixels and minimum dimensions) after all it IS true this is 2019 and a midrange phone can shoot a dark street at new moon in acceptable quality (when downsized to 2mp). That's ok. But please, if you think it should be this way then do change the description for what is and isn't an FP candidate. -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the current requirements, which state: "For 'easy to take' images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it." For some images, e.g. small birds, current state-of-the-art technology can produce little more than 2 MP. Meanwhile, 20 MP would be still too low for a cityscape panorama, even though it would be perfectly fine for a dramatic landscape. -- King of ♠ 02:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with KoH here. The line is certainly fluid depending on what could be expected of a photo of a scene. It is hard to set an absolute line when so many parameters factor in for what is an FP. Better to have a very low minimum and go upwards from that. For example this tiny photo passed with no opposes while this humongous photo taken with one of the best cameras there is, failed. --Cart (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Cart, your argument would be valid if W Moroder's picture was nominated as "omg, look at teh rezolutionz!!1!" and then failed regardless. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
The Commons:Image guidelines are long overdue for the bin and a new modern one created. I disagree with KoH that there's "nothing wrong". "easy to take" is a poor description of images we expect to be much larger, which might very well have been difficult to take. Also it gives an example of a 2mp image that would be unlikely to pass today. The page hasn't been touched since we were lusting after 6MP cameras. There must be a way we can describe our consensus view on image size, downsampling, pixel-peeping, etc better than this ancient document. We already have COM:Photography terms which makes much of the guideline page redundant. I really should make a start somewhere.... -- Colin (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Note that there are no formal FP requirements; there are QI requirements a.k.a. Image guidelines instead, and these technical QI criteria usually apply for FP too (along with other factors such as "wow effect", "historical value" etc.). To increase the minimum resolution, which I would support, a consensus at QIC talk is necessary, not here. There were numerous proposals so far, including this poll not long ago, but as Russian metaphor says "the carriage is still there". --A.Savin 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we could adopt a different minimum size at FPC if we wanted to, don't you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Look at this nom for example. 7 opposes, 6 of them "low res". Whether the image itself is FP material or not there seems to be a consensus that there IS a minimum resolution, at least for some categories, that is enforced via voting. This needs to be spelled out for people because the current situation is annoying af. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
We tried to establish a new higher minimum resolution for QIs and it failed miserably. Mainly because getting the usual contributors here to agree on something is like herding cats. That said, any user can of course suggest new rules and guidelines. Feel free to do so. Make a list of categories and the appropriate minimum resolution in each of them. Then sit back and look at us squabble over the resolution of an FP nomination that falls between two categories. Photography is an art and like all arts it can't be easily quantified. Except at Sotheby's. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yet we already have a minimum size, so at some point, some lower limit was agreed upon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Notify uploader ?

I'm adding a notify uploader feature to FSCBot and FVCBot, are you folks interested in this thing for FPCBot ? I'm asking here as FPC is bigger project than FSC or FVC. It will be similar to present notification that the nominator gets when his/her nomination gets featured. Thanks -- Eatcha (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. How would you handle files with multiple versions from different uploaders? --El Grafo (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: can you please elaborate further with examples? -- Eatcha (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
What I'm doing at this moment is using a template {{FVpromotion uploader}} which is similar to the {{FVpromotion}}. The bot will identify the original uploader based on the edit history of the file-page. If you look at file history of File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, User:Spartan7W is the original uploader. The bot will add the following to spartan's talk page this is just an example using the featured video template.
I'd be happy with that. I believe some of the photographers whose photos I nominate never find out that they were promoted to FPs. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
This is because the FPCbot only notifies the nominator, not the uploader. But it should notify the uploader or both. As long as it does not, you are encouraged to move the message yourself. --A.Savin 11:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion(level 2) {{FVpromotion uploader|File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg}} /[[User:FPCBot|FPCBot]] ([[User talk:FPCBot|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) hh:mm, dd month yyyy (UTC) Any kind of language change suggestions are welcome -- Eatcha (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) This template is deleted -- Eatcha (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

