Open main menu


No WoWEdit

Is there any way to regulate this, because it is currently a pretty ridiculous reason to oppose. By regulating this I mean creating a new set of rules, which limit the use of this argument. Examples: Pictures taken at night or panoramas are enough wow. Any way, it's not my concern anymore, since I'am leaving Commons. I'm fed up with the fact that good pictures (not my own) keep being rejected or downgraded, while ugly pictures make it to FP-status. People of whom I never have seen one decent shot are opposing great pictures of others. Apparently having a picture with a great technical quality and EV is not the criterium for an FP anymore on commons. I will keep uploading pictures now and then to improve the quality of articles and be active on the English Wikipedia. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Please don't leave FPC. At the beginning we get easily irritated with what we belive to be casual and superficial opinions, when not obviously destructive. But then we realize that we can influence other people, both the creators and the reviewers, with our carefull and constructive critics. Don't worry with ocasional floods of sub-standard nominations and critics. They come and go but more than a couple of interested and serious regulars will stay. as for the "wow" factor, that is just a conventional way to express our wonder for some pictures, when we can't precise why we like them so much -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey Massimo, thanks for expressing pretty much exactly what I feel about FPC lately! FPC essentially ridicules itself. Some voters just stick to the very narrow scheme they know. Well, whatever! Commons is so much more than FPC, so it would be nice if you stuck around for more than just an occasional upload now and then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I sometimes feel the same. At the same time, I can understand a "no wow" vote. It's now so easy to make technically good pictures that if we were taking only that in account, there would be many FP. An FP is meant to be the cream of the cream over here, so if you look at it, there's got to be a wow, somehow. What I feel most sad about is that because of complaints, I'm afraid to be honest, because I don't want to hurt other wikimedians (But when things go really too far, I say what I want to !). FPC is open, this has its good ...and its bad. For most parts, I much agree with Alvesgaspar. By the way, I hope I'm not one of those who discouraged you. I know I haven't yet supported any of your pictures. Benh (talk) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I decided to return to commons. After thinking about it..quitting only makes it worse in the sense that you can't influence things. And besides, I can learn a lot from other people on this site. I'm here for the fun of things and I'm not letting anyone else take that away. So, I'm back. Btw Ben, no, you are one of the finest people on wikimedia, so don't be afraid you hurt me. People not supporting my images wasn't the reason to leave. Thank you for your comments! --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

  • You did the right thing! Now, we may start training you to take care of FPC closing some day ;-). Let me introduce to you some of our best creators (this is a short personal choice, a larger list is in here and here:
  • Welcome to COM:FPC ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I know them all to well. Before I joined Wikipedia, I used it like everyone else. I always admired there pictures (Dillif's mostly). You forgot to put yourself in the list ;-). --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Nargh, stop being nice to me when I'm angry! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • too much compliments... I had to unlace my now tight shoes ;) Massimo, I bet you'll be in Alvesgaspar's next short personal choice ;) Benh (talk) 06:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking around, I went to QI, Sunrises and Sunsets. Kunene sunrise by Lycaon is one with that Wow factor which marks it out from the rest. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we are not allowed to accept any pictures with WoW in them. World of Warcraft is Copyrighted to Blizzard Entertainment. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The rule of the 5th dayEdit

My question is about voting after the 5th day.
Example: I want to delist a fp. There is no delist-vote after the fifth day. Is it still allowed to vote on the sixth as long as the voting isn't closed?
thx for answeres --D-Kuru (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • The voting will be implicitly closed on the sixth day even if no message is written by the closer, meaning that the votes after the fifht day won't count. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising the barEdit

  • With the arrival of new and talented photographers, the quantity and quality of our FP's increased dramatically in the last year, or so. That is true in most of the categories: nature, macro, views, people, etc. Also, we have now a significantly larger number of knowledgeable users participating in the evaluation. Maybe it is the time to review our standards and adjust to the new reality, so that we can better stick to the original goal of FPC and only the best (“la crème de la crème”, the cream of the cream) can pass. I went through my own FP’s (all from the last two years) and realized that a significant fraction of them (about 20%) were promoted with a number of votes close to the minimum. Well, that is no longer challenging for me… I don’t believe we can improve our level of exigency just by convincing the reviewers to be more selective. But we can certainly raise the bar by increasing the minimum number of support votes needed for promotion. What about 7 or 9, instead of 5? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the bar has actually been lowered from a couple of years ago, and that's helped with more participation. --Dori - Talk 12:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to raise the bar a little, as Joaquim suggests. We have more contributors now than when the limit of 5 was first set up. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Second that. We can always re-lower if we run out of pics for the main-page... --Dschwen (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more variety besides modern digital photography represented. I'm very glad we have a strong core of people contributing their own work in that area, yet it worries me that a broader range of feature-worthy material gets shut out or shunted to VI. Durova (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • What kind of images are you talkimg about? Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think raising the bar is a good idea as COM:QI and to a lesser extent COM:VI have provided a level recognition for the better images. That FP needs to keep its standards as a clear step above those. Gnangarra 01:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support raising the bar for featuring pictures. But I think the increasing number of low quality nominations (as discussed below) is becoming a much more significant problem. Chmehl (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think requiring more vote is a good idea. Another way to raise the bar is to push people to oppose when they feel like so, and not to blame this. A "no wow" is a valid reason to oppose. I am sometimes afraid to oppose and I wonder if other people think like I do, and this is silly. Benh (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand Benh's concern, though I'm not afraid of opposing myself ;-). Still I agree that the pool of assessors is much larger now than 3-4 years ago and requiring more votes is not a bad thing. Lycaon (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the raise of the bar I'm only a bit concerned with those pictures that, despite their obvious value and FP quality, are not fancy enough to draw the attention of most reviewers (this one, for example). Maybe we could make it a bit more complicated (I'm not convinced myself, yet): keep 5 (or 6) as a minimum but force the ratio support/oppose to be tougher at the beginning. For example (read # support:max # opposes): 5:0, 6:1, 7:2, 8:3, 9:4, 10:5, ..., n:n/2. Does it make sense? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't feel qualified to judge the quality of some sort of images. I have a feeling others might think the same, so it's more that there aren't enough reviewers for those types of images. You can't fault the FPC process for that. --Dori - Talk 12:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I do not have any strong opinions on exactly how to raise that bar, I have an opinion of where that bar should be; In my opinion that bar should be placed such that we promoted, on average, a little more than one image per day. Just enough to feed into COM:POTD. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We have now a generous surplus of FP's (more than 100, I guess). Less than a half of my promoted pictures were chosen as POTD and I suppose this is more or less the same with the other authors. I wouldn't oppose a tougher number, something a little below a FP per day. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO we should be more strict with who votes for the images. Many images are promoted simply because they look astounding at thumbnail sizes and the newbies don't bother to check the full size image. Perhaps we could create a category of users who are credible and only they have the ability to vote. Other users may build their credibility by reviewing images at VIC or QIC or by submitting good images? Muhammad
  • I do feel something has to change. In my opinion the bar may be raised. A way to raise the bar is by changing the rules in a manner, that every opposing vote now requires three supporting to even things out. Also a problem I would love to see disappear is that some pictures don't get a lot of votes. One way of fixing this is by making it obligated that if you want to vote, you must vote twice (on different images of course and whether you support or oppose doesn't matter) if you catch my drift. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm, a 3:1 support to oppose ratio. That would make it even harder to balance out some uninformed-moron opposes by sane-people support votes ;-). Seriously, I'd find it pretty discouraging when a handful of.. ..let's say less experienced voters can so easily destroy a nomination. --Dschwen (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • As long as voters are not required to justify their vote (both support and oppose) and don't face the risk of having their vote discounted for evidently unqualified justifications calibrating the support/oppose ratio won't do anything to stop the culture of mediocrity that permeates FPC on Commons. There is no benefit right now for anyone to make an effort to research a candidate picture and there is no cost to just looking at the thumbnail and declaring it a 'wow' or 'no wow' picture. For instance, this picture, which is up for POTD, sailed through FPC apparently without anyone noticing the obvious flaws in the picture (downsampled, tilted, median-filtered, poorly cropped, blurry). If you're trying to raise the bar on images being promoted to FP, raise the bar on participating in the discussion. Also, if you're concerned about too many mediocre pictures nominated, make QI or VI a prerequisite for a FPC nomination. trialsanderrors (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Raising a different barEdit

  • Something that hasn't been discussed, but what about adding another condition that there must not be another FP of the same subject? Or rather if there is you have to nominate both and only the one with the most votes stays. One thing that frankly concerns me with this raising the kind of bar as mentioned in the proposals is that we're going to be selecting among a smaller group of photographers, who to their credit, are pretty good. That smaller group of photographers may prefer certains subjects to others. And we'll miss other subjects from photographers who are either not that good or don't have good enough (read expensive) gear. Another way of raising the bar, would be to limit the number of FPs to a category each week. I'd like to see some more diversity of images that become FPs, and not necessarily higher resolution or just different angles of the same subjects over and over. --Dori - Talk 22:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Dori on this suggestion. Pictures from Africa are very rare, and with very few people with any decent cameras and gear, getting technically good pictures is difficult as it is, and raising the bar wil only make it impossible. Muhammad 11:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I live in Europe, but 10 out of my 24 FP's (42%) are from Africa and 81 out of my 223 QI's (36%). ;-). Lycaon (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That's exactly my point. Africans do not have the gear and cameras to take such pictures, hence tourists who visit the continent are the only ones whose pictures are featured. Now if we want diversity as all of you clearly mention, then some kind of bias should be kept towards these rare images. To illustrate my point; A typical Tanzanian for instance, earns less than $400 a year. With the prices of SLRs $600onwards and the price of good lenses more than the price of the camera, do we really expect technically perfect images? Muhammad 17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't understand Dori's proposal. How the limitation of promotions in a certain category would benefict pictures of other categories? I also would like to see more diversity, but the only correct ways that I see of getting it is to attract new creators or to convince the existing ones to shift their interests and skills (not easy, for sure). I'm strongly against the introduction of any kind of bias into the system: by media, subject, region, nationality of the creator... or sex. Yes, I know that this was not explicitly proposed by any user until now and hope it won't be. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if you're interested in getting FPs, and certain slots fill up more quickly than others, you might have an incentive to get some pictures in the other categories. Additionally people who don't normally get FPs, but have more chances to get pictures in the "lonesome" categories might also have an incentive to give it a try. The real problem would be coming up with the categories. P.S. There already is a bias, try getting an FP through with a cheap point and shoot. I'm not saying it's impossible, but you'd have to be a really good photographer or be in a pretty interesting place and/or interesting time. P.P.S. I'm guilty of this bias too, I've become addicted to MP. --Dori - Talk 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I have some sympathy for how the criteria we have now leads to less diversity in the subjects as compared to the ideal situation - also concerning what kind of photos we see from which parts of the world. On the other hand, I think it will be very hard to administer such a system, and inevitably it will lead to lower quality pictures being featured. I think we should avoid that by all means and really insist that FPs are for the one in a thousand or less images of outstanding quality. It is our show room of eye-catching motives shown on the main page and to catch attention to the projects. Last year I would have supported this view as we had not alternatives for those contributors making valuable contributions of more diverse and perhaps less eye-catching material with compact cameras and mobile phones. However, I think COM:VI fills in that gap pretty well now. With its criterion on only one VI per scope the contributors are motivated to come up with something new we have not seen before. In this manner users with a smaller budget can still get some credit for contributing with gap-fillers content-wise. If we were to attract more users from, say, Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America, we should perhaps make a bigger effort in localizing the FP pages to more different native languages, and make the forum more helpful and forthcoming towards non-English speakers. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree it would be pretty complex and maybe unmanageable. I just wish we had more participation from exactly the regions you mentioned. I don't think VI will do it though as it doesn't have anywhere near the same exposure as FPs (many Wikipedias feature the POTD on their front page). Perhaps if we made POTD be a rotation among FP, QI, VI (any other one I'm leaving out?) it might be somewhat better. That's somewhat off-topic for this discussion though. --Dori - Talk 22:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some statisticsEdit

Here are some statistics on the distribution of promoted pictures among classes of "number of support votes", for the period Jan 2007-Apr 2008 (after April, it takes much more work to get the numbers). They might help us in choosing the best way to raise the bar. The first graph shows numbers of FP per class/per month; the second, the percentage of promoted pictures in each class, for the whole period. For example, if we decide to promote only with 7 or more suppot votes, than we may expect an average decrease of 16% in the number of promoted pictures. I'll let you digest these numbers for some time before making a specific proposal. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Your statistics had me thinking. Some categories like flowers, get many good FPCs, hus the bar in this case need be raised. But other categories like underwater pictures or pictures from remote areas , do not get many FPCs and even then the quality is not always great due to technical limitations. For such a case then, the criteria needs to be maintained. Muhammad 17:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I thing, that the change of number needed positive votes is not only matter of people making images (their number and quality of photoes is going up without any doubt), but it depends also on number of wikipedists, who regulary visit voting page and who are active here. And in this case I am not so sure. I think, that going back into last 6 - 8 months, we could find only group of let say 40 - 50 people (maybe this is too much), who give regulary votes to presented images. So that, if we increase number of necessary + votes, the percentage of elected images will decrease (as shown on Alvesgaspar diagram). It is question, I we want change to this direction? From my point of view, the incerase to 7 needed votes is good step. But further incerease will led to substantial decrease of number of FP and this I do not find beeing useful. --Karelj (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal A (# votes)Edit

Here are some alternatives to help raising the FPC bar. Please notice that the expected reductions in the monthly number of promotions are rough estimates, based on the statistics above.

- Option 0 (5 support votes)Edit

Like it is now. A FP candidate is promoted with 5 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1.

  •   Oppose - Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Non-photographic media have difficulty getting enough votes in FPC - not support votes, just votes in general, and to up standards will only increase this systemic bias. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that is a problem, but think the best way to deal with that is to define some rules which sets out what we should be looking for when we vote on such an image. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It is just not true that such a problem exists! Please check my comment below. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong that there isn't a problem. See below. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Adam. Non-photographic media, historical images, encyclopedic images with little wow, all get very few votes. If an exception is made then I may change my vote. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Because I believe opposing is another way to "raise the bar", at no change. Benh (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dori - Talk 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Simonizer (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 
  •   Oppose -- Laitche (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support People like me really need some FP's --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- Option 1 (7 support votes)Edit

A FP candidate is promoted with 7 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1. A reduction of about 16% in the monthly number of promotions is expected.

