Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 26

Prohibit thanking votes as FPC rule

When someone thanks us for voting, this creates a dopamine “hook” in voters generating pleasure with social validation and recognition in FPC. Therefore, positive recognition when voting could be reinforcing participation in said behavior through the feeling of gratification from the nominations. Instead of manipulating behaviors through rewards that activate the dopamine system, promote a voting culture based on conscious deliberation and commitment to judgment over photos. Encouraging users to vote based on the merit of the actual quality of the compositions or characteristics of the photo and not in the search for social approval or immediate rewards. Wilfredor (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Valid point. A few minutes ago, I voted keep on some deletion requests by one user, delete on others, and expressed doubts on others. I was thanked for the delete votes, not for the votes in which the nominator is still in disagreement with me. I found that somewhat bemusing, because in no case was I voting for or against the nominator, but just based on my interpretation of COM:TOO for a few countries, with the exception of one case in which a file was clearly freely licensed (I was thanked for that, too). I recognize that some people may be swayed by thanks, as you say. But while your point is valid, I don't see how it could be enforced, so I think there's no real use in making such a guideline change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I know that "thanks" is one of the public logs, but it only seems to show when someone thanked and who they thanked. Is there any way to find out what they thanked them for. It might be interesting to know which nominators are only thankful for praise :-)

We all come from different cultures so I suspect some will think it rude not to thank someone for a review and some will think it is too much. If anyone doesn't like being thanked, or would prefer not to be influenced by thanks, then they can turn off the notifications in their preferences.

The best way to show thanks to reviewers is to review other people's images. -- Colin (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for this comment (not the thanks link), I think you are right, although I have never received so many thanks in all my years talking to other users and leaving notes on their discussion pages compared to the thanks I receive on FPC. I feel, and I may be wrong, that section became like some kind of ego masturbation where the most important thing is to compulsively obtain more FP instead of improving the quality as a photographer by providing quality images with varied themes ( Example, excessive church theme) Wilfredor (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal as fanciful as it is impractical. Please don't click on "thanks", lol Don't thank anyone or you'll be banned! -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Comment IMO this is a solution is search of a problem. I rarely thank people for voting, and I don't expect to be thanked for my votes. I may thank for a useful comment. But if people want to thank others, I don't mind and I don't care. And I don't see how this could be enforced. Yann (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

In search of a problem, yes I agree. Personally I appreciate gratitude and usually see that as a mark of politeness. I also understand when someone does not thank me after I opposed, the simplest explanation is that we have different points of view. I can be right, they can be right too -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think setting ones own feelings towards giving thanks as a standard is helpful here. I for example usually don't thank people for their votes, because I feel it is inappropriate. I sometimes thank people for their helpful comments which are part of the vote, no matter if that vote is positive or negative. Kritzolina (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose per Yann. For me, it's a sign of gratitude for taking the time to vote. There is also no logistical way of enforcing this without spending endless hours on Special:log/thanks. --SHB2000 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• Taking the time to vote, but above all to review. Who knows how long you spent on a picture, sometimes inspected in detail, before leaving a brief assessment? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Gratitude is still something great to have. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• My perspective on thanking is that, since we already know that people are grateful for support of their work, thanking everyone for supporting doesn't really mean anything. I thank people for good advice, a novel perspective, or otherwise for a constructive comment that I find unusually kind or helpful. Otherwise, again, I feel like it can be taken for granted that I'm thankful for support. This is not something we need rules for, in part for the same reasons: we already know that people are grateful for support, so adding a "thanks" doesn't mean anything to cultivate a special relationship. At least not as far as I'm concerned. I wish people would use thanks judiciously at FPC to separate standard gratitude from a higher level of gratitude, but people are free to use it however they want. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• The only thing I can add to the discussion above, is that here on Commons 'thanks' also serve as our marker that we have read a comment. Most online interactions these days have 'opened' and 'read'/'viewed' indicators. We don't have anything that sophisticated, so usually a 'thanks' will do instead so that the users writing a comment know that we have read it. I frequently use the 'thanks' button for this purpose. --Cart (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Agree with Yann and Cart. --Aristeas (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• +1, also in agreement. In my opinion, thanking is a gesture of gratitude in any kind of constructive editing. The social aspect of working together is just as important in the Wikiverse as it is in the teamwork of everyday working life. With best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Other people don't thank the oppose votes? I'm not very good at consistency with thanking for votes, but if I do, I don't discriminate by what they vote, and I honestly always appreciate a well-argued oppose. Hell, I can point to a really good one. Draceane's in Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:US_Marshals_with_Young_Ruby_Bridges_on_School_Steps.jpg is a completely and totally valid oppose vote, that highlights a change in how voting on Commons now recognises EV to some extent when, by the rules, it shouldn't. In some ways, it might be the only vote to use rules as writtrn. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• +1 to this. I've received plenty of thanks for oppose votes in the past, and in the rare cases I nominated something myself I've tried to make sure to thank opposers and supporters equally. I've always taken it as a "thanks for taking the time to review my nomination". --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Bot down?

Hi, The bot seems to be down (again). Any idea? Yann (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I took care of the not closed FPCs before because the bot didn't. Usually doing that the problem is solved because there was an issue in any of those noms that the bot couldn't cope with. So, if we do the job by hand then hopefully the problem is gone and in a few hours the bot runs smoothly, we'll see Poco a poco (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but the bot is still down. Yann (talk) 09:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Poco a poco (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I posted a message to KTC. Yann (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I archived the completed noms, added the star and let nominators and authors know. Only when you do this work manually you do realize what a great thing is to have a bot... Poco a poco (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann and Poco a poco: Well the good news is I've figured out what the issue is (i.e. what has changed). The bad news, I have no idea how to fix it (yet). More Googling to come.... -- KTC (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann and Poco a poco: Should be working now. Check back after 21:00 UTC. -- KTC (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are great news, thank you, KTC Poco a poco (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

[OK] Works again, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much, KTC! --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop blaming each other

I find discussions that are just centered on putting blame on other users extremely disruptive and know from professional knowledge that they will not help in resolving the underlying issues. Let us not continue to talk about users and their mistakes, let's talk about possible solutions to problems without naming names. Kritzolina (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Incredible who asks here others to behave in a civil way after all I had to read in this nom from somebody who admits to have no clue. And btw, next time, please, assume good faith, the reason why "that person" did not even communicate enough with the people in the group to find out about some of the more interesting pieces of the regalia, like what is attached to their legs, was a food possoning that made me feel like shit that day. People who know me (there are a bunch here) will surely not confirm that I'm not communicative. What you achieved so far is that I refrain from uploading more pictures from that trip or similar trips, but no problem, maybe a local will do that someday when they all drive cars and have jobs as clerks and lawyers in the village. Finally, going back you claim for civility and as you say in Germany: fass dich an die eigene Nase. Poco a poco (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Te dare el mismo consejo que le di a Arion, ignora completamente, enfocate en los aspectos positivos e intenta mejorar tecnicamente pero llega un punto en el que vez que un usuario esta simplemente inventando cosas para joder, entonces ignora. Saludos Wilfredor (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Peace 🕊️