List of top 20(19+1 Bot editor) nominators on COM:FPC

FPCBOT edited Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list most number of times (18807 times)

  • 1) Yann
  • 2) Poco a poco
  • 3) Alvesgaspar
  • 4) Jkadavoor
  • 5) Tomer T
  • 6) ArionEstar
  • 7) W.carter
  • 8) Christian Ferrer
  • 9) George Chernilevsky
  • 10) Simonizer
  • 11) Wilfredor
  • 12) Tomascastelazo
  • 13) A.Savin
  • 14) Mbz1
  • 15) Pudelek
  • 16) Livioandronico2013
  • 17) Jebulon
  • 18) XRay
  • 19) Famberhorst

Harvested from - this Json file -- Eatcha (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha Interesting, thanks! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha: are these the page creators under FP candidates (indeed nominators) or editors in that area? Poco2 13:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello Poco2, this list is based on number of times a person edited the Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, yes there is no way to count nominators directly (yet). I knew that I can't tell the exact number of nominations an User made as some-times when the bot goes crazy and some users remove the candidates manually. In the Json, you edited this page about 815 times(including the edits if ever you removed anything manually) if you use statistics (deviation) then still this data is pretty accurate, considering ± 30 edits. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing, Eatcha. How about a list of the top 20 successful nominators? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Frank Schulenburg, The list of top 20 successful nominators can be generated with 100% accuracy if anyone with enough rights can create the page User:FPCBot/EditCounterOptIn.js, but even admins don't have permission to create this page. I don't know the bots password (I'm not its creator). -- Eatcha (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Frank Schulenburg, take a look at the following list -- Eatcha (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: How is the rank calculated? Is a percentage or absolute? Can we have the numbers? You could make a list on a dedicated page updated once a month. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
+1. Numbers would be great. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann, W.carter:, list fixed with number of successful nominations. I will try to create a page that you mentioned but I stll don't prperly know how to use wiki markup, I'm still new here and I don't why things are extra compicated on MediaWiki API, no clear tutorial and (Even Magnus Manske complaing about this serious problem!) -- Eatcha (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. This list is and its numbers is sort of already known to us. What would be interesting are the numbers Colin mentioned on your talk page. That is, how many nominations did each user make to get this number of FPs. That's what I meant by numbers. Let's say I had to make about 300 noms to get my 122 successful, that percentage would be nice to know. Is there any chance of getting this? --Cart (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
We could add how many times the bot added the FPC sucess message for each user and in that way we could get a porcent of reliability, and yes it can be done with the API --Wilfredor (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not guaranteed as the API can't diffrentiate between removal of data or addition of data to the candidate list page(see my reply to Yann for more info, just below list) -- Eatcha (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