  •   Neutral   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now, unless an exception is made as stated above. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Benh (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Changed my mind on this one, see #Raising_a_different_bar. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support --Simonizer (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there are some categories with a small interested party, so this could be fatal. Plus preventing monopolism. --Richard Bartz (talk)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Pretty good, but new people may need a lower bar. --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- Option 2 (9 support votes)Edit

A FP candidate is promoted with 9 or more support votes and a minimum ratio support/oppose of 2:1. A reduction of about 30% in the monthly number of promotions is expected.

  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- Chmehl (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as I stated above. Muhammad 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Benh (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Dori - Talk 22:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nine looks like too much --che 12:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Simonizer (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Opposethere are some categories with a small interested party, so this could be fatal. Plus preventing monopolism. --Richard Bartz (talk)
  •   Oppose -- Laitche (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too much. --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal B (Voting periods)Edit

I believe the present voting periods of 9 (normal period) and 5 days (no support votes), as well as the 48 hour FPX grace periodFPX is already 24 hours --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC) are too long. My proposal is to decrease all to 7 (like in WP:FPC), 4 and 24 hours, respectively. This will help to keep the page cleaner of the already decided nominations, so that the reviewers attention can be focused on the other pictures.

  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chmehl (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (unless proposal A fails). -- Lycaon (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Prefer proposal A, but would support this if A fails. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- This is fine for photographs, but Engravings and other non-photographic media have real problems getting sufficient notice, and this will only increase systemic bias against them Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm fine with current voting periods Benh (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd be for decreasing just the "no support votes" time. --Dori - Talk 22:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would support a decrease of the "Rule of the 5th day" --Simonizer (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't 4 days and 24 hours 5 days? --Mr. Mario (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose there are times when people don't vote for a pic. at least 3 days straight -SuperJew (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


  • I think only one of above two proposals (A or B) should be implemented, not both. They are synergetic. Together that would mean more votes required in less time. BTW, FPX has been set to 24hrs already some time ago. Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Not both at the same time. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Of these, only two would pass under the 7 rule, and one under the 9 rule. Several of these even have opposes simply because they are engravings. Do we really want to exclude the major form of 19th-century illustration from featured pictures because a type of image we have lots of, photographs, is getting plenty of votes? All this would do is increase the pre-existing systemic bias, and, if those numbers are typical (and, in my experience, they are), cut out important subjects from FP based on the random chance of whether they could get enough attention. Carl Nebel, one of the masters of the lithographic medium, got five supports, and one oppose that thought it was a funny-looking painting.
  • In short, any moves to increase number of votes needed or decrease the time would only cause certain classes of media to become very hard to get promoted, even if they were unopposed, because evaluaters tend to ignore media they don't understand. Worse, some actively oppose work that isn't common here: The Trial by Jury has opposes because it's "Only copy of some old illustration. No value as a photo." Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If voters don't deem such images featurable, then where is the problem? If people don't like the monochrome stuff (I don't, I admit), then why should it be forced upon them? That's not discrimination, IMO, but choice. Engravings, e.g., are not excluded by rule but by voter's preference. So? Lycaon (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lycaon and don't understand why engravings should be positively discriminated, in the case a higher bar is approved, or obstruct the initiative of making the promotions harder. Engravings, together with reproductions of paintings, illustrations, maps and animations, represent a small percentage of all nominated pictures, and that should be naturally reflected in the number of promotions (which is not now, by the way). On the other hand I believe that a thougher system would cause a feedback reaction from regular reviewers in the sense of being more attentive to potential promotions of less popular candidates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's systemic bias, and is basically saying that people with interests outside of the standard Featured Picture fare should go away. Such bias is self-reinforcing: If engravings aren't getting promoted, people who know and like engravings will no longer watch FPC, and such media will become unfeaturable. If such media become unfeaturable, why should I or others continue spending the large amounts of money and time it takes to get such historic items? Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Stating that the system will be biased against that particular type of pictures is a wild extrapolation, not supported by numbers. The data are available, please go through them and prove it. I will be convinced if the ratio of promotions for those pictures, in the case options B or C are to be approved, is found to be significantly smaller than the overall ratio of promotions. Let me refresh our memories again: the present ratio of promotions of non-photographic media is over 50%, much larger than the overall ratio of promotions (23%). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but there are dozens of different types of non-photographic media, from Lady of Hats anatomical illustrations to historic mass media such as engravings and lithographs. It is the historic mass media that I'm most concerned about. Your complaint appears to be that because some other, completely unrelated non-photographic media is doing well, and might continue to do so even if we raise the number of votes - an assertion you put forth without evidence - that we can presume all types of non-photographic media will be fine. I provided evidence that engravings and lithographs would find it difficult to be promoted under the proposed schemes. You came back and complained that they are currently getting promoted - yes, and that's a state I would like to maintain. In any case, increasing the number of necessary votes seems more likely to just increase the role of random chance - that is, how many people happen to decide to review that week - in FPCs, without actually raising the bar, as the percentage of support votes required remains identical. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


Voting closed. No clear consensus was reached which means that things will be held exactly as before, concerning the number of votes and periods. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Still too many mediocre nominationsEdit

  • I am still concerned at the very high level of nominations that stand very little chance of success. That must - at the very least - be discouraging for the nominators, who no doubt think that their images are some of the best available on Commons. Sadly, many have to be disabused, and go away never to be seen again. We disuss this issue regularly without much of a conclusion, and of course we already have the photography critiques project that was supposed to help with this. Perhaps the FP rules are not clear enough, or perhaps they are too diffuse/spread across too many pages. How about a review & re-write of the FP rules? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We can surely try that, and I'm willing to help, but it won't solve the problem. How many of us read the instructions of an appliance before trying it (maybe you do, Michael...)? Anyway, I don't believe that the system causes significant losses of talented photographers for Commons. Another thing we might also discuss is the aspect of the FPX template. Maybe it should be more discrete. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think instructions help that much. They're way too long. I doubt anyone reads them before posting for the first time. I think moving the judgement criteria to a separate page and just leaving a sample gallery of FPs from the most nominated categories would help. --Dori - Talk 22:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
    • This is actually a really good idea! I also second the part about instructions. Nobody reads them, seriously ;-). A small gallery captioned Only nominate your picture if you think it is at least this good! should do the trick. If not, tough luck, you cannot say we didn't warn the nominators. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that might help, along with a gallery of nominations that narrowly failed, with reasons. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I like that idea. A few featured pictures directly on the page where you create the nomination should make the users think about whether their nomination has a chance or not. Chmehl (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I doubt it would work because one of the problems is that nominators has to go beyond thumbnail size to see what is good or bad. Many of the images that are rejected look fairly good in thumbnail size. It is only when seen in larger size that its real merits are revealed. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Concerning the guidelines, could they not be condensed into the guidelines in a nutshell, with a very few punchline statements and then translated into the major languages of users here. The nutshell guidelines should of course refer to the more elaborate guidelines. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I like this idea. I also think we should add this reminder above the editing box when nominating a picture. I'll give it a try tonight if I have time and see what you think of it. Benh (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • what if there was a requirement for a seconder before the nomination is active. Gnangarra 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't like that, it would encourage cliques and sockpuppets, besides that's what the 5 day rule is for. Although, it might be better as rule of the 3rd day or something. --Dori - Talk 01:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In reality will it, COM:QI is single editor promotion if there was to be such abuse it would already be happening. I think its a case of assuming good faith in the actions of editors, sockpuppet abuse will be obvious and deliberate cabal noms will be apparent fairly quickly. The current system can be similarly gamed already. In the end images that arent up to scratch wont get any further then a nomination. Gnangarra 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I am not concerned about gaming the system either. One idea could be to have an image/picture peer review pages for images in general, see w:WP:PPR for the analogue of this at Wikipedia, English. It could be a requirement that FPCs go through this channel first for filtering. The users reviewing at PPR could then also look into if an image could be a candidate for QIC and VIC. That might give a more positive overall experience for new nominators learning our system. I have seen several FPCs where nominators leave the forum in frustration not being aware that images would be very suitable candidates for VI, for instance. In case we wanted a PPR I think the Photography critiques page should be merged with this and nominators should still be left a possibility to just have their images reviewed/critiqued there, irrespective of whether they are interested at actually nominating their images. The PPR process should be light-weight as VI or QI. The opinion of a single user can be enough to gate nominators through to FPC, but the opinion of that singlke users can still be contested as is the case at consensual review at QIC and dicussed/most valued reviews at VI. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd make the FPX template less intrusive. Over on en, it's just speedy close followed by a reason. To contest, you need a good reason. We only get on average a 2-3% involuntary speedy closure rate, usually due to the nominator failing to read WIAFP. MER-C 13:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • One thing that worries me: The FPX template often seems a little rude to the uploader when it's not just "too small". When using it because of technical flaws, can I remind everyone to be just a little bit nicer in their let down? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with MER-C on the FPX template being too agressive. Like I said above, it should be graphically more discrete. Maybe we could remove that triangular icon and make the lettering smaller. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I made the FPX template a bit more discrete. Maybe someone can come out with a new design -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Feature matrix comparison between FP, QI and VIEdit

I was wondering if a feature matrix/comparison table between FP, QI and VI could be helpful for inexperienced user to see what they are up against when nominating at FPC and better understand what the other options are? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a matrix would be handy, but the rationale behind it should be clear from the start. I don't like the idea of a hierarchical 'featuring' system where FP is perceived as better than QI and QI better than VI. These valuing procedures are parallel rather than sequential in nature. And that should be stressed. Lycaon (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Featured sounds and videosEdit

In order to better recognise those aspects of commons that Wikipedia can do very well, but other encyclopedias cannot, I propose the following:

  • Two new classes of featured content are created: Sounds and video
  • While these will have separate archives, to have the nominations run in a different place will cut off those communities from the main commons community
  • Hence, the nominations will be held on this page, which should be renamed to "Featured media candidates".

What do you think? Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, if noone objects, I'll start writing up standards for sounds, and try and create a parallel process that will share this voting area. It may very well be that people simply aren't aware of this suggestion, so I'll try and do it in as minimally disruptive of a way as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've listened to your FSC (Featured Sound Candidate) and I have no idea on how to evaluate audio medias. First, I think you should arrive with a series of guidelines about speakers calibration, what's good and what's not good in an audio sample, compression standards, etc. As well, I think it might be a lot more difficult to judge on the "wow" aspect of a sound because, IMO, we evaluate sounds in a lot more subjective manner than we evaluate images. For example, a song at top of the charts will probably annoy a greater percentage of a population than a strong image (well known/well difused/generally appreciated image). As well, other than historic audio samples, I doubt about what other kind of input will there be. FPC community is very small, still, I think there are amateurs photographers several orders of magnitude more than sound recording enthusiasts (not said in a sarcastic way, I know no other terms). Of course, I'll be happy if you get me wrong, since it can only be an added value to Commons, but I doubt about the long term success of a high standard evaluation process. --S23678 (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with S23678 and think it is nearly impossible to objectively evaluate sound files here. What should be the criteria: the artistic value of the piece? The quality of the interpretation? Or the quality of the sound (or of the restauration)? Only the last one seems adequate to me. However, I can't see how a Commons user could assess the quality of an audio file just be listening to it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That seems almost ridiculously defeatist: It's basically saying we shouldn't even try, because there might be problems. Evaluating pictures is subjective as well, a quick scan of FPC will find lots of subjectively-based evaluation. That doesn't make FPC invalid, and nor should it make FSC. Featured picturesd now has a group of experienced photographers able to evaluate the images. I'm sure featred sounds, if given a chance and prioritised, could gather a simailar community of audiophiles and singers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • My thoughts are : Recording quality is a lot more difficult to judge, the sound piece judging is extremely subjective (a lot more than pictures IMO), the pool of "sound enthusiasts" is probably a lot smaller than "image enthusiasts" to judge sounds AND to create and upload new files. Finally, I think it may result in a sub-standard voting process. Prove me wrong, but don't accuse me of being defeatist. You asked for our opinion, and here it is. --S23678 (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Several of the benefits of the evaluation process - such as attracting more people to contribute sounds to Wikipedia - exist independently to the quality of the review, so it's worth doing it regardless of any worries about the quality of the review. Featured pictures, for instance, has proven very effective at attracting high-aquality photographers to Wikipedia, and this attraction also brings in the expertise needed to increase standards. We have a choice here: We can either recognise sounds as something commons should try and do, or we can say that people who do work wwith sounds should not be recognised and appreciated, and thus drive people who might want to do so off after short periods of contribution.
The pool of expertise exists, everty town in Britain and, I believe, America has at least some form of music-related amateur society, whether Gilbert and Sullivan, choruses, musicals, operatic societies, and so on. Universities are likely to have all of those. There will be a certain amount of subjectiveness, but we're not generally going to be asking people to make judgement on original compositions here, we'll be asking them to judge recordings of pre-existing material, such as nature sounds, opera, very early musicals, or important speeches. The argument that it cannot be judged is equivalent to saying that we cannot evaluate paintings on FP because the quality of paintings is subjective - but ignorign that thew paintings being proposed are by da Vinci, Picasso, and Matisse. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That was not my intention to be defeatist, please forgive me if it sounded that way. I'm a music lover myself and also like to listen to the old recordings of Caruso and Gigli singing verist arias. The problem is we'll probably have to forget about the excellence of the piece, the quality of the interpretation and, in the case of old recordings, even the quality of the sound (which is obviously poor), to concentrate on the restoration job. I don't think that is possible for the rest of us even if we have access to the original sound file. We just don't have the knowledge and, in most cases, the computer's sound system won't be good enough. The analogy with FPC was pushed too far. In the case of images, and considering the large majority of cases, we are evaluating original works in all of their visual components including the aesthetical, technical, encyclopaedic, etc.. Only when reviewing reproductions of paintings and other non-original images we face the problem of trying to forget about their intrinsic artistic value and assess the merits of the reproduction itself. With historical sound files it would be much more difficult and I doubt that any of us (I nmean the regulars here) have the ability to make a proper evaluation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Video --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Sound and Video. Hard to judge sounds, but same goes for pictures. I don't know pictures better than sounds, and still review them. It's as easy to find noise, or artefacts in sounds than it is in pictures. Also we learn from others, and the process will only get better in the future. On the other hand, I agree there are certainly more photographers than musicians. Also, I guess it will take more time to review sounds and video, and this may discourage people (including me). Benh (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I personally I think sounds are much harder to judge compared to images. For images you can easily point out an area of an image circle it/shade it/crop it to indicate a problem. Sure you can cut a sound file or point out the exact time it happens, but it's harder to be exact. And it's very easy to compare two or more images with each other because you can look at them at the same time, while that do not work at all for sounds. I am not saying we can not rate sounds just that it is very different and at least to me much harder. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Let's first agree on how to evaluate and judge photographs. Video and sound should each have their own (parallel) valuation schemes, not mixed with images. It won't work. Lycaon (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support The mission of Commons is to be a repository not only for still video but also for sound and video files. There is no reason at all why one featured status should be limited to one. The people who judge photographs and graphics may or may not participate in the judging of sound and motion video, but other people do, and Commons should extend to them the right to promote sound and video to featured status. Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
And since the opening statement of this topic referred to encyclopedias, I just want to comment that Commons is not an encyclopedia. Its mission is to support all Wikimedia projects, not just the encyclopedias. Fg2 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Videos and sounds would add value to FP.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