Pleaste, stop the virtual war! ★ 22:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The best way to stop is to write absolutely nothing here including "stop the war." Wilfredor (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion kinda already died out on March 11. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

See below. 👇 ★ 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pdanese/The Art of Criticism

There is a page that I have nominated for deletion because this represents personal attacks on @Charlesjsharp: , a discussion has been opened about this in which you may be interested in participating. Wilfredor (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This section was previously removed by @Kritzolina: , I have restored it again, it seems rude to remove comments from other users Wilfredor (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not intend to be rude. I wanted to stop a dynamic that apparently I can't stop anyhow. I think I will leave the FI pages for a while. Kritzolina (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem, i understand you Wilfredor (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Basile Morin's taunting behavior

I'm getting a little uncomfortable with some of the aforementioned user's comments; vide here and the canvassing discussion. ★ 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Basile Morin's position very reasonable here. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Child herding cattle in the street.jpg.

ArionStar's rush is another difficulty -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your illeism makes the subtopic below pathetic. Keep the respect, please. ★ 02:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of you should take a step back from each other. Simply accusing each other of this and that will only go in circles, irregardless of who was in the right and who was in the wrong. My 2c is that neither parties involved are in the wrong from a policy standpoint, but that is beyond the point. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The last resort should be an IBAN between the two of you, which I sincerely hope it doesn't escalate to that point. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ArionStar's rush

ArionStar should learn to take the time. 🕐 Nominating too quickly, withdrawing too quickly, requesting huge effort and attention to the reviewers, sometimes breaking our rules -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time.

★ 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

See how it is "getting annoying" and read the section "Quota in nominations", as examples -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

October–November 2023 vs March 2024… LOL! 🤣 ★ 11:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No, no, always. For years. And diffs are available, of course. You want March? Here we go ► ► ► "You are always looking for shortcuts and fast-track options, but you must learn to be more patient." LOL if you don't care, but accept that for us it's time-consuming and sometimes irritating -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem asking something I don't know? ★ 13:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a problem answering? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely not; therefore, there is no problem with what you liked… "thank u, next"! ★ 13:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Special IBAN

 Question @SHB2000, you're suggesting an IBAN? How much do you think I should request on my bank account? </joking>

Special interactions between SHB2000, ArionEstar and me remind me this -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

lmao, you and Arion sharing an international banking account number would be mildly hilarious /s. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

😄 Automatic 5 millions, wow ! 😜 Big thanks, SHB2000 x 2000 x 2000 x 2000 ! :-) Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

2000*2000*2000*2000! (the factorial, that is)?! SHB2000 (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Answer here :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT crashed :-(. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

😄 Automatic crash 😜 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe we are facing a matter of great seriousness, and minimizing its importance through ridicule is not the proper way. I am still waiting for an apology for the baseless accusations of "canvassing," which were seen as an unjustified contempt towards Brazilians. I consider that this conflict is not only between Basile and Arion; after all, Basile's behavior, following his erroneous accusation, has proven to be disturbing. I asked Arion, in a private message, to opt for ignoring this conflict, a path that has proven effective for me previously with other users, given that indifference usually discourages such behaviors. Nonetheless, I believe that comments of this nature in a FPC are out of place and must cease, especially when they refer to years ago past events from another nomination, for which I have already apologized on numerous occasions. Basile's attitude is uncomfortable for me, yes, but even more so is his provocative behavior and the lack of respect he shows. I recognize Basile as a talented photographer, whose work I deeply admire. I trust that his maturity will eventually be reflected in his conduct, and that this disruptive cycle will come to an end. If not, I would like to be considered for a mutual ban along with Arion. --Wilfredor (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Wilfredor here. Blaming for past mistakes does not help maintaining a cordial atmosphere. Yann (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not a "blame" it's an important reminder. Otherwise, how do you want to explain? See Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations below -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Sometimes you just have to step away from an otherwise serious dull and pensive conversation and make it more lighthearted. That's one way of resolving things. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but I believe that respect is essential in all our interactions. We cannot downplay attitudes or behaviors of this kind by treating them as mere jokes or pranks. Wilfredor (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair. Basile's lightheartedness was mostly with me, though, and I am not directly involved in this dispute. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's consider moving past this incident. I understand you and recognize your good intentions. Similarly, with Basile, my concerns are with his actions, not with him as a person. This isn't about personal grievances; it's about preserving respect among us. As we grow closer, almost like a family, I sincerely hope we can put this situation behind us and focus on maintaining the harmony that binds us together. Wilfredor (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations

The problem with Wilfredor's undeclared manipulations is that they are misleading to many of us. Either they concern

1. stitching panoramas, 2,
2. photo manipulations, 2, 2 bis, 3,
3. inadmissible jokes for the friends,
4. or complete fakes, 2, 3, etc.

For the lambda users, it's misleading, and for the reviewers, it's often a hell to find these "mistakes", especially because Wilfredor seems to fool us with contradictory affirmations like "I have always been against photo retouching". That's why I find important to indicate what modifications have been done on the pictures. Several of us ask the same. It should be obvious, and the normal way of contributing, unfortunately repetitive undeclared manipulations pop up at FPC again and again from the same user. So how to explain? adding to this, the issues with ChatGPT, vulgarity, Topaz Gigapixels, etc., it's hard to keep smiling all the time. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

"Stitching panoramas", what a issue! hahahahaha Funny dossier! hahahahaha ★ 13:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's an issue, because if the manipulations had been declared, then everything would have been crystal transparent from the beginning, and the reviews easier, 2, 3. Hmmm -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Caracas building.jpg was pretty problematic and made me lose trust for Wilfredor's photos. --SHB2000 (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

That Carcasas Building photo is extremely concerning. How do you expect anyone to trust your contributions when you submit this sort of thing without disclosing how it was produced? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

This was 10 years ago, and I have apologized on several occasions. I even thought about withdrawing all my FPs or withdrawing from this section, but some users convinced me not to do it, including Colin. I know it will never be enough to apologize so I do it again. At that time, a dictatorial regime was leaving Venezuela and I wanted to make fun of them in some way for having destroyed my country. It's not a justification, I know it's something that wasn't right and I never thought anyone would think it was a real image. But I think it's not right to bring this up over and over again to justify personal attacks or intimidation. Wilfredor (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, I didn’t realise this was 10 years ago. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

No problem Wilfredor (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Diliff accused of copyleft trolling at VP

See this discussion. I figure folks in this forum probably know him best and may have some insight. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Very sad this situation, ever asking for money for a job that was not even funded by him. I would like to think that everything is false Wilfredor (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Basile Morin/Nice messages written with chatGPT or with adorably cute kittens