List of all nominator on COM:FPC, in decreasing order by the number of successful nominations
I created a Node.js web service (I will switch to python anyway), to parse the candidate list and update once in a month. I wasn't able to add the percentage feature, but I will try to add that when I do have enough time. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You guys can click on list title to sort the Tables. Cheers! -- Eatcha (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This list is generated by parsing Media Wiki API response. -- Eatcha (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I updated the list, and fixed the an error(users sometime rediret their talk pages, which results in unwanted responce of API). -- Eatcha (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Does this mean that there are 770 users with at least one FP nomination? And, as Cart said, the percentage of successful nominations would be interesting. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Yes, there are 770 users with at least one FP nomination but only after 15 August 2009(The day FPCBot took over the closing process). I will try to get the percentage, but the api doesn't tells you who added or removed data from a page. And sometimes users remove nominatios and it gets counted as a nomination. Like 1, 2, 3 and many more. Getting the total number of nominations a user made is complicated task, I'm talking to some Server admins about the API and if I can diffrentiate removal of candidate from additions.——Eatcha (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, thanks for the nice tool! It seems like there is a bug in your code regarding successful nominations. Because of the way I archive my talk page, my count is harmed. Tomer T (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tomer T,   Done I fixed it manually from the source for this time, I will change the code next week to fix this issue for all users, User talk:UserName/anything will be displayed as User talk:UserName . -- Eatcha (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Eatcha, for all the work. This is super cool! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: Thanks for this great feature! One further improvement you could make is to combine them into a single page with a sortable table, with the columns giving the number of nominations under each result such as (going through my own) succeeded, failed, delist nom, and unparseable/not a real nom. -- King of ♠ 05:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's nice. But I don't think I made 933 nominations. That figure probably includes archiving, fixing others' nominations, etc. It seems that you could get a reliable figure while counting how many pages were created under "Commons:Featured picture candidates/..." The only errors would be renaming nominations, but redirects can be removed from the count. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann:, I know that the table for total nominations is not very accurate. But as you mentioned pages were created under "Commons:Featured picture candidates/*" would help, how can I get that ? Is there any special page for this ? I'm currently parsing the HTML pages as the API limit may not be over 500 for users it's lower for logged out users. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work but the list can clearly be rather wrong wrt some users. Since I don't create many pages in the 'Commons:' namespace it was very easy for me to check how many nominations I've actually made and how many were successful. I've created 242 FP noms (599 according to the list) of which 126 were successful (122 according to the list). But I have been very active in archiving and keeping the list clean so I guess that is what is showing up in the list. The list also says that MZaplotnik made 69 nominations; AFAIK he has never made any FP noms but he has been very helpful in keeping the list tidy. --Cart (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter:, How did you counted your successful FP nominations ? Manually or any thing else ? You nominated 3 Sets, did you counted your sets as a single successful nomination or you counted each image separately ? Your 3 sets are 1, 2 and 3. And I'm here concerned about successful nominations only I will treat a set as a single Nomination(This can result in difference between your FPs and Your successful Nominations). And how did you counted your total nominations, any link to that page ? this can solve the issue with the total nominations. Warm Regards -- Eatcha (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha: Ah, yes, you are right. I forgot about the sets! Thanks for finding that. :-) For my successful noms, I only counted the number of FPs in Category:Featured Pictures by W.carter minus two nominated by other users and plus the noms in User:W.carter/Featured pictures by other photographers nominated by me. So noms are not the same as FPs and I guess that the total of 122 is correct. For counting how many noms I made, I looked at my user contributions for page creations in Commons space and excluded those that were anything other than FP noms (like deletion requests, page moves, VI noms, etc). It was done by manual counting so I might have missed one or two in human error. --Cart (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there is something wrong here. This is the list of all Commons-namespace pages I have ever created. There are only 108 (based on Ctrl-F "N Commons:Featured picture candidates"), but your tool claims 124. And removal candidates and pagemoves should be handled differently from actual FPC nominations. -- King of ♠ 13:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@The King of Hearts & clubs, I know that the total nominations table is not very accurate (The successful nominations table is pretty accurate, as it's parsed from bot edits). I'm trying to fix this issue with the total nominations table. Warm Regards, From Eatcha (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Please see Special:PrefixIndex/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

German help wanted

Fischer.H has just, more or less successfully, created five FPCs:

Could some German-speaking user please be kind enough to teach this user how nominations are done. This trial and error is not working. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Once again a little mishap due to "+" in a file title

Not sure you remember the note about the "+" and some other signs: Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 21#FPCBot. Well it has happened again. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fruit + Veggie Toast (43807243320).jpg nominated by Tomer T has a "+" in the title. This time the photo wasn't featured so it didn't do much damage. The Bot only parked it three times in the log but refused to remove it from the list. I've done that manually. Please remember NOT TO USE + or some other "strange" characters in file titles, thank you. --Cart (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The bug should be solved in the bot code. Tomer T (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh Python Operator problem, I fixed the code to handle + see Revision #358777385,Commons:Featured_sound_candidates/File:Flower_+_Leaves.jpg(for FSCBot). I will open a pull request for FPCbot, but any other characters you know that cause these typo of problems ? And IMHO it would be best to open an issue at the master repository instead of writing here, or at least contact me(I'm the maintainer as of now).-- Eatcha (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Also here, a problem with "?" -- Eatcha (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha: These bugs mainly occurs when the character is in the file title and not many other characters are used there. I know that the = has caused problems at QIC (cancelling out some text), but I have not seen = used in titles here. Even so, it might be best to include it among the troublesome characters. Perhaps you could also do something for & too since it might be used in titles. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
File:A test image=+!@-$^&*()-?-;?don't delete it. Ask User-Eatcha first. Please.jpg is ready for test, I will nominate this tonight and try my best to close it successfully. Eatcha (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
And crop-tool is bad in handling these names see -- Eatcha (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, if you test all the characters in one single file name, how will you know which one(s) is/are causing the trouble? --Cart (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter:, I added all operators to be treated as strings(without caring which ones are causing the problem), without any kind of separate testing. -- Eatcha (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Some are operators, while others aren't. Bugs like this are usually caused by not converting the characters in the file title that could be interpreted as operators, first. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done -- Should close files with Py-operators in name, pull-request at . I checked it using FSCBot, here's the diff but by mistake I forgot to remove CLI argument "-auto", which closed and parked some other files. -- Eatcha (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready with a new....