The downsampling issue has arisen again as many times before. Can we make the guidelines clearer and actually say something about downsampling one way or the other ? /Daniel78 (talk) 22:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a rule against downsampling would be hard to enforce, particularly since there is such a wide variety of different image sizes available on modern cameras. I would suggest that, in the interests of ensuring high quality images we increase the minimum resolution, for photographs, to 5 megapixels (ie 2,592 × 1,944) since almost all cameras can now take photos in this size. It would limit the damage of downsampling as well. R-T-C Tim (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Modern photographs only, please. Historical photographs probably cannot be gotten larger than they are, nor, due to grain, would it be necessarly useful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That's rather evident I should think. Resolution requirements concern digital imagery. Lycaon (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is also a secondary effect here, A 21MP camera downsampled to 6 mpix would look a lot better than say a 6 MP native resolution camera principally because of bayer interpolation. Just because the image is 6mp in size it doesn't mean there is actually 6 mp of information in the image. It might discourage contributers with lower end equipment. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the votes against downsampling. You can't really tell that something has been downsampled, and even when it's evident I don't think it's a good reason. The rules should be changed if the community agrees (I personally think 2MP is fine). --Dori - Talk 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Any change of the rules towards a higher resolution requirement would require a careful analysis of the feature rate for images, you wouldn't want to set 5mpix as a minimum, then not promote enough candidates per week to satisify POTD in the long term. In my case if the rules were changed I just wouldn't nominate the images period (baring the occasional panorama I take, but they are still downsampled). Disallowing downsampling would be difficult to enforce, and would prevent many very good images from being promoted (look at the resolution of the pictures of the year last year!) Noodle snacks (talk) 00:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Another issue about disallowing downsampling is that it could actually encourage people to lie about it as it is hard to prove whether an image has actually been downsampled or not. I am leaning towards having something along the lines "downsampling is allowed but not encouraged" in the guidelines. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not think downsampling should be forbidden. I often make large panoramas stitched from very many images. The quality of each image is rather mediocre as I just have a compact camera, but when combined and I do some moderate downsampling I get an adequate per pixel level information content, an image with a manageable file size of around 10-15 Mpixels. Yes, in principle I loose information in the process, but in practise the information loss is very small as outweighed by better per pixel information content and quality, decreased bandwidth requirements and more manageable image resolutions. I think this practise should be accepted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree. So should we change the guidelines, should we vote for it ? /Daniel78 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Replacing FPEdit


this delist candidate should be kept, but since there is consensus on edit for replacing original, I propose to just do it that way.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:AcueductoSegovia04.JPG

what do you think ? Benh (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one seems to care :( I'll just replace it. Benh (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Je propose de la nominer comme FP, comme mentionné lors de mon vote. Après tout, il n'y a eu que 3 supports pour la remplacer. --S23678 (talk) 15:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  Done Benh (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: RecycleEdit

I'm really rather uncomfortable with the idea that a nomination with, say, 4 supports and no opposes should be closed as unpromoted. Certain types of images need techncial expertise to judge, and the current rules penalise these types of images.

How about instead, images with less than five votes, but with an otherwise consensus of support, get cycled back to the top, to gve them another 9 days to get more consensus? Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  •   Support What about creating another list, permanently at the top, separated from Nominations list and Delist list, to get maximum exposure? I support only if the nomination has no opposing vote after the first round 4 support votes and no oppose as per Alvesgaspar, below. --S23678 (talk) 15:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agree with the idea but only for the specific case of 4 support votes and no opposes. Even in that case, the refreshment could only be used once. Otherwise we run the risk of having the page crowded with old nominations people don't care about. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support Recycle or die --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is good idea. but not 9 days, maybe 5. Benh (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support good idea. Mfield (talk) 07:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  •   Question This idea seems to gain consensus. As I'm trying to rephrase the FPC instructions, I could insert a paragraph on this too. OK ? not OK ? Benh (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. --norro 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Replace candidatesEdit


I'd like to add a new section to the FPC page. In addition to Featured Picture Candidates and Featured Picture Delisting Candidates, we'd see Featured Picture Replace Candidates (or anything which sounds better in english).

This is to give chance to pictures which:

  • are old, but good enough to remain FP
  • which could be improved
  • whom improved edit would likely fail to get promoted to FP status.

I'd like us to avoid cases such as this one. The old one wasn't delisted, but the new one will likely not be promoted despite being clearly better.

What do you think ? Thanks. Benh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a new section is needed, but maybe we should change the rules (guidelines) to make clear that when a picture is proposed as a replacement for an existing FP, if the nomination passes, the old FP is delisted. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think a new section is the clearest possible form, and the easiest to manage. But as people don't seem to be much interested, I'm now trying to integrate this to FPC process (as part of my instructions rephrasing attempt). When I have something I can show, I'll poll contributors. Benh (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
New section is not needed, just an explanation in the guidelines. --Mr. Mario (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Changing FPC instructionsEdit

Hi, after issues raised above, I started to write new instructions for FPC page. I wish this could lead to address the following :

  • shorter instructions, so people won't be scared to read them all,
  • adding new replace section,
  • rephrase that litigious part on downsampling and picture size.

I'm thinking about moving adding nomination forms to a dedicated subpage. This needn't clutter the FPC page. This dedicated page would provide plenty of room for warning users on potentially mediocre nominations.

I'm also thinking about changing the order of candidates, and copy the German FPC page, with the older nominations on top of the stack rather than opposite. I think this is better, as older noms need more visibility.

You may notice a missing template. I'm currently drawing new icon for creating a "replacing template", but if someone draws one in the meantime...

I'm going to be away for 2 days, so I think I could share this with you and start to get feedback : User:Benh/sandbox.

Thanks for your help. Benh (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the same as the Commons:Image guidelines page ? Benh (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good initiative :) , this is really needed. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean something like Commons:Image guidelines ? Regards Ben Aveling 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I keep working on this... very slowly sorry, and will keep you informed of any significant update. You can still have a look at my sandbox if you're curious to see how it's going. Benh (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know how to make it fit properlyEdit

Sorry guys, I don't know how to make my image fit properly. Anyone can help? Georgez (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustave Doré's Divine ComedyEdit

I'm going to be uploading about a hundred Doré illustrations in the next week, taking us through his entire work on the Divine Comedy. I'd like to nominate these. However, a set of 75 (Inferno) seems a little excessive. Is there any good way for this to be done? Obviously, some are better than others, but I think there is also value to a complete set, particularly as hitherto we had very little high-resolution Doré.

One possibility may be the complete set as VI, selections for FP. Would anyone care to help choose some illustrations for the set? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-photographic mediaEdit

I thinkw e need to drop the number of votes needed for these. Far fewer people are willing to reviw them, and this leads to incredibly frustrating situations where, say, an engraving gets four supports and an unexplained oppose, and then gets marked as not featured. This is very common for engravings and similar historic media, but unheard of in photographs, which pretty much always succeed or fail on consensus, not lack of a certain number of votes.

We're in a self-reinforcing cycle of Nominating engravings and other historic media is very frustrating -> New people capable of finding and evaluating historic media are chased off by the frustration and lack of recognition -> Not many people know about historic media, so either don't vote, or, worse, oppose simply because it's not a photograph -> Nominating engravings and other historic media is very frustrating...

If we are going to be a major media repository, this is a problem that affects the type of content we will get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think every oppose comment should at least be explained. Especially if it's the person's own work, or something they spent hours over scanning, touching-up etc, it can be quite rude to bluntly put Oppose without any explanation. How do you turn this on (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This issue was already discussed (see above). I confirm my opposition to any form of positive discrimination of non-photographic media and cite my comments made above: Stating that the system will be biased against that particular type of pictures is a wild extrapolation, not supported by numbers. The data are available, please go through them and prove it. I will be convinced if the ratio of promotions for those pictures, in the case options B or C are to be approved, is found to be significantly smaller than the overall ratio of promotions. Let me refresh our memories again: the present ratio of promotions of non-photographic media is over 50%, much larger than the overall ratio of promotions (23%). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, because you are throwing in mmodern SVG illustrations - the most common type of non-photographic media proposed here, because everyone who nominates anything else is chased off - in with historical ones. The rates for historical imagery is AWFUL. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Per above. Quote: "If voters don't deem such images featurable, then where is the problem? If people don't like the monochrome stuff (I don't, I admit), then why should it be forced upon them? That's not discrimination, IMO, but choice. Engravings, e.g., are not excluded by rule but by voter's preference. So?" Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, I would not like special treatment for a certain type of images. I guess some of them might benefit from the recycle idea above which is ok to me as it is valid for all images. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cant see nominationEdit

I tried to nominate one of my pictures and created the page Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Parides anchises.JPG but i cannot see it on the main page after reloading. Can someone help me?Korall (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not enough to just create the page. You have to link it to the top of the nominations list at Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/candidate_list as mentioned in the guidelines. I'll leave it to you to figure it out but if you can't let me know and I can link it for you. --Dori - Talk 18:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Being lateEdit

People are being very annoying now that they exclude votes that were late a few minutes such as this. Can anybody do something about this? It can make a difference! --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

where do you want to draw the line? 10 minutes later? 30 minutes later? 6 hours later? 2 days later? I guess that's why we have that date. -- Gorgo (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

GFDL OpposeEdit

Recently there has been a user who has been opposing images released under the GFDL license. See here and here. Is this considered to be a valid reason? Muhammad 12:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No mention in the criteria. However Commons FPC is a vote and as a consequence there is much nonsense that gets counted. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with Picture of the Year?Edit

Hi, sorry if this is not the appropriate place for this, but I'm looking for people who could help out with the Picture of the Year 2008. The people in charge retired and the project has been completely abandoned since November. I don't have anything to do with the planning of the POTY, but I really want the POTY to happen. I've asked many places already, and someone pointed me to this place. It would be great if anyone could help out to make it happen this year. I would certainly be thankful. Kreachure (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

More "no wows" continueEdit

I am a long time English Wikipedia editor, and I just put one of my pictures up as a candidate. User:Georgez put in his vote as oppose because it didn't 'wow him'. I have no problem with anybody opposing my pictures, so long as they provide a valid reason for it. As I looked down the candidate list, I noticed that the User in question for all of his opposes would put just 'no wow', giving no reason. Now, I am new here and I may not understand the policy correctly, but I have never seen anything as ridiculous or absurd as this. And it is not just the user I mentioned above. It almost seems like a trend that users who either want to get their edit count up or are just lazy put this comment up. IMO, these votes should be put on hold until the user provides a valid explanation for their opposes. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special..... this is straight from the project page, leaving a message saying that an image has no value, isnt special arent good reviews because they detract too much from the image generally offend even when translated. By saying an image has "no wow" the people are saying that the image just doesnt capture my attention or imagination, it doesnt mean its a bad image it just lacks the something special to set it apart from the majority. The other thing about commons is that while people generally communicate in english many people arent able to articulate meaningfully if at all with it as such they tend use simple phrases and templates to express their thoughts. Gnangarra 07:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it Featured picture candidates or Featured photography candidates?Edit

With respect toward the wonderful photography that comes to this page and the hardworking and talented people who create it, for months I've been concerned by an increasing trend toward ghettoizing other types of imagery. It started when valued images became a place to shunt images that would otherwise have been considered for featuring. As the nominator of File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg, it's more than a bit worrisome that three reviewers appear to have ignored the restoration notes on both the nomination and the image hosting page, and attributed all the work to the original artist and a scanning machine. One of the responses even proposed yet another subproject to shunt off non-photographic images

A good share of the editors here appear to be unaware that a group of us are working to get restoration off the ground as a serious endeavor. In this instance it meant working four pixels wide on a 150MB .tif file, correcting dirt and stains across the entire image. And if that sounds tedious, it is. The goal is to provide WMF with high quality historic images and we're working to train new people at this and gain access to more national archives. In light of the recent Bundesarchiv uploads, for instance, I did a courtesy restoration of Konrad Adenauer (which, unfortuanately, I can't upload because the high resolution original remains under German copyright). I hope that work helps gain access to a high quality free licensed original of the Berlin Wall being built. And I'm interfacing in other ways with an eye toward getting access to more global material and toward mentoring more restorationists. If reviewers continue to deprecate restored historic material--essentially going on strike rather than attempting to review it--then it becomes even harder to succeed at this very important endeavor.