I have also opened an entry in relation to Basile and his recent behavior, my intention is to avoid this type of behavior in the future, keeping a direct relationship with the entry just above this one, with the same humiristic and mocking writing style. I am also tired of all this drama, I am simply asking for respect. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Solution of the issue: Wil/Basile's IBAN. ★ 19:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It could be, although it doesn't seem to be something just about Basile with me but also with the group of Brazilians, or also the other case above. Here there are not two equal parties attacking each other but one party with toxic behavior. I am willing to do whatever is necessary to ensure respect. Wilfredor (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm already over Basile, getting myself out of this tiring discussion. ★ 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there was any need for any of this. Suggesting that Basile Morin take a break from FPC was bound to provoke a negative reaction. Please can we not all attempt to feed endless interpersonal drama and focus on reviewing photos. One person already seems to have got fed up with it and decided it isn't worth taking part (see post from Kritzolina above). Cmao20 (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to make it clear - it is not Wilfredor's behaviour that is making me feel super uncomfortable here since a few weeks. There are other things going on that are making me almost sick. The post from Wilfredor was just the last straw that broke the camel's back. The FI page is making me want to cry often these days. Kritzolina (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Commons can become more of a drama forum at times (just like my home wiki's "inner club"...). --SHB2000 (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The worst drama and it really makes me feel bad (not cry) is what was revealed about Diliff below Wilfredor (talk) 14:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was especially concerning when our reusers had to be victimised – more than any of our internal sagas. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

•  On hold Busy now. Will inspect all and respond quietly soon, in 1 hour or two. -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Out of topic

Here this is the COM:FPC talk page. Not personal talk page administration.

Wilfredor, "ignore", "ignore", "ignore", "tired", "tired", tired", but visiting us frequently to request more attention on pity issues. Personal talk pages are "personal".

My opinion is the same as Cmao20 above.

Spend more time in constructive edits, by reviewing adequately fair candidates. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

🕊️ ★ 01:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Israeli canvassing?

By the previous logic, is it canvassing? ★ 00:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(sage) Can we please stop with that, for God's sake? RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again: canvassing or not? ★ 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but this is not helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO we should not allow ourselves to be dragged into the realm of empty discussions. Being Brazilian, this situation has affected me as well, but I think that reacting in the same childish and immature tone, resorting to the same fallacies (tu quoque) as a form of argumentation, is definitely not the way forward. It's time for us to adopt a more mature stance, without getting lost in superficial disputes fueled by drama that only serve to divide us. Wilfredor (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Dredging up a nomination from 2016 and making completely unfounded racial comments about Jewish people voting is not a good look. To suggest canvassing you need to have some evidence beyond that these people all have heritage from a specific country. Basile Morin, when raising concerns about canvassing, did attempt to provide evidence of this.

As a matter of fact I agree with others that the evidence provided is not sufficient to demonstrate that canvassing certainly did take place, but Basile a) attempted to draw attention to a recurring issue (see here when a completely different user raised questions over possible off-wiki canvassing including some of the same participants), b) attempted to evidence his claims, c) explicitly disavowed racial or ethnic bias and kept the discussion strictly focussed on the facts (‘I am personally open to Brazil like to other countries. Very good friends of mine live there, I have traveled in Brazil for several weeks, supported many Brazilian FPs, and even created and uploaded content related to Brazil’), and d) has explicitly stated that he considers this discussion closed and has no intention of re-opening it (‘ It is not false in my opinion. But I totally respect the doubtful party. As simple as that. Now I'm closing this discussion.’)

Regardless of whether you felt that Basile Morin’s comments were hurtful, it is you who has chosen to continue reopening this discussion - and now to make racial innuendos about Jewish people - while he has been clear that he wishes to leave this behind. As someone who has Jewish family members I find the fact that you seem to be going on a Jew-hunt in nominations from 2016 to be hugely offensive. Not to mention hypocritical seeing that you are keen to disavow responsibility for your own actions that provoked complaint as recently as November 2023 but think it is okay to make racial comments about people for innocent actions that provoked no complaint eight years ago.

Until you apologise to this forum for your racist comments I will not vote on any of your nominations going forward. I have seen too much of the world to be content to allow anti-Semitism to go unchecked. Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Last part retracted. It would be unfair of me to punish other people's work that this user nominates just because of my views on their behaviour, and not voting on the pictures they nominate just increases the chances that substandard work will pass. Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cmao20: I understand, man, but you should grow accustomed to racial innuendos. This is especially prevalent against people of my color. The thing is that many people are racist (not that I'm calling anyone racist) without realizing it, which is sad. It's not easy, and I especially feel sorry for my brothers and sisters with darker complexions. However, I don't think the person who is discriminating is to blame or should apologize. That's my two cents; take it or leave it. All I'm trying to convey is that you are not the only one who finds these statements offensive. Wolverine XI 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

As a descendant of the Caribbean and African Brazilian First Nations, I want to express how difficult it is to talk about this topic. My experience has led me to point out on several occasions the notorious bias towards whiteness in FPC, reflected in an overrepresentation of images and content related to Europe and predominant Western culture. However, I would also like to recognize the efforts of those users who, even if they are few (like Poco a poco which coincidentally means little by little in Spanish), strive to make a significant difference. I would like to invite you to read an article I have written about the racial situation in my environment. This article has been translated into several languages, and I am proud to mention that the Spanish version has been recognized as a "good article." Wilfredor (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing antisemitism here. Were there comments that were deleted? In terms of a bias toward subjects in European countries and those dominated by descendants of emigrants from Europe, I think all of us know that exists, even if for no other reason than who uploads photos and nominates them here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Neptune Full.jpg status

What is supposed to happen to File:Neptune Full.jpg? There was a vote in January to delist it, yet it is still a featured picture. Has a decision been made elsewhere? Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

As a side note: This may not be relevant, but the argument in one of the votes that this one doesn't even pretend to be natural color [...] so I don't see that as a problem was not true until the file page was edited two minutes earlier, and I am not sure the image would have been chosen as a featured image in the first place if this had been common knowledge. Renerpho (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Well Renerpho, we've had a few strange things happening here at FPC over the years, but this is the first time I've seen something like this!

Yes, on 23 January 2024, Nrco0e created Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Neptune Full.jpg. BUT, the delist nomination was never added to the FPC page list, Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, like it says you must do on the instructions for making any kind of FP-related nomination. Adding noms to the list doesn't happen automatically when you create a nomination page. Because of this, the nomination never became public knowledge, it never entered the FPC delist system and only the users pinged by Nrco0e on the delist sub-page knew it existed and had a chance to vote. Since the nom wasn't declared in the right way, it could not be closed either and it's not a valid delisting.

If you still think this FP should be nominated for delisting, you need to create a new delist nomination (you have to use the /2 marker like it says on the info page) and be sure you follow the instructions properly this time. Add the new nom to the list and the right process will start.