script that will notify the uploaders if their files gets FP tagged. This will certainly encourage them to nominate themselves, thus will increase user-base which should increase the competition. I tested the script with FSCBot, for COM:FSC test candidate at it works. I will run a few test runs here, before merging into the master repository.
The template should look like following example:

FS Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:High quality skull.stl, that you uploaded is now assessed as one of the finest pictures on Wikimedia Commons, the nomination is available at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:High quality skull.stl. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate, please do so at this nomination page.


/FPCBot (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • If you don't like the wordings of the template, just change them without complaining.

-- Eatcha (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

REPORT 1: See this, all okay except the edit summary mentioned (FSC promotion of File:Coconut octopus (Amphioctopus marginatus) (45031078485).jpg). This is fixed now, will run 5 more test-runs before merging in master repository. -- Eatcha (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

REPORT 2: I'm adding some test noms(will be removed within hours), to check the feature if it spams the nominator if nominator = author/uploader. -- Eatcha (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  Done I tested past month log, without making any edit(-dry) and everything looks fine. I created a pull request . Once merged, uploader should also receive a notification. Regards-- Eatcha (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

FSC Bot?

Eatcha, what is FSC (Fetured Sound Candidate) Bot doing at FPC (Featured Picture Candidates)? That Bot has all the description aimed at featured sound. Don't you think that looks a bit confusing even if it does all its tasks correctly. Perhaps you should diversify the description if it operates both forums. --Cart (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • It also made run out of schedule today, was that a test or something? --Cart (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Was a test run(but not a test edit), was not merged in the last 24 hours and I don't have the rights to SSH into tools.fpcbot, although it is merged now. I can only test scripts with my bot accounts(It's just the username) and of course, I can't wait for the 8 hours schedule just for these 3 bots that share the code. In the future, if I try to improve it all the tests will be done only through FSCBot account. And I must test everything properly if I don't the bot would stop working and can't be fixed until you ping KTC(She is the only active user on commons, who has SSH right to tools.fpcbot, and If you are curious about Bot operator Bengtsson he forgot the password, it's been around 10 years now).
  • synopsis: I can't use the FPCBot account to test things, I don't know the password and I don't have SSH rights to that tool.

  Question I guess more concerning edit was this edit, how can this bot close a delist candidate before 9 days and that too with wrong templates, Is this what generally happens with FPCBot? Maybe you know something as you commented out it instead of reverting it? Have a nice day, Eatcha (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok Eatcha, good to know that it was only a test with the FSC bot. FPC Bot is usually closing delist nominations prematurely according to the 'five-days-rule' if the 'delist' or 'keep' votes have a pattern that coincides with the normal votings. All delist proposals should run the full 9 days so we usually just comment out the bot's closing. I think your FSC Bot didn't recognize the {{Delist}} and {{Keep}} templates and so it looked at the number of days the nom had been up and decided that there were no 's', 'o' or 'n' and closed it according to the "five days with no support votes". You can see that FSC Bot left the (FifthDay=yes) in the edit summary. Now that I know the Bot run was just a test, I can revert the whole closing since it has no meaning. --Cart (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 21".