So fellow Commons editors: please make up your minds. Either acknowledge the restorationists on an equal footing with the photographers, or be frank about the priorities and change the name of this project to Featured photography candidates. Durova (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that there is a focus on photographic images, but FP is more than photographic images there are already specific sections in FP to highlight animations and non-photographic images, given the number of restorations that have been promoted rather than loosing them in the historical section we should have a section dedicated solely to restored images. I think the type reviews and comments are because we dont have a formal guide on how to review a restored image and are treating them just like a photograph taken yesterday. Gnangarra 04:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a major problem is that people who suggest non-photographic works are regularly insulted simply for choosing a historic non-photo, even when the image passes in the end. I'm not going to name names, or link to where names can be found, but skimming some of my work, here are some of the comments on one nomination, which actually passed in the end.
  Oppose Only copy of some old illustration. No value as a photo. [Name redacted]

  Oppose see [author of above comment] --[name redacted (N.R.)]   Comment not valuable as a PHOTO? This is not Featured photo candidates for christ's sake, it doesn't have to be "valuable as a photo". --[N.R.]

  Comment Please tell me the reason for featuring a good done scan? Brief work? Creativity? --[N.R.]
Spending hours in libraries tracking down images on a subject? [Me]
We aren't featuring the scan, we are featuring the drawing. This is nothing different from featuring a photography by a non-Commons user. Remember, FPC is a showcase of the best images on Commons, not a reward for long and hard work by our users. --[N.R.]
Actually we are featuring the image upoaded to Commons that you see on screen. The end result is a combination of an excellent and interesting engraving and some excellent research and scanning/restoration work carried out by Adam Cuerden. If either the engraving or the restoration work were less than excellent we would not feature this, but the fact is that both are.--[N.R.]

  Oppose Lacks wow. Seen one, seen all (IMO). [N.R, dated after the above]

This is not meant to embarrass anyone; indeed, it is my hope that I chose one both old enough and cut enough context to make it impossible to know who said what. I do not mean to censor views, but such conversations - of which this is not the only one, do serve to substantially reduce the friendly attitude on Commons, and decreased my desire to contribute (if you're attacked for spending time and money buying old books, or researching in old libraries, and then doing restorations on what results, one does begin to wonder why one bothers. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Over the holidays I started to think about posting some thoughts about this conversation. As for myself, I get frustrated at the process, the people, the evaluation, but yet, I still harbor the notion that this Wikipedia effort is in the long run a worthy endeavor.
One of the thoughts that came to mind is that there really no clear cut idea of what a featurable picture should be. In my opinion, most people are really not qualified either as a photographer nor as critics. I do not say this lightly nor with the intention of offending, but rather, as a critical observation.
What I see, for example, is a complete bypass of the fundamental notion and ideal of photography as a discipline and an over-reliance on tech issues that have absolutely nothing to do with what universally can be considered good and/or valuable photography.
The core distinctions of photography are set aside by what I call a "pornographic rendering" of subjects where everything must be sharp and explicit.
I get frustrated when the work of Durova, for example, is pushed aside with arguments such as "old B&W picture", etc., when the work presented represents often milestones not only in photography but also in history. Or the work of Adam Cuerden gets a "no Wow" simply because it is not of the personal preference of the observer.
Anyway, I basically think that there is really no idea or consensus about what a FPC is at all.
How about we start thinking about that?
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of FPC rulesEdit

A repeated refrain in many of the above threads is the lack of clarity in the existing FPC rules. I suggested at #Still too many mediocre nominations that the rules should be re-written and it seems to me there would be plenty of support for that. Benh has made some suggestions for improving the page layout which look promising, but I have in mind a more radical re-think of what exactly we are looking for here, with perhaps some general principles along with more specific guidelines on what to look for when judging, for example, scans of historic prints, historic photographs, user-created illustrations and so on. Multiple pages with cross-links along the lines of the VI pages would make the FPC pages much easier to understand, as well.

Unless anyone is already in the middle of this, and wants to jump in now, I would be happy to take the lead and put up a few specific suggestions for discussion. We should take our time, and aim perhaps to get an initial draft together over the next month or so, with say a couple of months for feedback and refinements before going live.

Would there be support for this? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • My biggest complaint with the frontpage is that there is too much information there. I am afraid that many just do not bother to read it because it's just too much. There should of course be more detailed info available I would just prefer to put that on another page or perhaps as show/hide boxes. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A lot of it is just verbiage, and does not help a new FP voter at all. It could be sharpened up and put onto several bite-sized pages. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Rather than a page of criteria what about creating a checklist, maybe a series of q's that need to be answered before the page is created like the upload page ie a semi automated process that can at least identify images not meeting the basic requirements. At least that may stop some of the nominations. It could target image size, format could even tag it for a specific FP category making bot closures in the future possible. Gnangarra 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the place needs a revamp, but as Michael suggests, we should take the time. One of the first questions I would put on the table is: What criteria should a FPC meet? or a rephrase of the question.
What I am shooting for is relevance of the image within an encyclopedic context. In very general terms, the criteria should be:
1. Enclyclopedic relevance - this should be defined.
2. Encyclopedic value - determine a value scale, to be defined.
3. Cultural value - this should be defined
4. Sociological value - This should be defined
5. Historical value - This should be defined
6. Technical execution - stricktly on photographic technique
7. Photographic degree of difficulty.
8. Aesthetic value - according to traditional photographic evaluation practices.
The initial analysis platform should be encyclopedic, and from there to branch into the other relevant issues.
We could even have a form with, much like a Lickert scale, where although subjectively, each reviewer would assign a subjective value on a scale from 1 to 5 in each criteria, and in order to tally the points needed we could require a minimum of reviewers and a total minimum point average of all reviewers.
Too complex? Not really, if people take their time to review seriously. After a while, it bocomes easy and think it will discourage drive by opposers and bring a new level of analysis.
Also, in order to nominate, nominator should write a brief explanation supporting the nomination based on some of the criteria listed above.

What do you think?

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It seems like you put the main focus on encyclopedic value here, but we already have Commons:Valued images for this purpose. In my oppinion it's ok for FP to not focus as much on enclyclopedic use as images on commons do not necessarily have to be used as such (encyclopedic value is not part of the scope of commons as far as I can see, Commons:Scope) and the fact that we already have VI. Also some of the individual wikipedias have their own FP and although I have not followed them at all I guess they are also focusing a bit more on value as they themselves are encylopaedias. If FP is not a bit different it might be too much scope overlap or ? Some of the categories you listed seem very hard to define or judge images in and might perhaps scare people away. And by numeric voting I fear that some might skew their own numbers to force the average in one direction, just like many voting sites on the internet get way too many votes in the extreme ends of the scale because people want to push the results in their own direction. It might be different if the numeric voting and current result was hidden until the voting period was over, but that is a bit hard on a wiki. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Daniel, Perhaps there is a redundancy by having different forums for what is essentially the same objective, that is the selection of images that report some sort of value. Even if the entry analysis platform were to be stricktly on photographic/graphic merit, you still need to define the criteria, which would have to encompass some of the categories mentioned above anyhow, or come up with criteria for images to measured against. Which takes us to the original question: What set of characteristics should a Featurable Picture possess? I depart from the position that Commons is a supporting element of Wikipedia, and the main objective of Wikipedia is Encyclopedia, therefore Commons objective is also enclyclopedic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that defining the criteria as clearly as possible is a good thing. However, I disagree about placing a high value on encyclopedic content. Commons is for all wikimedia projects, including future ones, not just wikipedia. I think Wikipedia FPs (such as the English wikipedia) are great places for good encyclopedic images. Also, VI on Commons seems to fill this role. JalalV (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Regarding mediocre noms. Yes, there are 2 many right now and a lot of pictures which should be fpx'ed. There is a recent trend that users don't care about or ignore the guidelines, thats why someone should take care of this. What you think about a 24h or 48h buffer where all nominations going in first where a elected jury of recent contributers/admins is doing a preselection and giving permits for the fp list. The structure is the same, but instead of placing the noms direct in the list, nominators place it in the buffer first - a script put it in the fp list (which is locked then) after 24h when it got green light.
P:S. The current guidelines are good enough but useless when they are not accepted or ignored, thats why i think a buffer is indispensable --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think adding a layer of bureaucracy is a good idea, particularly if it's going to judge on subjective criteria. FPX for filesize and other obvious severe problems is one thing, but I don't think we should take the decision away from the community too readily. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Does Quality Images really has a lot of bureaucracy when a unclear nomination is put to consensual review ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the idea of a mandatory checklist is a good one. It seems much easier for new people to handle than reading through all that text, or clicking to go through a set of separate pages. With the buffer, I wonder how many people will bother to actually go there. Will pictures not commented upon in the buffer (due to lack of exposure) disappear? To be honest, I don't think all that many people even participate in the FP candidates page. My thoughts are as follows:
  • 1) Create a mandatory checklist.
  • 2) Have FP candiates listed from oldest at the top to newest at the bottom.
  • 3) Increase FPX to 48 hrs and two support votes to close. On second thought, the rule of the 5th day seems to fit this. What about about increasing the rule of the fifth day to include pictures with only one support vote as well.
  • 4) Increase promotion to 7 votes, but extend voting time by 5days if 4+ support and no opposes. (I actually think this would encourage more ppl to vote)
  • 5) Have an automated bot manage the FP candidates page (i.e. remove 5th day pictures, remove FPXs, and count & promote FPs). Would this be difficult? JalalV (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Know what that checklist reminds me of? A scene from the film Dead Poets Society where a literature textbook attempted to set forth an X-Y chart to measure poetry. The teacher was smart: he told the students to ignore the textbook and showed them how to feel the poems. What's our purpose with featured pictures? I've seen wonderful material in our candidates, then run a 'check usage' and discovered it wasn't used anywhere in any project except at Commons FPC. That's fine if our goal is to provide cover art for the main page of Commons and various language edition Wikipedias. Is that our goal? If not, what else? Reach agreement on the basics and the rest will fall into place. Durova (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Deep down I have to agree with you. Art goes beyond categories and limits. Yet at the same time, I would say the the current voting system is a bit of a mess. On one hand we need rules and guidelines to give us a clear direction. On the other hand, the rules can become stifling. What about the suggestion below by Robert of Ramsor? About requiring a seconder to nominate? I honestly don't think FP has any other goal than to feature the "best" of Commons. "Best" can mean very different things to different people, and I am wary of limiting Commons to one category or another. (e.g. should more preference be given to wikipedia or wikispecies, or wikibooks? online or offline printing? etc.) --JalalV (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Current GuidelinesEdit

Basically, the guidelines for FPC can be divided into two parts as they are written.

These are the elements of analysis of FPC. I placed for the first set a heading as a category under which they can be conceptualized:

On the guidelines, from Resolution to Value

Hardware factors:

Resolution – OK
Scans – OK

Photographic Technique

Focus – bogus
Foreground and Background – bogus
General quality – bogus


Digital manipulation – OK more or less


Value – bogus

On the hardware factors: These are straight as they are, for it is reasonable to expect these values from normal equipment nowadays and they are standard values in the printing industry more or less.

On photographic technique: The categories are poorly defined and can be incorporated into the second part of the guidelines.

On ethics: I chose that word because it is standard practice to disclose certain manipulations and there is an ongoing debate on the photographic community about this issue that presented itself with more strength in the digital era. However, it deserves scrutiny and rework.

On evaluation: This is probably the most important category and the one that ultimately should be the deciding criteria, but it says nothing about what value is.

The second part of the guidelines verse on categories that help a person identify certain characteristics that when added or evaluated, define, sometimes in subjective ways, what makes a photograph a good photograph.

This section is divided into two categories:

Photographic technique – this section refers to mechanical aspects of photography where there is no subjective interpretation (maybe except in composition, but lets assume the rule of thirds to be a concrete value). Knowledge of these categories, stricktly from the photographic point of view, inform the critic of the limitations of conditions or equipment and help determine if under the circumstances the choice of shutter speed, aperture, movement control, focal length, etc., were the best choice or if the take was done at the edge of the mechanical possibilities, and thus not place impossible demands on a particular picture. Due to technical/mechanical realities a picture can only be good to a degree and it is foolish to demand certain results under certain conditions.

The exif information in this regard is very, very useful. For example, if I see that a picture taken under adverse physical conditions, for example, whith ISO 3200, shutter speed of 1/30 and aperture of 2.8, it tells me that there were conditions of low light and due to the high ISO setting I can expect noise and therefore I must allow for noise.

On the other hand, if the exif information tells me the photograph was taken with ISO 1600, a shutter speed of 1/2000 and an aperture of f32, and a still subject, well, then, the guy did not chose the right ISO setting and therefore noise would not be allowed.

So the categories are:

Photographic Tecnique

Exposure - OK
Composition - OK
Movement control - OK
Depth of field – OK

On the graphic elements, what can be said is that these categories have to do with the subject itself, and are independent of the photograph itself, however, the challenge of the photographer is to represent and exploit these characteristics through good photographic technique.

Graphic elements

Shape – OK
Volume – OK
Color – Bogus
Texture – OK
Perspective – OK
Balance – OK
Proportion – OK

Symbolic meaning or relevance – Bogus – should be rewritten and understood by voters, this is one of the core issues.

So basically the guidelines dwell on hardware issues, photographic technique and subject characteristics, but do not define what value is.

The guidelines should be reorganized but the larger issue of value, about what constitutes a Featurable Picture has to be addressed, and it is my proposal to establish first the platform of analysis as Encyclopedic Value and have other categories of analysis as subparts and evaluate images accordingly.

The way images are voted right now, in my opinion, are gut evaluations, and the problem with that is that it tends to ovelook very good images that are presented here, and thus creating an environment that is not conductive to participation.

So a rewrite of FPC rules? There really are no rules. Except for the hardware issues, there aro no qualitatively or cuantitatively criteria.

Like the old saying goes, he who does not know where he is going runs the risk to of getting nowhere.

What do you think???

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to put forth some general, very rough rules for non-photographic media, organised by type. Not too detailed, but a few examples - say, diagrams, engravings, and paintings - would help emphasise that it's not just photographs, and help the reader have some idea how to evaluate non-photographic media, even if we can't cover everything. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed rewrite of FPC rules and order of items

Define FPC. For example: A FPC is an image (drawing, map, illustration or photograph) that has encyclopedic value, that is, it contributes to the advancement of the knowledge of encyclopedic themes or subjects and it is executed with universally agreed quality characteristics of its particular medium. List and define encyclopedic characteristics of each medium. (For example, in photography, values can be, approached through an encyclopedic platform, historical value, cultural value, etc. List and explain the main mechanical characteristics proper to each medium that define their quality stricktly in technical terms. In photography it would be: exposure, DOF, composition, etc. List and explain the main aesthetic characteristics of the medium that make a particular image a quality image. In photography, it would be shape, texture, color, etc.