This is not the first time that a nom has been misplaced like this, but they usually just end after the nomination time is up, since no one knows about them except for the nominator. Here we had a case of 'pinging' a lot of users when the nom was created. That is also outside the rules for noms, since this can be seen as canvassing votes. Letting only those who might be in favor of a delisting know that the nomination exists, is not the right way to do this. --Cart (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking further at the voters on the nomination page, I see that some of them do not even have the necessary 50 edits on Commons, that allow them to vote on FPCs or delistings. They only came here since they were pinged. Had this been a normal delisting, their votes would have been struck. --Cart (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks W.carter! If that doesn't sound like a good mess, I don't know what does.

I won't start a second attempt myself, but I encourage Nrco0e to think about it (following proper procedure this time). Should the other users who tried to vote in January be informed? Renerpho (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

On one hand, yes they should be informed since Commons value transparency and they unknowingly voted on something that wasn't ok. On the other hand, I can't endorse canvassing votes... Do as you please. --Cart (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It does make me question whether they should still hold autopatroller rights, though it was given to them on March 15, well past that improper (and canvassed) delist nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we are at the stage were those rights need to be removed yet. This was one small mistake (a lot of people have missed adding noms to the list) that combined with one bad call (that would have been corrected on a normal nom) that this time coincided to create a "perfect mess/storm". Shit happens. Having rights removed should be done when things happen again and again or when the rights are intentionally abused. --Cart (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again to Cart for answering this and explaining things! – Aristeas (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It does look like a genuine mistake and I hope Nrco0e learned from it, but I would still keep that option open if future canvassing occurs. --SHB2000 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I know Nrco0e as a reliable user. I am sure that it was an honest mistake that they're unlikely to repeat (especially now that they've been made aware of the canvassing issue), and that removing their user rights won't be necessary. Renerpho (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Re. my comment "this one doesn't even pretend to be natural color", I was talking about the img as uploaded in 2006. The color is obviously artificial; it's not even close to how Neptune was usually presented prior to the recent correction. So IMO this is like any other false-color image that makes it to featured image status. Kwamikagami (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I'm not sure if this is the right place for this discussion, but I'm going to explain why I find this argument problematic: If it was obviously artificial then it wouldn't have been such news in January when it was revealed to be a false color image.[1] It's not like people in general were aware of this fact, not even in the scientific community (see here for an example of an astronomer talking about how the image affected their perception of Neptune's "true color"). There are books by respected authors who believed this photo to represent true color, and who discussed the apparent difference between Uranus and Neptune. Take, for example, this Springer publication from 2008 about how to observe Uranus and Neptune with binoculars and small telescopes, and how to see "the color difference between Uranus and Neptune" (quote) with your own eyes. It even attempts to explain that perceived color difference, which we now know isn't real... The false color image from Voyager is on the cover of that book. There are countless other examples of how this image has shaped the common perception of what Neptune looks like, and I don't think many of those who looked at it before 2024 thought that the color was obviously artificial. What makes it even stranger (worse?) is that there was a true-color image available in 1989, but it was never distributed to the media. The image that later became popular was clearly called "false color" at the initial NASA press conference in 1989,[2] but no later coverage of the event refers to it as anything but a bona-fide color image.

My comment from 14:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) also touched on another problem with your argument: You had edited the file page, changing the wording in the file description from "picture of Neptune" to "enhanced-color picture of Neptune",[3] and then argued that it "didn't even pretend to be natural color", which it actually had done until a few minutes earlier. The file that was voted to be a featured picture didn't have the "enhanced-color" part in its description, and it's hard to know whether it would ever have been chosen as a FP in the first place if this had been known. Renerpho (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My comment wasn't about the clarification I added, but about the image itself. The photos I was used to weren't such a deep blue (though still exaggerated, such as this one: →), so when I saw ones this deep blue I knew they were enhanced, just as we know many common photos of Jupiter and Saturn are enhanced. (Like everyone else, I wrongly believed that Neptune was bluer than Uranus, just not this blue.)

You've shown plenty of sources that use either this photo or one just as exaggerated, so maybe it wasn't as obvious to everyone as I assumed. Though if you hunted for cover photos of Jupiter and Saturn, I suspect you'd find many that were just as enhanced, if only because they make for more dramatic dust jackets. Kwamikagami (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@AstroChara, CactiStaccingCrane, Huntster, ArkHyena, GurrenLagannTSS, Drbogdan, Kwamikagami, and CactiStaccingCrane: I am pinging you to inform you about a problem with the January 2024 vote, regarding the removal of File:Neptune Full.jpg as a featured picture, as discussed above. The vote was invalid, and if (or when) a new one may be held is not known at this time. This is simply to let you know of what happened. No further action from you is required. Renerpho (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Crediting photos and images on Wikipedia

This is a copy of part of a discussion that originated at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. The discussion got out of topic and it can continue here instead. --Cart (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment For those who would want to see photos better credited on Wikipedia, I occasionally come across that on the Norwegian Wiki, [4] [5] [6]. It's not done on every image, so I don't know what their policy for this is, but it's worth a look. I think it looks very professional, and it doesn't disturb the article. I don't know if there are other Wikis with this practice. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment Interesting – thank you, Cart! I have never seen this in other Wikipedia editions. I guess most of our photographers would appreciate this kind of attribution very much, but maybe not all Wikipedians would like that idea … Of course we normally argue that attribution of individual images is not necessary in Wikipedia articles. But the absence of any attribution in Wikipedia may contribute to the misunderstanding of many re-users of images that “Wikipedia images” are public domain. If we would attribute all photos in Wikipedia articles in this unobtrusive manner, more people could learn that not all “Wikipedia images” are PD, but that they must be attributed properly. – Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• I thought it was worth mentioning. It could be optional, and you might toy with the idea that professional photographers might be more inclined to donate some of their images to a CC license if they were credited in this way. There are arguments to be had both pro and con. --Cart (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• There's a good page on enwiki arguing for photo captions here: en:Wikipedia:Image_citation. I think if enwiki in particular is going to buy-in, it's going to be on the basis of verifiability, citing sources, and providing information without the need to go to a sister site. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• These day with all the AI-generated images and fake news, I think that in some cases it can help the article, if the reader immediately sees that the image comes from a trusted photographer, a museum or a photographer affiliated to some institution, without having to click away to get that info. --Cart (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually have always wanted that on enwiki, just because I like checking for photographer names and I don't like clicking to do it. It's nice for verifiability reasons. The way Norwegian Wikipedia does it is nice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes the idea is nice, however if hardly anyone maintains it and as a result some pictures are attributed correctly, some incorrectly and some not at all, that's definitely not nice in the end, and I would say better let it be completely. IMHO --A.Savin 01:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's what would happen; and already is happening at the Norwegian Wiki. I think they try to go by the letter of the CC license and actually credit the photographers, and failing just like A.Savin says. So in the end we on the WikiProjects are/would be just as sloppy and inaccurate as everyone else using our photos, yet we are the ones throwing stones here. I regard any photo I upload on Commons as a "lost" photo, and I live with it (like Korda did). It's always interesting to see where my photos turn up, and I'm not losing any sleep over if my name is on it or not. So many of my designs and artistic ideas have been stolen over the years, and if you don't let go of it, you will go crazy and bitter. I give this as my advice to Diliff and others. If you want to get paid for your work, make a hard copyright from the beginning and don't mix your profession with your hobby. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Sad but true … Theoretically attribution hints like the ones in the Norwegian Wiki could in most cases be generated automatically by the Mediawiki software. When an image looks like a photo (has the usual Exif values etc.), has a single entry in the ‘Author’ field of the {{Information}} template and this entry has the standard form of a user-page link, the software could automatically add “Photo: <username link>” at the end of the image caption. In all other cases the software could show a small warning instead: “Fellow editors, please add the attribution to this image manually.” This way the need for maintenance could be reduced drastically. – Aristeas (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about the same technical solution as in the "Favorites" userpages (such as yours User:Aristeas/Favorites), then I'd have to oppose -- the attributions are not always correctly generated, apparently there are problems at least with file imports such as Flickr. --A.Savin 21:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Good objection! No, I did not mean the same technical solution. The “Favorites” gadged uses a very simplistic (to avoid an impolite word ;–) implementation; it just looks at the name of the uploader in the file history. The result is often nonsense, of course. I would oppose such a solution, too. It should be possible to find a much more accurate implementation by looking either at the “author=...” field of the {{Information}} template or at the Wikidata values; and in any case the attribution should be created only if the result of the analysis is clear. – Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think any solution would need to involve no effort on the part of Wikipedians, and do the credit line automatically much like you get in the Media Viewer one sees when one clicks on a Wikipedia image while logged out (or if that's your preferred setting if logged in). It isn't perfect, relying on the photographer/uploader/commoner to get it right wrt templates and such, but it is better than expecting Wikipedians to do it.