So in this scenario the image would be judged in terms of encyclopedic value, technical merit and aesthetic value.

These categories are much more objective than the Wow-O-Meter.

Each discipline can build consensus of users according to their area of expertise. Illustrators would write the illustration values, photographers photography, etc., etc.

All support and oppose votes must mention a characteristic that defines the vote.

For example:

Support because it has relevant historical value.

Oppose because image is underexposed.

Neutral votes would not be allowed.


At the present, there is no definition of value in FPC There are really no objective parameters for evaluation, other than the size parameters,. It would eliminate the Wow-O-Meter, which is a totally subjective approach that cheats the nominator of an explanation for oppose votes and contributes nothing, other than making evident a lack of an evident and disciplined evaluation process. A neutral vote is an oppose vote, for it tends to point at flaws and thus influence opinion. An abstain is the best way to show neutrality. An explanation for oppose opens the door to debate that can be constructive and it comes from a specific criteria and hopefully will avoid oppose votes that come from either ignorance or culturally biased taste or appreciation. It would make the Wow-O-Meter dissapear, a totally subjective, unfair, lazy and unprofessional way to judge either images or encyclopedic value. This way, users of each discipline teach other users of the distinctions of their trade. No one is left out. Images would be voted according to legitimate values, thus improving the quality of the project. These rules would become simultaneously a beginner’s lesson on graphics appreciation. (the message is posted by the request of user:Tomascastelazo, who is blocked at the moment.)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

GFDL 1.3 issuesEdit

Hi guys. I originally raised this issue on the English Wiki GFDL talk page but I don't think it gets enough traffic for discussion so I thought I'd try my luck here since many here would no doubt have an interest in the licensing. Basically in relation to GFDL 1.3 effectively allowing the migration to CC-BY-SA 3.0, I said:

  • I'd like to discuss that more. I can see why this is useful, but... this effectively would mean that media released under GFDL 1.2 (which says that it is compatible with any future version) would effectively be released on CC-BY-SA-3.0 too. Isn't this morally bankrupt?? I'd be really upset if I released something SPECIFICALLY under the GFDL 1.2 because I didn't agree with CC-BY-SA licensing for whatever reason, only to find that they've added a clause that allows it to be changed without my permission. Doesn't this also mean that GFDL 1.4 could be released which allows any prior GFDL licensed content to be released into the public domain?? It just seems very wrong that GFDL is forward compatible. The terms of future licenses haven't even yet been written, yet we're explicitly agreeing with them when we release GFDL content.. Hmmmmm. :-/ Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is my interpretation of the license wrong? Is it right? If it is right, is it morally right? I know a number of contributors use only the GFDL as a more restrictive license which effectively inhibits serious commercial use of the image because it requires a copy of the full license text to be distributed with the content (I don't, but I do resent the idea of someone misusing my image if I choose to restrict the licensing in this way). Thoughts? Diliff (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering and about to ask this exact same thing. If this turns out to be true and images that I have specifically licensed under GFDL manage to be migrated to CC after the fact, with terms I have not agreed to, then something is very wrong with the whole concept of licensing. It will make me think long and hard about contributing any more images to Commons. Mfield (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, licenses should only be backwards compatible, not forward compatible. That way we actually know what we're agreeing to. I'll let this sit for a little while to see what others think. I'm having trouble interpreting the terms of the GFDL 1.3 license, to be honest. The key section of it relating to re-licensing says: "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (or "MMC Site") means any World Wide Web server that publishes copyrightable works and also provides prominent facilities for anybody to edit those works. A public wiki that anybody can edit is an example of such a server. A "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration" (or "MMC") contained in the site means any set of copyrightable works thus published on the MMC site.
I guess I don't think like a lawyer but it doesn't seem clear enough to me. As it stands on GFDL 1.3, it seems to imply that once content is published in an MMC Site, it automatically becomes MMC content, even though the definition of MMC says multiauthor collaboration, which isn't necessarily the case with images. The vast majority of my images are not collaborations in any way, shape or form. The license also says "The operator of an MMC Site may republish an MMC contained in the site under CC-BY-SA on the same site at any time before August 1, 2009, provided the MMC is eligible for relicensing.". Does that essentially mean there is an amnesty, and if the content was not re-licensed to CC-BY-SA by the 1st of August 2009, then it would become too late for them to do so? Argh. The interpretation of legal documents does my head in. Diliff (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I would certainly like hear a copyright lawyer interpret this into some everyday implications before I upload anything else. Mfield (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The licence says that if a version if specifically specified, then this version must be used.
Template:GFDL uses 1.2 or more recent versions.
Template:GFDL-en uses 1.2 or more recent versions.
Template:GFDL-1.2 specifically uses 1.2 and thus is not upgradable unless the author wants to change the licence.
Now the main issue: Are we allowing authors to change licence between free licence? Imo, as long the licences stay 'free', this should be allowed,
Esby (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
yes but the GFDL option in the upload dialog results in "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation". It specifically states any later version. Mfield (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
On the upload page, just leave the license box blank and type in the license template you want in the "Description" box. JalalV (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the 1.3 clause was implemented because Wikipedia asked them to. Wikipedia wanted a way to combine CC-BY-SA and the GFDL licenses and it is too difficult to do on a case-by-case basis. FSF agreed, but didn't want this to become an excuse for permanent cross-licensing.
1) If the license says "or any later version", then basically you trust the Free Software Foundation completely. If they come up with a version 6 license (for example) saying "do whatever you want," then that becomes valid. Unfortunately, licenses are unrevokable. So if it has been released with "or any later version", then there is nothing you can do but trust the FSF.
Yes, and this is a very big problem IMO. Morally speaking, they should never have released a license saying that. Diliff (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Really, it depends the individual (and making sure to release things under the correct license for each person!). The "or any later version" is quite useful to a lot of people. Often, later versions are updated to get rid of legal loopholes, or address problems that come up with the license. Often, later versions are incompatible with earlier versions. So if I have a GFDL version 4 book (let's say), and I want to use your GDFL 1.2 only picture, I might not be able to. Then I would have to hunt down you, and every single person who edited the picture after you, and ask to have it relicensed. This has happened quite a lot in the past, especially with the GPL (used for computer programs). This is also a reason why some people like to license their works under earlier versions of the license as well as the current one. --JalalV (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do understand that the "or any later version" is quite useful to some people, but that doesn't make it right to remove everyone's ability to control the terms of the license in the future. You really might as well just release the image to the public domain if the future terms of the license can be re-written to say literally anything at all. I understand now that I could use "GFDL 1.2 only" to avoid this, but the average person uploading to Wiki doesn't, and the fact that this license is not available in the drop-down implies that it is not an option. Diliff (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
2) The dates in the 1.3 clause are specific. It was dated in the past specifically for media that got uploaded to MMCs (basically Wikis). But it means that someone can't just go around looking for GFDL content, upload it to wikipedia, and relicense it as CC-BY-SA. So if your content is not already on an MMC, and you don't upload it yourself, then you are safe from having it relicensed.
3) The expiry dates are there so that the cross-licensing does not become permanent. I think FSF wants wikipedia to decide what kind of license it wants. I can imagine a blanket "all GFDL 1.3 content is now relicensed as CC-BY-SA" statement by Wikipedia sometime before this cut-off date.
That would be the logical assumption, although if as you say, Template:GFDL-1.2 is not forward compatible, it would have to bypass content with those licenses and therefore would not capture everything into CC-BY-SA. I mean, if I go back and change all the licenses in my images to 1.2 specifically, I suppose it would be possible for someone else to go and just revert that change, as it was irrevocable the instant the "1.2 or later" template was added (unless you can prove somehow that it was a mistake or added by someone else). Diliff (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Quite right. GDFL-1.2 only licenses cannot be cross-licensed with this change. However, if you released in under "1.2 or any later version", then it has already been released, no going back. If you change the template to "GDFL-1.2 only", then basically you are releasing it again. So a user can choose to use the old "or any later version" license, or the "1.2 only", whichever they feel like. Which make changing it after the fact kind of pointless. JalalV (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, although most people would not look at the history of the image page to see that it was, once upon a time, released under a different license, so it is better than nothing. Diliff (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
4) I wouldn't worry so much about the CC-BY-SA license, so long as the "SA" part is actually honored by people. I can't imagine a lot of commercial organizations wanting their entire publications freely modified and distributed by anyone because they put a CC-BY-SA picture in it! Just my thoughts, hope it helps! -- JalalV (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Re 4), unless my interpretation of CC-BY-SA is also incorrect, I don't think it means that if someone use an image that was released under CC-BY-SA, then the entire publication is also published as CC-BY-SA. I understand it to mean just that image. Diliff (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It would be nice to see case studies of the CC-BY-SA defended in court. The short description seems a bit unclear about what "Share-Alike" means, so I worry that people use CC-BY-SA as if it was only CC-BY. But according to (excerpts of) the full license:
"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
"Work" means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of this License including without limitation any production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form, such as a book, pamphlet and other writing; a lecture, address, sermon or other work of the same nature; a dramatic or dramatico-musical work; a choreographic work or entertainment in dumb show; a musical composition with or without words; a cinematographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to cinematography; a work of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving or lithography; a photographic work to which are assimilated works expressed by a process analogous to photography; a work of applied art; an illustration, map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; a performance; a broadcast; a phonogram; a compilation of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work; or a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work.
(Emphasis added.) To my mind, the only exclusion seems to be encyclopedias and reference collections. It looks like books and pamphlets need to be licensed under CC-BY-SA as well. No good for most commercial uses, except those that are freely distributable (like selling wikimedia CDs). JalalV (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OLPC XO-1 (Choosing from 2 pictures)Edit

Hi there,

I want to nominate a photo of w:OLPC XO-1. Can someone help me choose the right photo for the nomination? I am considering either one of Category:OLPC XO-Beta 1 or (after uploading) this Flickr OLPC one. The Flickr photo shows the device in different uses, which might be a nice feature. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The flickr one seems most interesting to my eyes. But I am only one opinion! JalalV (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the order of the nominations be changed?Edit

Now, when we're getting more and more nominations, it might be a good idea to put older ones to the top and the newer ones at the bottom IMO. I'm very sure that many reviewers with limited time never reach the old nominations to review and to vote. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree. --JalalV (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sounds ok to me too. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Don't agree. The way you put it it is a non-issue: People with little time will never reach the bottom nominations. But when they time it right, the later old ones are just new or the once new ones have just turned stale..., depending which order one chooses. — Lycaon (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • German Wikipedia has this order but only with a max of 20 nominations where it works very well. A week ago we had 95 nominations and I find it a bit uncomfortable to scroll down the whole list only 2 see whats new, so I disagree. Otherwise good and interesting pictures will be found in the list, anyway ;-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Richard ... so No! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, all depends if the objective is clearing out the stack or nominating images that can be nominated without problems. I don't believe this is an issue. If people don't have enought time, they won't have enought time what ever the order is. Esby (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Size of pageEdit

I think size of page is problem, currently code itself has 600 kb. That is simply too much. On enwiki Wikipedia:Article size reasonable size is >100 Kb, also technical issues and readability issues (yes, those apply limited here); largest pages has 300-400 kb. I think that size of page has negative influence to number of visitors (and thus voters) (see stats. Apparently there are two ways - technical (split page for example) and procedural (for example reduce number of candidates or lower voting times). Do you agree, that size of page is problem? --Jklamo (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't such article --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure he meant en:Wikipedia:Article size. Anrie (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappearing VotesEdit

I have made this comment because I have noticed that my votes for or against various FP Candidates, along with notes which it has taken me some time to write, have all disappeared.

Is voting confined to some Approved Photographer list?

Or is it that any one person - and I am logged in, so that should not be the cause of the problem - is allowed only one vote per 24 hours?

I'm perplexed.

Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you try to refresh? Lycaon (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I had assumed automatic refresh after every Save Page operation. It looks like my version of Firefox needs telling to refresh, or something. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
It's the wiki as much as your browser: The FPCs are on subpages, and Wikipedia doesn't check subpages haven't updated every time the page loads, as that would require huge amounts of processing. So it can take a little while. The purge action - which Lycaon links above - tells the Wiki to check right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed a confusing effect. I see it all the time, especially on the FPC page, because of all the sub-pages. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
When editing a normal Wikipedia page, the Refresh is not needed, so one gets in the habit of not doing it. On this page (FP CAndidates), if you get in the habit of using the browser (Firefox or whatever) Refresh function every time, it seems to work. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I had a comment disappear. That kind of stinks. -- carol (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Scrolling problem -- nevermind. -- carol (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

End self-nominationEdit

Reading through the topic on Still too many mediocre nominations, the nearest to my idea is the idea of requiring a Seconder.

I had been wondering about a change to the system, such that you may not nominate your own picture. Instead, if you have a picture you would like listed as a FP CAndidate, you post a link on a Seeking Nomination page.

Reasons -

A. It introduces a stage of peer review, such that a nominated picture is more likely to succeed because weaker possible candidates fail to get a proposer.
B. It may build up a team spirit since it will involve us in supporting each other, and in considering at pictures in Wikipedia articles as potential FPs.
Seeking Nomination page.  
 This would include a template function like on this page for +comment tab.  
 In the Subject/headline slot you put the brief title (maximum of 3 key-words).  
 In the text body area, you put a thumbnail of the image you would like to get a nominator, 
 a maximum of 20 words for any additional information (optional).  
 Thirdly, you put any alternative images of this subject by yourself or others 
 for comparison or alternative nomination.

What about a trial for a month, if there is enough suppport for this idea? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just by way of illustration of the situation raised in other Comments on this page. As I write, we have 89 Nominations. These include the following self-nominated blocks.

  • Block of 3
  • Block of 2 (but can be considered alternatives of the same picture)
  • Block of 2
  • Block of 2
  • Block of 2
  • Block of 4 (by someone with 3 other singles and 6 in 2 other blocks in the list)
  • Block of 2
  • Block of 4
  • Block of 2
  • Block of 2

Thus 25 out of the 89 are self-nominations in blocks by the same photographers. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Commenting just as an IP, who has been watching the goings-on in Commons with interest over the past few months, I think the idea should be trialled at least. It's a way of 'vetting' the entrants, some of whom obviously haven't read the guidelines, or even looked at any other pictures. 16:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't like any plan that involves adding annoying bureaucracy. It would make nominating something for FPC a bit frustrating, and would have a tendency to create cliques to support each other's work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose
    A) One of the main reasons I upload to commons is to enter my pictures in QI and FP reviews. Even if not chosen, I find that it helps me be a better photographer from the comments. I sometimes knowingly post pictures I doubt will win to see what could be improved (and sometimes they get picked, heh). In the end, everyone benefits, as IMHO, my pictures have gotten better. Having someone else nominate my images would take that away from me, as it's not apparent how difficult or rare a subject might be except to the photographer.
    B) This would only encourage the evil practice of sockpuppeteering.

--ianaré (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I think that it should be easy to nominate your own images without going through an extra phase. I dont think we should make the process more complicated. But perhaps there could be some sort of limit on self nominations because I do see the problem when somone nominates a big number of his own images which all or mostly fails. Maybe a limit of max one self nomination per week or similar. Then if the person see that failing it might indicate to him/her to take that into consideration for the next nomination. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Those are good points; may I suggest a change to the proposal? How about, some of the longer serving and more experienced members make themselves available to review images before they are put up for FPC? Strictly a voluntary thing, of course, to help those new to FP (such as myself) when nominating an image. There are about 50 images I'd like to nominate at the moment, and having a professional eye to look them over would be good. Include a notice up the top of the guidelines, encouraging those new to the process, and those unsure about the suitability of the images they're nominating, to get their images checked. Include a disclaimer along the lines of 'Note: A positive review does not garuntee FP status' or something to that effect.
  • I think most of us regulars try and limit ourselves to one image a day; One a week would be annoying for highly productive people like Durova or Lycaon. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This way, both sides are satisfied. 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  Question Did you hear about Commons:Photography critiques? Lycaon (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No. No I didn't. *Sighs* Back to the drawing board. 09:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


I think we should promote this: It had five votes in support, though one was a couple hours late, and the only reason it didn't have the requisite number of votes before that was because there was confusion over an unexplained statement by Durova. I don't think there's any point keeping an image with obvious consensus to promote from being an FP until such time as it gets run on this page again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree, though personally i would've liked to see it pass. That way we would have to review a dozen past similar cases. What is possible, however is to resubmit in let's say three to four months. Lycaon (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


I wonder, if it is OK to nominate a video. English Wikipedia allows the videos. IMO the video option could and should be added. I do not see big changes in the process we follow for images nominations, if we have such an option. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I would   Support video (motion picture) because gif animations were already featured and video is similar --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is what I thought too. Thank you, Richard!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think we had 2-3 videos nominated not long ago. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You know what, I'll try one. I bet Hans will FPX it as out of the scope :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We already have a separate "media of the day". I think it would be more appropriate to have a separate nomination (e.g. "featured media") for sound and video. GIF animations are borderline, but have traditionally been associated with pictures. --JalalV (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Still photography ain't the be-all and end-all. Sure, would accept videos also. Durova (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only because I think it should be on a different page. This one is big and chaotic enough as it is. By the way, I think animations should be separate from this one as well. This page even says pictures. --Dori - Talk 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Motion pictures. Durova (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Motion pictures != picture, unless you want to take a single frame and nominate that. --Dori - Talk 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support -- conditionally we need some guidelines on how to assertain the video is worthy of FP status Gnangarra 09:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- conditionally we need some guidelines on how to ascertain the video is worthy of FP status . Lycaon (talk) 10:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support While no video has not passed, they have been nominated before without controversy. Also, Media of the day is currently completely broken - it's on a 365 day repeat, with untainable translation code. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Time to fix it then? Lycaon (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to just copy all the POTD templates, and create MOTD templates in the exact same format. Am I missing something? --JalalV (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I wanted to do that, but simply updating the assessments template to be able to mark English-Wikipedia featured sounds raised so much controversy - hell, downright attacks - that I was scared to try and set up a new system for selecting media. If it's not a problem, though, we could copy the POTD templates over, and (for the moment) simply allow any work with clear copyright status to be used on it. (Otherwise, we'd risk not having enough media in the early stages of the process.) I' suggest, though, that it be combined with the PotD template for things in the future (it should be easy to code it so they're separated back into PotD and MotD for archiving - just use a switch based on the year and month): This way, the translation group we have set up for PotD need not be duplicated - everything can just be translated at once.
I ahve some experience at templates, and would be willing to code a prototype of that new system, but I'd rather not do so without knowing that people wouldn't mind if it actually went in.
Now, as the second step, we'll want to set up a feeder process to try and find the best media for media of the day. A prototype featured sound process has been set up at COM:FSC, though it's currently inactive - we could probably change that with a site notice; for videos, perhaps we could handle videos here or at Valued images for the moment, but archive them separately. We don't necessarily need to call things featured at first - "Selected sounds" or "Selected media" would work instead for the moment, but we DO need to plan to upgrade to "featured" as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured MediaEdit

I'd like to have a vote for who would be interested in a "Featured Media" section. This would run the same way as FP, but would be for sound, video, etc. Right now we don't have that much new media coming in, but I expect that fairly soon we will see a huge increase in the use of media in most of the wiki projects. If we can get a Featured Media section going, then I think it would be very useful. Also, it would be a great repository for projects like "media of the day", etc. --JalalV (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  •   Support creation of Featured Media. --JalalV (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question Would featured media run on the main page? Durova (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Media of the Day is broken; we can easily replace it if we have a feeder process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I definitely think Featured Media should be on the main page, in the same way as FP. JalalV (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Then   Support with the specific proviso that it gets main page time. Durova (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why not renaming the Featured Picture page into Featured Media, that would be very foresightful. Motion pictures and photography are more similar than scans. We must only define a resolution for animations and movies which could be 600x400. All other guidelines are the same --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I think we'd best keep this separate from FP for now: Simply said, FP has been running for, mmm, 7 years now? It's had time to get highly talented photographers, restorationists, and creators of diagrams. Sounds and videos are not going to be at the same level, at least not consistently, until similar communities form up around them. This does not mean we shouldn't start up the process, but we shouldn't expect that a particularly neglected part of Wikipedia is going to reach the same standards as a very well-established part of Wikipedia right away. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Question This would run the same way as FP, but would be for sound, video, etc What is etc. ? Software ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever people define as 'media'. I was thinking video and sound and maybe animation as well. --JalalV (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Support As a separate FP like section with Main page exposure. Lycaon (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose splitting I understand that pictures are the majority of uploads right now and video and sound (with a big size) was unthinkable a few jears ago, but keep it simple and foresightful. Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository and we shouldn't deviate from the principles of Commons when trying to start splitting all sorts of media. Dividing the different branches causes featured video, featured sound, quality video, quality sound, valued video, valued sound, meet our cameramen, meet our soundengineers and so on. This is too knotty. I would support if there is only a featured media poll including a FM badge. To devide the poll a bit we could do sections in the nomination list as we have it right now with the delist section. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell you whatEdit

Since everyone hates what I do here, and wishes that people who don't work with photography would go away, I'll just upload things to en-wiki, where it's appreciated, and specifically ask they not be moved to commons. Then everyone wins. Except the users.

Goddamn, I'm tired of this shit. This is featured poictiure candidates, not featured photography candidatess! All these stupid "Not a photo, hate it! Oppose! opposes, all the stupid backstabbing because I don't work in photos, the general feeling that people who don't work in photography are scum not worth licking the boots of photographers, and the driving off of anyone who works on engravings by people so that they can continue to uphold their photograph-only opininons? I'm fucking tired of all this shit, and I don't know why I'm spending hours and hours doing work for commons that only gets me attacked.

Why the hell am I doing this? Why the hell should I put up with all this stress? I'm going on Wikibreak. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will tell you what. I love you for the many great restorations that you did. I love you for the potential of all the other restorations that you may do. I love you for the difference your work makes in illustrating the articles that cannot be illustrated with photographs. Really you make a difference and you have not fulfilled all of your potential yet. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Adam- don't let one user get to you. You have a huge amount of support and goodwill for what you are doing here on Commons. And we will (soon) get started on some new FP guidelines which should take restorations into account. Please stick around and help with the establishment of those. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


  • Dear Adam,
Believe me, I can really relate to your frustration... and I am a photographer!!!! But we won't go there now.
What I can tell you is that what you do makes a difference, whether people realize it or not. It may be that at this particular moment you may not know the extent of the difference you make, but believe me, you make it.
I will share a little story about what Adam Cuerden has done.
Since I was a kid, Dore made a profound inpression in my mind, for his illustrations were on the bibles that we had. His images scared me, intrigued me, captured me...
As time went on, and religion was no longer compulsory, the bibles eventually were lost.... but not the Dore memories.
So as I grew up, from time to time I would come accross Dore, and I was always on the lookout for high quality Dore reproductions and when I came accross them I could never really afford them. And again, Dore faded into memory.
So recently, much to my great pleasure, I started seeing your uploads and I thought Jezz! That's cool! And started for a freeby search of my Dore favorites. Well, I looked and looked and looked in the web and found none worthwhile, nothing to match your uploads. So because you are too slow with the uploads, and money no longer being a problem (well, relatively) I embarked on a Dore expedition.
So far I have bought El Quijote, Paradise Lost and the Bible!!! And mind you, I drove 200 miles to pick up book, and you can magine what the wife can say about that!
So, how many Tomases can be out there who will really appreciate the work that you are doing? Lots and lots and lots. Those are the guys you work for, not the others. Besides, I will start uploading some Dore, so you won't be alone!!!
I've proposed a rewrite of FPC rules that encompass all graphic media, and that will require your input as an epert in the field. Stick around and let's all share on that job. It is an opportunity!!!
I've been out in Wikintanamo and travelling, but I had to chip my two cents in this one.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Adam knows my feelings here, so a word to everyone else. Adam is by far the best restorationist of engravings and woodcuts the Wikimedia Foundation has. He works in open source software and trains others; he wrote Help:Scanning. He's spent quite a pile of money at rare book sellers in order to get the material he donates to Commons for free. If something happened to him, Commons would lose out on a great deal. Durova (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • On second thought, this needs to be clear all around. There's a difference between leaving the room and slamming the door on the way out. No need to increase the heat that way on what is already a tense situation. Doing so runs the risk of burning through the clout of the people who appreciate the content but object to the behavior, and who wish to be diplomatic about it--yet silence on that point may be misconstrued as approval. Adam is a hard worker who needs to grow a thicker skin. Durova (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    Dear Adam, you're doing an amazing job! Please do not go, and besides this going does not work. I tried few times and always came back. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me also hope that you do not leave for good, your work are very much appreciated. But on the other hand I wonder why FP means so much, I mean commons is not equal to FP. An image here is what it is regardless of it's FP status. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please StayEdit

Please stay Adam. Your contributions are valued! Commons would lose out on a lot if you were to go. Also, you would be sorely missed. You are one of my favorite people on Commons. Why? Because in my short time on this forum, I've noticed that your comments to others have been consistently kind and encouraging. This is more valuable than people realize, and is something I myself am trying to improve. Don't let a few comments get you down. People have different tastes, and that diversity is part of what makes Commons so interesting. For each person that dislikes your work, there are several others that really do! Also realize that there is something on Commons I call (and feel sometimes) "voting fatigue". If there are a lot of historical prints on the voting page at the same time, for example, new ones get looked upon more negatively. I think that has just happened. I believe we have had cycles of this with insect and crocodile pictures recently as well. Don't take it personally! Also, encyclopedic value is rated more highly on wikipedia (for obvious reasons), so if one of your images doesn't get quite the same response on Commons, don't take it as an attack. The scopes are slightly different between the two projects. So even though your work is valued here, it may not get the same response as on wikipedia. Keep smiling! :) --JalalV (talk) 09:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:JamesJoyce1904.jpgEdit

This FP candidate should be closed. But there is some problems with the license. The image description says: "The copyright status of this photograph is unknown, it is in the public domain." Does somobody know what to do about it so the image can be featured (or maybe deleted, if the license is wrong)? /Ö 11:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I hated to oppose, but the problems are more serious than that. It's got a PD-1923 tag, which doesn't apply to Ireland, and there's no evidence that it complies with the life +70 rule of Irish law. The source link returns a 404 error. Despite this, the uploader says it's in public domain, but we have nothing but the uploader's word to go by. And in several days there's been no response to the license objections. If I had seen this item at deletion requests I would have uploaded it to en:wiki and deleted it here. It really does appear to be noncompliant with Commons policy. Durova (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it was taken in 1904, it falls under PD-old for the US. According to the uploader, the author is "Constantine P. Curran". It appears that she died in 1972. Under the 2000 Irish copyright law, PD must be 70 years after the death of the author, so this would be still under copyright. What is unclear, however, is if this 1904 picture is grandfathered under an older copyright law that already put it into the public domain. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about Irish copyright law to give an answer. --JalalV (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's straightforward: Commons policy is to respect the copyright law of all relevant countries. So unless this image was donated into the public domain in Ireland, it will not be a valid Commons upload until 2043. It may be hosted at en:wiki, where local policy observes the law where the servers reside. Durova (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008 still on?Edit

I haven't been active for some time, so something might have happened that I didn't notice. Is POTY 2008 still on? If not, the announcement at the top of Commons' pages should be removed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I put some comments on the POTY08 organizing committee talk page. --JalalV (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Military pictures, and PropagandaEdit

I really hate to bring this up, but I feel that it would be best for all concerned if it's discussed. Weaponry and military equipment is what interests me, as I state on my talk page. A cursory glance through the FP gallery reveals a multitude of insects, sunsets and panoramas, but very few pictures relating to the armed forces. So I've recently been combing commons, trying to find high quality military images to nominate, while at the same time keeping an eye out for images which lack categories/description etc. However, it seems that I needn't have bothered, since it appears that they're going to be constantly shot down. I do realise that FP is a vote, and that oftentimes what you think looks great doesn't have the same effect on another viewer, but it's a little disheartening when you're opposed simply because 'it's a poor quality military image', and accused of nominating 'propaganda'. Very few opposers have told me just why the image is poor quality, which is, as far as I'm aware, a common courtesy. I know that the pictures aren't taken with top of the line cameras, but what do you expect? Every military does operate on a budget after all.