The Wikipedia style is technically within the CC law, but requires a click to show any credit info. The Norwegian style isn't explicitly correct either, giving just the author name, and relying on clicks for the rest. So someone copying a Norwegian image and sticking "Diliff" below it, would very much still be using it illegally.

This has the unfortunate effect that the most popular and likely place anyone will see your photo is somewhere that does not explicitly get the licence details right, and the image can be copied without ever seeing the attribute or licence details. It is this that sites like Pixsy make their CC money from, and Wikipedia imo should take responsibility for enabling the copyleft-troll business model to exist. If the images explicitly had "© User:Colin Licence: CC-BY-SA-3.0" on them, there'd be less excuse that one didn't know it wasn't free and didn't know what one was supposed to do to reuse it. Wikipedia could also help by having a little "reuse this image" button on each image that took you to a page that explained what you need to do. Currently the Media Viewer is an example of how to do it right but there's no Help Page link explaining what is necessary.

If Commons images were all self made, we could impose conditions on uploading them wrt pursuing individuals for incorrect attribution. But most licenced images on Commons come from elsewhere, and as long as our model is hoovering up whatever appears to be free, we are susceptible to abuse.

I suspect Wikipedians will not be interested in correct explicit attribution. The text-based project they spend most effort on is collaboratively built and they accept their contribution is a drop in a hidden list of many. They also don't really view themselves working on a free-content project, vs just writing Wikipedia (i.e. Wikipedia is free to read; they don't realise it is also free to reuse). And the collaborative model that discourages any ideas of ownership of articles, also discourages a mindset that gets terribly upset when people copy the text without getting licence details right. Our single-creator free-to-use-anywhere image model is alien to them. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to end this important discussion, but as this goes far away from the deletion request itself so we should move this to another place. GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, you are absolutely right. Since I was the one who derailed this thread, I'll copy-paste the last bit of this to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where I'm sure the discussion will continue, and fold up that part here. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Please suggest another place, or as requestor I am fine with keeping the discussion going here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course by "here" I meant the original location Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff. Yes, I think that if we can get the WMF to add attribution for every licensed Commons file used in mainspace on every WMF project in a standard unobtrusive way, that would be great. Adding it for the PD files would be nice, but I don't think that's necessary on talk pages. Also, if we can get the empty "link=" parameters removed from the recommendations in the last paragraph at en:H:PIC#Links (and other language versions), that would be extra special. I managed to soften that recommendation in this edit.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

However the "link=" parameters serve a purpose here on Commons, where some of the FP design is built on using such links. See for example: Template:Natural scenes FP galleries top. I'm sure there are similar uses on other WikiProjects. --Cart (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I propose the development of an interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer. This system would include an additional panel in the image display interface that clearly and accessibly displays the license information and author credits at all times. Additionally, I would implement a "How to reuse this image" button that guides users through an interactive tutorial on the necessary steps for the legal use of the images, including how and where to properly apply the attribution and license Wilfredor (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Those would be nice.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As a software developer with 14 years of experience, I work on several mediawiki things but that is not my specialty. It could be a month at most. Although the philosophy and politics of WMF are all extremely slow, we still have an uploadwizard that works "well" (just reviewing the countless bugs in the phabricator). We could have another open letter similar to the one that is currently being heard against the media viewer and that is the only real thing that occurs to me Wilfredor (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I happily support this idea. --SHB2000 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And who is going to develop an "interactive attribution system integrated directly into the Media Viewer"? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Precisely, all of this is a pipe-dream. But we are allowed to dream from time to time. Right? --Cart (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, Cart. I'm all for providing attribution in the caption – actually, very much so. I just don't think waiting for the Wikimedia Foundation is the best first step (for the obvious reasons). Let's instead go back to our language versions and start a conversation about implementing this new rule. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Can you mock up how you would want it to look on paper or in your favorite drawing program, and upload that or post it somewhere public?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It has always been disappointing and astounding to me that there's no way, on Wikipedia, to automatically get metadata from a Commons image: a technical issue that has probably wasted tens of thousands of hours of people's time (retyping captions, for example, when an image could just have one default caption that seldom needed modification, and almost always only ever needs a single alt text). On the issue of Wikipedia's stupid attribution system, obviously this is not a place where that can be decided, but I have always thought it was godawful. It combines the worst of all worlds. On one hand, it goes way too far (it ruins the UI of reading Wikipedia -- all images are forced to be gigantic surprise hyperlinks to a different page). On the other hand, it does not go nearly far enough: virtually nobody deliberately clicks on images in Wikipedia articles to see the credits, and they're often reused without the hyperlinks (not to mention they present an accessibility hazard)... so the default way to display Wikipedia pages just completely lacks any attribution for the images! It's really, really bad, and I think it might have made sense to do this in 2004 but I am strongly in favor of replacing the stupid hyperlink thing with straightforward normal image credits (which is what almost every normal website uses). JPxG (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Modeling correct behavior is obviously the right thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. – Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Parks and gardens gallery