As for 'propaganda', well, just about every picture can be used as such. Simply because you don't agree with the subject matter, doesn't mean you should oppose it. For instance, I'm not particularly fond of faeces, neither are most people (see here for an example), but I didn't oppose this image ( because it had poo in it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Other pictures I'm thinking of nominating for FP are on my page. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The main problems with the pictures are noise and artifacts which means they won't pass. You can try valued pictures or on Wikipedia. MER-C 06:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
As stated in the FP-discussion I would prefer images of military equipment and soldiers to be either strictly factual, showing some technical aspect (like an airplane landing on a carrier, sonic barrier or air cushion ship) or being of historical value (like Warsaw Ghetto or WW II). Many of the military pictures here try to make an aesthetic impression rather than just depicting some kind of weaponry. That is a sign of propaganda, it advertises the weapons, their use and the ideas respectively the ideology behind this use, which is war. Some examples for what I mean: happy soldiers about to go to war, somewere near Falluja (how many people died where this projectile hit the ground? how did they look like?), very patriotic ... and very clean (for showing the human tragedies caused by weapons).
Don't get me wrong. I do not talk about or judge the given reasons for todays wars here. It just gives me a really bad feeling, if pictures of equipment used in contemporary wars is presented in this fashion - with nice lighting and composition, an impressive scenery (e.g. clouds and perspective, dramatic light), but detached from its purpose and use. There is a reason why the authorities concerned publish exactly this kind of depictions, not others that show the damage, the mutilations and the dead. Historical images may be seen differently. The distance in time - and the more we know about the historical context of a war - may make it clearer, that an image like this was made and published as propaganda. --Tsui (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that holding military photography to a standard of being "strictly factual, showing some technical aspect" is utterly inconsistent with the standard most material on the site is held to, and in particular, it smacks of the desire to adhere to Neutral Point of View, despite the fact that the media in the Commons are explicitly given an exception to upholding NPOV. I would urge you to review the page on NPOV as applied to Commons, especially this quotation: "Images having particular national, political or religious significance including flags, emblems and maps can arouse strong passions, but Commons is not the place to decide which of various competing versions is the correct or official version." I would contend that pictures which appear to glorify military service or military technology fall under this category of having "national, political or religious significance" which "can arouse strong passions," and reaffirm that it is inconsistent with the policies and culture of Commons to discriminate against such images solely due to their subject matter. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
May I add this section, from the FP Guidelines:

Symbolic meaning or relevance…. Opinion wars can begin here…. A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.

Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations….

Obviously, some of these images are evoking emotions, as is proved by the comments on the main page, and the existence of this section, correct? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008 - Why modifying the voting system?Edit

The voting system has been modified. Now, not only one cannot see how many supports a picture has but it is not possible to correct mistakes or change our own votes. I tried to press the 'support' button in some picture and my vote was registered immediately. I don't think this is an improvement over the last version. Please revert the change, this way it will be boring, like last year's -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was ok as it was till yesterday(?). Furthermore I think it is not a good idea to change the way of voting during the voting phase. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I tried to find out who did the modification but couldn't. I guess it wasn't done by anyone in the commitee. Any idea how to revert it? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new class of images: Meritorious PicturesEdit

Here is a proposal to create a class of images that do not receive enough support to become featured, but still receive more support than opposition as Featured Picture Candidates. No separate voting is needed (or permitted). The purpose is to provide an incentive to upload, nominate and improve FPCs while being easy to administer.

The following is the proposal for Meritorious Pictures:

Meritorious Pictures are photographs or other visuals that many users feel are representative of the finest work on Commons.

A candidate for Featured Picture that does not meet the criteria will become a Meritorious Picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license
  2. At least ### votes supporting featured status
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes more than 1/1 (a simple majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. If one version of a picture is featured, no other version of the same picture can be meritorious. Also, if a Meritorious Picture or another version of the same picture is later reconsidered and promoted to featured, it loses its status as meritorious.

In addition, there is no separate voting for or against Meritorious Pictures. As an example, any vote that amounts to "oppose for featured picture but support for meritorious picture" counts only as opposition to featured status and does not count as support for meritorious status. Only votes for or against featured status count.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. Delisting a Meritorious Picture requires a ratio of more than one delist votes to one keep vote. A delisted former Featured Picture may be promoted to meritorious by making it a featured-picture candidate and voting as usual, provided it meets the other criteria. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5.

Any experienced user may close requests. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished.

I've left unspecified the minimum number of votes supporting featured status. Maybe it should be 5, the same as for Featured Pictures, or maybe we should choose a different number.

An interesting topic for discussion is whether meritorious status should be awarded retroactively.

Comments are welcome. Fg2 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Yes, thanks for pointing out Valued Images. They have different criteria and goals than Featured Pictures, and require additional administration. My proposal for Meritorious Pictures is closely aligned with Featured Pictures, having the same goals, but requiring a less-stringent selection. Sort of "almost featured." And with just about no administrative burden. Fg2 (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I like the idea, but what would distinguish it from the goals of Quality Images? Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Good question. Commons:Quality images distinguishes those from Featured Pictures by writing "Unlike featured pictures, quality images must be the work of Commons contributors; they need not be extraordinary or outstanding, but merely well-composed and generally well-executed." So first of all, Meritorious Pictures can be the work of Commons contributors or can be the work of others, whereas QI must be the work of Commons contributors. Second, a majority of voters must agree that a Meritorious Picture is worthy of Featured Picture status, so those voters consider it extraordinary and outstanding, not merely well-composed and well-executed. In other words, apart from the size of the majority (more than 2 to 1 for FP, 1 to 1 for MP) Featured and Meritorious Pictures have the same descriptions, and what distinguishes FP from QI also distinguishes MP from QI. Generally, people would group FP and MP together as FP/MP (distinguished from each other by level of support); we'd then have these classifications: FP/MP, VI, and QI. Is that a helpful description? Fg2 (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
          • It does. Next question: Will this be applied retroactively? If so, how far back? A few months, a year? I presume we don't want to go back too far, to avoid standards having been much lower, but at the same time we don't want a hundred re-nominations. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

First we had Featured Pictures, then we got Quality Images. Then more people got unhappy that the images that were "almost featured", but wasn't and we got "Valued Images". Next we'll have Super Images (almost valued, but not quite), Superduper Images (Super Images that were created by Commons users), WOW images (images that have no encyclopedic value, but are stunning, the opposite of valued images) and the "I couldn't win any of the other awards so I nominated myself for this one" images.

Yes, that is an exaggeration, but not by far. I'm sorry, but I simple do not see the point of another image award. It takes away from the other awards, imo, and spreads the voting community more thinly. Anrie (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does this mean that you'd be interested in working on a sound and video featuring process? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Anrie, I agree that we don't want to spread the voting community more thinly. The Meritorious Pictures proposal doesn't add any new voting. It's just a new outcome of the votes for Featured Pictures. My hope is that it'll draw more nominations and voters to FP, since the result isn't all-or-none. Think of Featured status as a gold medal and Meritorious as a silver. They come from the same competition. Fg2 (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You dont need a proposal for this, try it on your user page, create a badge and a category. When it grows - make it public. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks -- I might do that. I'd prefer to get broad support, though, and if it doesn't get the support of the community, I'll just skip it. Fg2 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I have my doubts, too. It will in my view confuse and will spread the awards too thinly. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • What would you think about a different name: Featured Picture (Silver Medal)? That should clarify the relationship and avoid confusion. My goal is to get more people involved in voting, nominating, and ultimately, uploading high-quality photos (and other images). The method is to reward more pictures. FP is quite stringent, and should be, so I'm not proposing to water it down. But having something "almost featured" puts an award more within reach. Do you agree that it would bring more participation in Featured Picture Candidates? Fg2 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Participation ? At peak times we have 100 candidates at FP and QI which is a lot compared to the FP projects at the Wikis. Honestly said the bar isn't that high on FPC or QI. Everybody with a reasonably picture has a chance to get through. For me QI is the bronze medal, FP is silver, POTD is special - being a finalist at POTY is gold - making the 1st place at POTY is platinum. If this isn't enough challenge and motivation ? :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As the initiator of VI, I'd say that having yet another type of way to feature an image is not a good idea, as it would be hard for the MPs(?) to get an identity amongst FP, QI, an VI. As I see it we have two pillars, VI for value, QI for technical quality and on top of that we have FP, which should have both and be the top-notch 1/1000 image here. MP does not really fit in a gap that we do not already have. For not so common Commons users it will be a source of confusion. having to distinguish between the three existing types is overwhelming already for the non-regulars. I'd say it is a YAGNI (You Ain't Gonna Need It). I applaude taking some initiative though to do something new. --Slaunger (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sea kayaking from Coles Bay.jpgEdit

Can anyone help! How do you move it to the top of the page. I thought I did. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Above the nominations is a guideline about how to nominate a pic and where to add the nomination. There is a link to the list of nominations where you can add a new one. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I did everything right, but obviously not. Got the signature working. :) Aaroncrick(Tassie Boy talk) 08:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That's no problem... editing wikis can be confusing at times ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Meet our restorationistsrestorersEdit

Did I miss any discussion on the creation of this page, mumber of FP's, etc.? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Goodness. What happened to "restorers"? Anrie (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe they really mean restorationists? ;) Patrícia msg 16:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes it sound more like a science. Uh!! How about Restorologists ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • ... or a religious sect, like the scientologists :)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
My boyfriend just suggested that there should be on Wikipedia a page for those editors making good articles: "Wikipedia:Meet our creationists". OK, I'll stop being silly now :). Patrícia msg 19:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that was fun while it lasted ;-). I renamed the pages/templates though. If this is done, it should be done properly. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting since many people can own cameras so skills above and beyond regular snapshot getting start to qualify good performers. The LOC images here have only one owner and that list would reflect this ownership. -- carol (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Being serious, now. I like the idea and am (almost) ready to give it full support. But being part of a larger initiative, which went through some discussion, I think it should be subjected to the community's scrutiny before being implemented. Thoughts? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I was being serious about ownership. -- carol (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't contest that but either my English is too poor or your reasoning too twisted because I couldn't understand what you mean... Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The expectation is that the LOC images are not owned, but is there actual evidence here of that? -- carol (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
User:GerardM asked me if I'd be willing to start the page, and I agreed. Also, this isn't just Library of Congress - I think 90% of my work has been things I researched and usually paid to acquire myself, such as the Doré volumes.
There is no complaint from me about that, I appreciate that you have acquired and scanned and uploaded these things in which without you having accomplished all of that, it wouldn't matter if PD-old applied or not; they would be available to only a few people. Ownership in this case is expected, unchallenged and appreciated.
Ownership of LOC archives is a different matter however. If any observer of FPC looks at the big picture and restrains that "big picture" to just the nominations here. A nomination sits on the page (or in the review) for eight days. Observation of the votes and the enthusiasm of the reviewers for certain images -- it is easy for me to see that an owner of a whole archive of images such as the LOC images should probably be nominating less than one a day. Perhaps, if the reviewers/audience is really paid attention to, one every two weeks might keep the enthusiasm for these images. But at that point, the owner of the LOC archives has eliminated even those who occasionally nominate rare and previously unavailable images. Meet the Restorationists could very well mean "Meet the ball hogs" (that is a term in United States atheletics that describes a person who is unable to play with other people and needs to keep the attention to themselves).
Adam, did you purchase, scan and renovate all of those rare and previously unavailable images because you wanted to be listed with the ball hog? -- carol (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No further comments, as I'm really quite annoyed at Commons - it seems like even the most trivial actions on commons are met with calls for bureaucracy to stop people from doing productive things - Oh, no! You can't fix Assessments so that the en-wiki featured sounds can be labelled! There's other examples, but I'm going to just oignore this page, because I don't want to deal with this right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info - Commons:Meet our photographers and Commons:Meet our illustrators were created almost two years ago, after a long process of discussion and preparation. As we can infer from the initial paragraphs of the pages (and see see at the top the talk page), they are intended to inform journalists and, for that reason, they are Commons' showcases that concern us all. To ask for a previous discussion before a major change is made to the project, by a single user, can hardly be considered as "bureaucracy". Please initiate a discussion on the subjet, otherwise the only sensible thing to do is to revert the changes made so far. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoi, for your information, the people who restore, the restorationists, have their own community already. We have discussed how to grow our community at length and over an extended period of time. Making our presence more obvious on Commons is part of our effort.

The restoration of historic material gives media files a new lease of life. The importance of the material to the WMF projects is profound; historic subjects require illustrations and we have over 250 wikipedias who share the need the material we restore to their former glory. The material is selected in order to be of value to our projects, the images should be of high quality. The number of images that have been restored is still small but they represent a lot of hard work and many of the restorations end up as featured picture as a result. The creation of the restoration project serves several purposes.