Per what Aristeas wrote here, a new gallery pages for 'Parks and gardens' might be a good idea. While reading that comment, I got the idea that we could go up one level and make the page 'Recreational areas' or something like that. It could then include sections like: Parks, Gardens, Sports venues, Hiking paths, etc. All outdoor areas that aren't covered exactly by the usual 'Places' categories. With the 'sports venues' I was thinking about places that are temporarily used for some sports event (example), and 'hiking paths' sometimes end up in 'places other' since the track is not completely natural. Just some thoughts. Sorry to jump in here on Aristeas' idea, but I'm going to be away for a while, and I wanted to get these thoughts down on the forum before I went offline. --Cart (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we want to distinguish manmade parks (e.g. city parks) from natural parks (e.g. national parks). The latter should still remain in the "Natural" category. But I do agree with the general sentiment, because it is hard to classify city parks under the current taxonomy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with King, yes. Kritzolina (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks to Cart for opening a discussion on this; I fully agree with her statements. Also many thanks to King of ♥ for the clarification. Yes, by ‘parks’ we mean man-made areas, not the national parks and similar nature preservation areas; photos from the latter naturally (no pun intended) belong to the ‘Natural scenes’ galleries. Let’s keep this discussion open for some time in order to collect further remarks; if no serious objections are raised, I will have time to create the new gallery page in about two weeks. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We should explicitly state "Regional parks and gardens", because park on its own to me implies a natural one (like national parks). --SHB2000 (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

"Artificial recreation areas" as opposed to the sexist "manmade recreation areas"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are uncomfortable with using normal English words like "manmade", there is also the neutral term "Landscaped areas". "Artificial" brings to mind AstroTurf, fake trees and plastic flowers. Also, Commons is multilingual, and far from all languages share the constructions with, and meaning of, "man" that English has. --Cart (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cart: "Landscaped recreation areas", then?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

All suggestions are welcome here, we are still at the brainstorming stage. ;-) --Cart (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I really like the "landcscaped area" thing, because it also includes all green spaces that might not officially be a garden or a park - just this bit of green between two rows of houses. And yes, we usually don't get FPs from such informal green spaces, but who knows ... Kritzolina (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kritzolina: Such areas could also be the backgrounds (comprising much or most of the image) for well-photographed flora, fauna, and even perhaps a floral display honoring Steamboat Willie. Do I understand correctly that you appear to want to drop the "recreation" bit?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, I did not really think about dropping the recreational thing completely - but now that you are suggesting it, it could be a great way to title the whole section, yes. Not all of those green spaces are recreational in the strict sense. In a very wide sense they are - even when just walking home through one of those green strips from the bus stop, it is nicer than choosing the roadside route. So it would work either way.

But yes, I was thinking about stuff like floral displays or just interesting landscaping choices. I just took a lot of pictures of a developing quarter in Munich - they planned it with lots of those informal smaller green spaces with lots of interesting landscaping details. Once most of it no longer looks like a construction site, this might be one place where such an FP might come from. Kritzolina (talk) 06:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Kritzolina might be on to something here. There are interesting photos to be had even in very little landscaped places (ok, that one might be more minimalist). Sometimes having a gallery for photos will help people discover that there are such places too to photograph. And come to think of it: Where are the FPs of flowerbeds? I guess we have a thousand or so FPs of flowers, but as soon as flowers are combined, they get difficult to classify with the galleries we have now, and usually fall secondary to a building or monument. --Cart (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi everyone!

Yesterday I nominated an image for featured pictures for the first time ever. I understood from @W.carter: that it is not allowed to ask people to vote. This is called canvassing, as I understood. I was wondering how often canvassing actually occurs here. Since it is very possible that regular users vote for other regular users' photos, I was wondering to what extent this could be considered canvassing. I have a feeling that as a new user, you are less likely to have your photo declared as featured. But I could be wrong!

So far no regular user has voted for or against my photo. However, this while other photos nominated on the same day, and even photos nominated a day after, have been voted on by users who have also voted on other photos. Is this because I am new and people don't know me yet? Or do people not dare to vote for or against my photo, and wait for someone else to vote for the first time? I was just curious! It's nothing personal!

I would love to hear from someone!

Kind regards,

S. Perquin (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi there S. Perquin! Since I'm in the business of informing newbies, I'll answer you. :-)

First, canvassing is rather rare at FPC, but the mere hint of it can be dealt with quite swiftly.

You being new has nothing to do with people not voting. If you nominated a bad photo, you would get a number opposes very quickly, I can guarantee that. ;-) This is actually quite good for a phone photo. Phone shots are usually not of a quality that is good enough for FPC. So firstly, you should be proud that it hasn't been "trashed" right away, no swift 'opposes' is a good sign. On the other hand, the photo just isn't spectacular enough for immediate "wow!"-supports. To give you the very hard honesty, it's what we usually refer to as a "Meh..." photo. It is good and nice and all, but it doesn't have that extra punch that is expected from an FP. The odd angle doesn't help either. Many regular voters are a bit skeptical to artistic photos and they usually don't get many support votes unless they are especially spectacular.

Like many newbies at FPC, you are a bit nervous and chatty. Try to be more patient and see what happens. ;-) If a photo is just on the brink of being good enough for FP, people like to take time to think it over. The worst thing you can do is being impatient, or withdraw your nom before the voting period is over. If you want to ease into how it is to get your photos reviewed, you really should start with nominating them at COM:QIC first, that will get you more acquainted with how voters think and how the system works. It is strongly recommended that you start there before moving on to FPC.

Btw, you don't need to tell people what camera you used and settings and such, we can read all that from the Metadata section on the file page and on sites that decipher the photo's EXIF data for us.

I can also add that you seem to have bunch of loyal friends who are unfortunately making things difficult for you by not reading the rules before showing up and vote. They are not doing you any favors, I'm sorry to say. If they continue with odd comments in annotations and voting despite not having enough days and edits on Commons, some voters can take this the wrong way and stay away from the photo of someone that can be seen as bringing a mess to FPC. I'm sure they mean well, but take this as a friendly warning. --Cart (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Dear Cart, thanks for your comprehensive answer! I will be patient and I will also nominate my photo on COM:QIC! I didn't know this existed as well. Thanks again for your reply! I wish you a nice evening! Kind regards, S. Perquin (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Digitally altered photos

For the first part of this discussion see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Purple martin in flight (30977).jpg.

Digital alterations of photos have been going on for years now and some have been promoted to FPs, 1 & 2 & 3, but like Frank Schulenburg said they are becoming more and more frequent. This is of course because editing programs are getting smarter, more available, and because these techniques are getting normalized and part of our daily life outside Commons now. We will not be able to, or should, try to stop such photos from being uploaded on Commons and even nominated at QIC and FPC. There is no way of knowing where to draw lines, and putting a ban on such will only result in undeclared major edits.

But I think it is about time to make it clear that significant alterations should be declared on the file pages. That way, voters on QIC or FPC can make case by case decisions about how they feel about the alterations. I propose that we add a new rule to the FPC rules (QIC can open a similar discussion if they like) about disclosing significant alterations. I don't have a good wording for such a rule yet, but it could be something like: Significant digital alterations, like replacing the sky, must be declared on the file page. The original version should also preferably be visible in the image's upload history.

We should also keep in mind that we have no way of knowing how altered or manipulated photos imported from outside Commons are. This is very unfair to Commons photographers who try to do the right thing. Voters often go into Oh-Ahh!-Rapture! over a photo from Flickr or Unsplash that any experienced photo editor can see is heavily manipulated, while they will turn a cold side to a Commons photographer who is honest and declares a slight alteration. I think this too should be taken into consideration when voting.

Let's discuss this. Best, --Cart (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

At a time where AI-created and digitally altered images flood the web, it's important for Wikipedia to ensure the integrity of the visual information presented. Wikipedia is a widely trusted source of knowledge, and heavily edited images can mislead viewers, distorting reality and misrepresenting the subjects depicted. Authentic photos help maintain the credibility of the encyclopedia by providing an honest and true-to-life visual representation, which is essential for educational and informational purposes. – I agree that we won't be able to prevent people from uploading images where the sky has been replaced or where reflections have been photoshopped in. However, I'm eager to find a way to prevent those photos from being used in Wikipedia articles. Maybe we need a red, blinking warning sign that says "Please do not ever use this photograph in an encyclopedic context, because it doesn't reflect the reality and will undermine readers' trust in Wikipedia". Other than that, I like Cart's suggestion above (both the wording as well as the requirement to also upload the original version). In addition, I suggest that we add a requirement that “photo art” is clearly marked in the image description and file name. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There are not specific techniques that should be prohibited. It should be about the extent to which it affects the depiction of the subject. Adding, removing, combining, etc. should all require disclosure, but there's a world of difference between swapping in another shot of the same sky from the same place/time and, say, adding a pretty coastal sunset to a mountainous afternoon shot. One is, by definition, realistic while the other is not. It isn't the technique itself that does this but how it's used. Using content-aware fill or the new Photoshop AI tools to expand the sky for compositional reasons seems to be something folks are perfectly ok with, even though that is creating something completely unreal. Creating additional buildings in a skyline using the same technique, however, would probably cross all of our bright lines because it would significantly change the reality of the subject. Removing a little twig poking in from the side is generally viewed as acceptable but removing part of a map would not be. Sharpening is ok, but using an AI program to shift the focus or to fabricate bokeh where it would be impossible might raise some eyebrows. Stitching a panorama to capture the experience of looking at a space vs. stitching it to make a curved vista look horizontal again could be problematic because of the way it affects the subject. In short, what's important is that the subject is depicted in a realistic way. There are a variety of modifications that we do/can tolerate when they improve the picture without sacrificing any realism, and those modifications should be documented but not forbidden. The idea that swapping the sky for one in another photo from the same place/time would be placed in the same "unrealistic" paradigm as creating 100% fake reflections is, to me, wild. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are different degrees of alterations, but if we are to implement some sort of rule about disclosure, we need to keep things simple. It's impossible to make subdivisions based on how much a photo has been altered, I mean who will decide where those lines go. We can only inform that changes have been made and let the those who use the photo (or vote for it) make their own decision about whether it's acceptable or not. We can't exactly set up some sort of censor guild to review what alterations are ok and what are not, and grade the images accordingly. In most cases, common sense will prevail. We only need to examine an image's file page better before slapping it onto an article. Heck, at en-wiki texts are routinely checked so that they are not just copied from sources, there are tools for it. It shouldn't be harder to simply check an image's file page. It wouldn't be such a bad idea to simply make WikiProjects more aware about source criticism in these AI times. --Cart (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the guidelines of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) for what is not ok in post-processing with regard to protecting visual integrity (I bet there's more available on the web when it comes to sharing photos that are being used in a journalistic and/or educational setting):

• "Dramatic changes in color that alter the original color of the scene. For example, changing a gray sky to blue. Color correcting sensor/white balance issues from incorrect camera settings is allowed.
• Changes made by dodging or burning, adjustments to brightness, contrast, color, saturation, sharpening or clarity that significantly alter content by obscuring, enhancing or diminishing elements in the photograph.
• Just like during the making/capturing of an image you may not add, move, remove any objects or persons. You may only use the cloning tool – or any other tool – to remove dust spots on the image created by the lens, the camera sensor or dust from scanning physical negatives. You may NOT use the cloning tool – or any other tool – to extend the photograph or expand the canvas of the photograph."

When it comes to ethical guidelines, we might also want to talk about whether it's ok to bait animals in wildlife photography, btw. But that's a whole different conversation ;-) Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support I agree with adding a disclose rule, specific wording to be discussed. The idea of adding the non-manipulated image to the file's history is interesting, is anyone aware of an upload tool that could automate/aid such a workflow? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

We actually have a template here to put on photos that adhere to the NPPA guidelines. It's called Template:RAW. ;-) I just wonder how many Commons photographers would be willing to put that on a file page. --Cart (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm ... what if I don't have a RAW file, but still stick to the guidelines? Kritzolina (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of templates dealing with original images, but since most of them are not quite right for this purpose, I'm sure we can fix a corresponding 'Template:Straight Out Of Camera' for jpegs based on the RAW template. --Cart (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple discussions here. One is what the expectations should be for labeling modified images in general, which is better suited for COM:VP.
Another is what the expectations at FPC should be for labeling modified images, and it seems safe to say that FPC would prefer nominators to err on the side of disclosure, and that persistently failing to disclose may result in a community ban from participation here (or at least strong skepticism/opposition).
Finally there are the bright lines drawn about That Which We Must Not Promote, which I've thus far found completely unpersuasive. (I'll note before I complain that while my image sparked this discussion (this time), I don't think anyone would accuse me of regularly putting up manipulated images.) Anyone can oppose for any reason, of course. For some reason, inexplicably, taking clouds from the background of one shot and swapping it into the background of another shot from the same place/time is on the wrong side of a bright line when it comes to what's "realistic". But selective background removals are realistic; extending backgrounds to include space that never existed is realistic; AI enhancements are realistic; blasting subjects with artificial light out in nature is realistic; stitching images is realistic; placing plants and fruit in sterile, all-black reflective lightboxes is realistic. If you're fine with fruit that looks like it grows on the Death Star, chameleons that pose for Vogue, "cleaned up" backgrounds, and fake skies but don't like one real sky swapped for another that's fine, but spare me the pretense of one being clearly wrong and another clearly right. In none of these examples is the subject itself made to look unrealistic -- it's all about presentation and background and differing standards for what makes sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to limit this discussion to what we can expect from an FPC. General Commons photo guidelines is a too big subject and more suited for other forums. Myself, I have no problem with altered images as long as this is declared in a clear way on the file page. I think this debate might have been infected by the fact that a number of undeclared (but easy to spot) altered photos has turned up at FPC lately. Declaring what has been done is the only way to assess what we a comfortable with or not.

I come from a commercial part of photography where every photo is edited/altered. In advertising, the photo is only seen as the raw material on which the image is built with hours of retouching light, cloning dust, adding missing parts, etc. That's part of creating a good image for a product, anything else might be considered sloppy in that business. So I have no problem with staged, cleaned up, fixed images of say an object/fruit/interior. That is expected. Even to the extent that the first shot is called a 'photo' while the finished product has ceased to be a photo and become an 'image'.

However, for journalistic photos, I would not accept more than cropping or what the guidelines mentioned above dictate. Unless there is a conflict with the rules of WikiMedia, like in the Børsen photo where two logos where removed.

Between those two extremes, is a wide range of fixing up images where I would accept more or less editing, depending on how 'arty' or documentary a photo is. This is the area where most of the FPCs are. Most of these can be dealt with by simply using the retouched template, but for significant changes there needs to be more. Like the original in the upload history. We do that when editing old photos and images, and no one finds that strange. It only helps voters make up their mind.

I don't see this discussion as what should be 'allowed' or not, since that needs to be a case by case decision on FPC, but simply a rule that we need to know what's been done to the image. --Cart (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment There is no absolute right or wrong in photo-editing. We will all draw the line in a different place. We have to trust users who upload their own images until evidence points to problems. Non-Wikipedian images are a different matter. Here we should err on the side of scepticism. Those who nominate images where the photographer cannot be contacted should expect to be challenged. The other issue with disclosure of 'heavy-handed manipulation' is that the image can be used elsewhere without the disclosure information - unless the meta data could be edited somehow to say 'I replaced part of the blue sky with a cloud' or 'I added the moon'. Would it be OK to oppose an FPC on the basis of 'We cannot be sure the moon is as shot' or 'we cannot be sure that the peak of Everest was that bright'? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think it would be fine to oppose a photo if we think that some things have been photoshopped in an imported photo. My reasoning is that all votes as very subjective, and we can oppose on grounds that something in the photo doesn't look right, even if we can't prove it. When we suspect photoshopping, it's usually because something in the photo looks odd, and such feelings can be voiced in a more diplomatic way. Granted, that takes some thinking and objective reasoning, but such reasons are part of the FPC voting process. So instead of saying outright that we oppose on the grounds of photoshopping, a vote can instead be something like: "The brightness of the moon doesn't seem to match the rest of the photo, and that makes for a bad composition for me" or "Based on other photos of Everest, the light looks a bit odd and unnatural to me." --Cart (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't want to call out the photographer - they're great photos in the abstract - but the 2012 third place POTY File:Glühlampe_explodiert.jpg and first place for POTY in 2013, File:Glühwendel_brennt_durch.jpg are edited in ways that remove literally all encyclopedic value from them. The lightbulb has power going into it in both cases. I wouldn't have minded, say, wires attached to the lightbulb, or other tricks, but it's just misleading to do it this way. It's a pity, because, visually, they're incredible.

• 
• 

Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In that case, it's good that Commons in not just a repository for Wikipedia images, but we can also host photo creations that are visually incredible. Even more so since those photos are well declared as to how they were made. People can actually learn how to create similar arty images by looking at the file page. And, reading how a "magic trick" was done will make you better at detecting other "tricks", so that in itself is educational. (Btw, if you know a thing or two about electricity and wiring, it's actually rather easy to set up the same scene and photograph it all in one take. You just solder on two wires to the screw of the bulb, on the back so they are hidden from the camera, and pull them through a small hole in the background. But don't try this at home, if you are not an engineer or electrician and know what you are doing!) --Cart (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Aye. Wouldn't mind it if there was SOME sign of the electricity. But they were being used as if a cracked lightbulb would automatically have the tungsten filament catch fire, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I want to second Cart’s statement: “I don't see this discussion as what should be 'allowed' or not, since that needs to be a case by case decision on FPC, but simply a rule that we need to know what's been done to the image.” Banning certain kinds or amounts of editing limits creativity. What we need are honesty and transparency, and both can be achieved by documenting the edits, not by banning them.

IMHO it would be very difficult (or even practically impossible) to formulate general rules of what would be allowed and what would be forbidden for a multi-purpose image archive like Wikimedia Commons. For example, the NPPA guidelines cited above are excellent for their original purpose – news photographs –, but IHMO it would be destructive to use them as a general rule for all uploads on Commons. The ban on cloning out any persons would make it difficult or even impossible to publish some photos here. Often I cannot take a photo of some building or natural monument without some easily recognizable bystanders. The GDPR, as it is often understood here in Germany, makes the publication (maybe even the mere taking) of such photos illegal (there is an exception for press photographers, but probably not for anybody else – we are still waiting for decisive judgements on this topic). Now instead of just giving up and not taking any photo, or asking every single person for a written permission to take and publish the photo, including the possibility to revoke that permission at any time (which is virtually impossible: it would urge us to be ready to delete the photo at any time), it’s much easier to take two or three photos with moving persons and to combine them to a single one, showing no (easily recognizable) persons, or to clone out the persons in post-processing. The NPPA rules would forbid this. This is just an example, but IMHO it shows that while these rules are excellent for a certain use and audience, it would be difficult or even harmful to apply them as general rules to a multi-purpose image archive like Wikimedia Commons.

And there are even simpler examples. For example the dynamic range of many natural scenes still extends the dynamic range of camera sensors. This is why people use HDR, manually combine some exposures or at least do some local editing like raising the shadows of the landscape while keeping the sky a bit darker. The purpose of such edits is simple – people want to give an adequate impression of the original scene within the limits of the small dynamic range supported by traditional 8-bit-per-channel RGB images. There is nothing dishonest or deceptive in such edits as long as you do not exaggerate them. But depending on how you read the NPPA guidelines, such edits may be prohibited. This is another point why I think that general rules are dangerous. We must rather judge and discuss concrete images, not prohibit ways of editing in general.

I would also second Cart’s other statements … e.g. on the recent moon example. There is no need to cancel a FP nomination just because the moon etc. “is photoshopped” (especially when this just means a local adjustment of the brightness like here). The question is rather: what was edited? to what extent? was it done well? is the result still realistic and honest? etc. And, of course, especially when the edits are far-reaching: Are they documented well? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Open letter about resourcing of Wikimedia Commons

Dear FPC regulars, I am posting this here because it could be of special interest to you.

There is some concern that the Wikimedia Foundation could reduce the resourcing for Wikimedia Commons, probably because many people do not understand the importance and possible impact of Commons to its full extent. Therefore some users have written a short, very moderately formulated essay Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia and invite everybody who agrees with it to sign it in order to show support.

Please take a look at that statement and consider to sign it, too. The same essay is also present on meta.wikimedia.org and can be signed there, too. Thank you very much, – Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)