  • It gives us a community a place where we can point to in our external communications
  • It gives us a place where we can point to resources that are of interest
  • It helps us to grow our community

As a community we are still young. Currently there are almost three people who qualify for the page on restorationists. We hope to make that a hundred. Restoring pictures is a great hobby, it takes skill, dedication and perseverance. You will agree with me that the results can be spectacular. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this page is a great initiative. Restoration is a distinct and specific skill, separate from photography -- just like illustration creation is. Thanks to the work of Durova and Adam it has a distinct niche within FPC. It is a great way of highlighting the excellent work currently going on and showing that we value it highly... and hopefully encouraging more of it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?)
Restortionist do more than just restore images their work helps to open up access to archives of images, I referred people to the work of Durova as part of an attempt to show that opening up their library of images making high quailty scans readily available is also of benefit to them in getting their images restored for "free". I see no problem wih recognising their work like we do illistrators and photographers saying revert and start discussion is creating unnecessary "bureaucracy" COM:QI started from the idea of one editor with initial input from 2 or 3 others it ran for a number of months, VI was similar look the what these are now achieving. \there is nothing wrong with being bold and starting something off, what problems are there with the Commons:Meet our restorationists that needs to be addressed? Gnangarra 00:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I am duly sorry if I have not shown enough gratitude to Durova for sharing her personal archives of Public Domain images here. -- carol (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Restorationists not really a word :) --Muhammad 06:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hehe what a joke. Next week I'll create Commons:Meet our Map makers and Commons:Meet our Macro photographers and maybe Commons:Meet our panoramists [sic]. Those are all nice niches too with each their dedicated communities. A least Those 'communities' have more than three members :-(. Lycaon (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not consider it a joke, Hans. The map makers are specializations for illustrators, and macro photographers and panoramists are specializations of photographers. We already have pages for these and these people are there. The restorationists does not really fit into any of the existing two boxes in my opinion, so what is the harm done in making that page? I think we all realize that you, personally, do not particularly appreciate the restorationists work, an opinion, which I respect. But what is the harm done in having such a page with currently two members? When Commons:Meet our illustrators was formed it only had one member, LadyofHats, now there are five. OK, there has not been a lengthy discussion, but what happened to our usual appreciation of just being bold? --Slaunger (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said above, I like the idea and could well support it in a near future. But there are some issues that need to be discussed first. I see two: i) If it is the restoration job being recognized, not the original picture, then all FP nominations should show, side by side, the "before" and "after" versions; ii) How many FP's should be needed for a restorer to become part of the club?. Sorry, but I maintain the opinion that addressing these issues first is not an unnecessary bureaucracy. Also agree with Lycaon that there are other niches which could be recognized as well, the map creators being an obvious one -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
on pt one not why propose the change for it be a requirment for restored work it does make sense to have the source piece to understand the effort involved, but how does that stop use recognising the works surely the people reviewing when they were under consideration took the time to follow the link to source images so how does this dimish or alter the current status of works. on pt 2 it should be no more then what we expect for the photographers. If we have the cartographers with FP works then why dont we recognise their contributions as well with time time we'll need to recognise animators, audiologists, cinematographers but not as yet having discussions about them recognising them as well doesnt and shouldnt stop recognition of the restoration people. Gnangarra 10:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • One aspect, which I do acknowledge should be discussed is perhaps the criterium for inclusion. As it is right now, the criteria are
    • What seems odd for me, is that not an equal amount of FPs is required for inclusion. I would suggest raising the bar to 10 FPs for all pages, such that it is consistent across all categories. I have not made the bean counting for the existing users included in the pages.
    • And concerning map makers, there is already a place for them, at Commons:Meet our illustrators, where notable map makers such as Sémhur and Sting are present, so we do not have to invent new fora for these. --Slaunger (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, the truth is the problem looks now much more complex than we imagined! Do the votes already made on old engravings address the restoration job, other than the value and beauty of the pictures themselves? I really don't think so (not mine, for sure). The bottom line is that the already promoted engravings shouldn't count for the purpose of electing someone to the "Meet our restorers page"! For the future, I can't even see how we should adapt FPC criteria to acommodate that kind of nominations. Remember when we rejected old sound files in FPC? Well, the arguments are similar now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I do see an issue with that type of scan, upload, featured, where no restoration work was involved. But isn't it quite clear who can be called restorationists and who can't? As you say, you do not consider yourself as one, although you have uploaded some scans, which have been featured. And I also think it is pretty evident that Durova and Adam Cuerden are, indeed, restorationists. So, I do not understand the thing about whether already promoted should be counted or not. What matters is, if a substantial amount of restoration work has gone into the FP - which is unrelated to the time of promotion. Concerning FPC criteria, I do not really see the problem with the guidelines; the purpose of the FPCs should be to highlight images; that creators, restorators, uploaders are highlighted as well is a side effect IMO, although it may be a personal driving force for some contributors, and I do not see anything wrong with that. --Slaunger (talk) 11:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Without wanting to insult photography, I think that generally the time commitment for illustrations and restorations is much higher, so it may make sense to allow fewer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I think most of us have understood now that the amount of work needed to to make a large restoration can be considerable, but the amount of work needed to get an FP photograph is often as substantial. You have to be at the right place at the right time, which for, e.g., the bug photographers (no offence) may mean to get up before dawn and set up the equipment and carefulle wait for the right moment or target of opputunity, subsequent digital darkroom editing, and so on. Even for "simpler" landscape motives the effort is often considerable. For instance for this FP, which is a stitch of many handheld taking in a drifting boat, I used three full working days to get the stitch just right afterwards. That it took so long time may reflect a certain level of incompetence in my stitching skills, but I hope you see the point ;-) So the most transparent criterium is the make them identical for all groups. --Slaunger (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
      • First, let's make it clear that the scans I have uploaded and became featured don't count for MOP purposes. But what I meant in the last comment is that when I voted (for or against) old engravings in FPC, I only considered the value of the pictures themselves, not the restoration job. That is why I don't accept those promotions to count either. The way I see it, MOP and MOI should recognize user's creations, not just uploads. In order to one's scans be considered as "creations" and thus ilegible for MOR purposes, it shoudn't be enough to have been uploaded by a restorer Though I'm not against the idea of starting the MOR pge, I now think that it shouldn't be done under the FP (and FPC) umbrella. The problem is, of course, the evaluation criteria of restorations, which seem foreign to the FPC assessments. Finally, I don't consider it fair to be discussing this issue under the pressure of an already created MOR page. --Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hoi, the criteria for inclusion is the same as for the illustrators. The same two people also qualify with a requirement for ten featured pictures. You can change the criteria but that would then affect everyone. There is no point in arguing about the amount of TIME it takes to do a restoration, of relevance is that it takes different skills.

What is relevant is the purpose of a list. If there is a clear purpose to have a separate group of map makers, macro photographers or whatever, it would be a good thing. When people argue against a "meet the restorationists", they will find that they had the featured pictures all to them selves and THAT is as problematic. Commons is the repository of media files for all the WMF projects. It is not about photos, it is about any media files. Pictures includes photos, illustrations and restorations.

The change that happened on this page gave recognition to both illustrators and restorationists. This was certainly overdue for the illustrators. I understand that some people resent this, but this is a typical humpty dumpty situation. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

  • The "Meet our xxx" pages were originally devised and promoted as a place to promote the expertise of Commons contributors to the world (not as an FP big numbers club). So I think it is quite right to have other pages promoting expertise available in other fields, so expert illustrators, sound recorders, film makers and restorers (and perhaps other fields of expertise) should be promoted too. I do agree with the arguments above (eg Alvesgaspar) that suggest that the current FP process is not appropriate for assessing the restorers work. Yes some restored works will meet FP standards, but is that due to the quality of the original or the quality of the restoration? Perhaps we need assessment criteria that include aspects of FP and VI - not only the beauty of the finished result but the value to the wiki of the finished result (eg restoring a very damaged, but significant image to something useful for wiki projects, even if not perfect (eg slightly blurred)). Of course there are restorers of sound and film files too, should they be included?
  • All of which brings up the question of additional FP processes to cover sound files, and movies, and restoration - all of which have different criteria from FPC --Tony Wills (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I couldn't say it better, agree with everything that Tony says. Yes, this issue brings up the old unresolved question of how to feature other kinds of media. Picture restorers, sound restorers, map makers (who shouldn't be evalueated here, IMO), all have the right to see their work recognized and shown to the world. But not in FPC because the confusion between the object of restoration and restoration itself would be near to impossible to resolve here and, in my opinion, incompatible with our objectives. There is absolutely no problem in evaluating old engravings, paintings or whatever in FPC, because we are always assessing the value of images. Mixing it up with the restoration job would be a mess. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This process page is called "Featured picture candidate". It does not say "Featured photo candidate" and it does certainly not say "Featured digital photo candidate". You have to apply criteria that are appropriate for the medium. Commons is a repository of useful media files and this is about pictures. Appropriate criteria have to be applied to the material at hand. In a modern digital photo, the technical requirements can realistically be quite different when compared to an old photo from before the digital age. The quality of a restoration is exactly a reason to feature a picture that would otherwise be only valuable. A good restoration is similar to having a map in SVG or PNG. When the criteria favour digital photos, then the criteria are biased and such a bias has a demonstrably negative effect on the whole of the Commons corpus. It is important to have objective criteria for featured pictures. These can be formulated and it is fair to have different criteria for the different categories.
Consider the discrepancy between the number of featured restorations on en.wp and Commons. All these pictures exist on Commons and the arguments for not having them feature on Commons demonstrate that Commons is perceived as hostile. The sad part of this whole fragas is that this feeling is strengthened. GerardM (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration project goalsEdit

Hi, it comes as a surprise to see controversy here. Wasn't my intention to ruffle any feathers; the benefits to the Commons and WMF core missions looked obvious from the perspective as a heavily involved volunteer. Apparently those of us who work in this are need to be better at explaining ourselves to the rest of the Commons community.

Commons serves the various language editions of Wikipedia and other projects with image files. An important share of encyclopedic material is historic. Yet many archives, museums, and libraries have not digitized their collections. And among institutions that do digitize, many attempt to prevent public domain material from circulating freely. That is a major obstacle to the spread of information. And although WMF's position is to refuse to recognize baseless copyright claims, it is relatively easy for organizations to respond by walling their collections behind assertions of contract law (for example my own local historical society[1]) or to take their collections offline completely.

The free culture movement needs an effective response to that trend, and so far one of the most persuasive responses is to approach the organizations and inform them that they can benefit from a more open approach. We can return the favor with free restoration services which most of these organizations do not have the budget to provide for themselves. And although there can never be a guarantee that something would be selected for featured attention, the prospect of perhaps earning a spot on the main page does get the attention of decision makers at these places. It's the kind of factor that helps to tip the scales.

Commons is in a unique position because this project has a global focus. In order to counter systemic bias we need to open more doors. Our volunteers are talking to museums and libraries in Europe, Australia, and Africa. Right now the best source files come from the United States; although the Library of Congress does have a large collection it also has blind spots. Recently I spent three days attempting to restore a shot of the great World War I campaign at Gallipoli: the LoC collection had only one tolerable image and it was badly damaged, yet the search inadvertently turned up dozens of photos of a small town called Gallipolis, Ohio. The best interests of Commons are served by supporting efforts to remedy this imbalance.

For the most part, fellow editors at Commons have been supportive and welcoming. The community at large has my heartfelt thanks for their support. Yet it has been a surprise to encounter a handful of people who construe some sort of mischief here, and both confusing and disappointing that a very small number are aggressively hostile. That does make it much harder to move things forward and expand our volunteer pool; I hope there's a way to overcome these misunderstandings and move forward together toward our shared goal of providing open access to quality illustrative material.

Again, I apologize for any inadvertent action which may have contributed toward a polarized or controversial situation. I was not aware that 'meet our restorationists' would encounter objections when I joined it, and I hope the community does accept its value. To have this type of page enhances the credibility of the restoration project when we approach organizations and I do hope to see many more people highlighted there soon. If you have questions or concerns please share them in good faith; let's clear the air. Durova (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How can we best thank you personally for opening up your personal archives, restoring the images which are contained there, uploading them here and nominating most of them for FPC here so that every one involved could see what goodness you do for us and the rest of the free world? -- carol (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Here, unfortunately, is an example of a loaded question from one of that handful of aggressive individuals. She has previously suggested that I trade sexual favors for featured candidacy supports: It is all I can do to not ask you whose ass you kissed (or worse) to get some positive recognition from FP,[2] and suggested that my work got promoted through corruption: Together they what? And yes, I suspect there is a crime going on... What do you think Durova did to get the warm reception? I ask because that doesn't happen from doing good work.[3] For the first few months I attempted to engage with her constructively because she appeared to be interested in image restoration, but the olive branch was never accepted. For over a year she has been following my contributions at Commons discussions with destructive commentary. Usually I ignore it, but in the present context it's worth commenting that this is one of the factors that makes it harder to mentor new people into this area. No one wants to take their first breaths in a poisonous atmosphere. Durova (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"Thank you for opening your personal archive up, restoring the images and sharing them with the uncontested low-life here" -- is this nicer? "Ass-kissing" is never a phrase I used to describe what should be a mutually agreed upon relationship, I am sorry for the convenience of misinterpretation here and perhaps for anyone who has experienced what they thought to have been a mutually agreed upon encounter with you. "Ass-kissing" as I used it then and will always use as a phrase has more to do with telling people what they want to hear regardless of the truth and there is a chance that when I thank you for making your archives available that I am ass-kissing. The only way to know if I am ass-kissing is to know the answer you provide for the question. One more time, allow me to reask the question; it was not loaded, it should be simple to answer. How can we best thank you personally for opening up your personal archives, restoring the images which are contained there, uploading them here and nominating most of them for FPC here so that every one involved could see what goodness you do for us and the rest of the free world?
Define aggression as used here by you. Before we meet "Durova the restorationist" allow us to understand the nuances of the language in the way you use it. An aggressive thank you compared to an aggressive ownership of an archive -- it should be an interesting definition of an oft used term. Thank you for your patience and persistence as well. -- carol (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Info - While a consensus is not reached on this, I have removed the links of MOR from MOP and MOI. I was hoping that someone from the restorers community did that but I was obviously naive -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I would have done so on a courtesy basis if you had made a request. It was an unpleasant surprise this morning to discover that, in addition to no meaningful feedback to my offer to discuss this, someone else had also attempted to change the name of the project including editing my own user space without notification. Durova (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Durova, I made that request at least twice, though indirectly (see above)! I was also wainting for someone to make a specific proposal for the creation of a promotion process of restorations and restorers. But no one has yet tried to explain how a restoration job should be assessed. The problem is, of course, hosting the process in FPC, which I find quite difficult. If a different page is created for that purpose, I'll put no more objections -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Orthography is not a matter of opinion. Claiming that consensus is necessary is just plain ridiculous. This is neither about you or me. so don't make it! A project this visible should have a correct title. I' m in no way questioning the validity, purpose, usefulness of MOR. I know that we had our share of run-ins, but this is not about that. So breathe deep. The userspace edit was absolutely uncontroversial, I fixed a template inclusion after I renamed it. Should I have left it broken? --Dschwen (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest that further discussion be moved to Commons talk:Meet our restorers so there is a more central location for discussion about this particular topic. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

      • Hold your mules, Dschwen! The consensus refers to the addition of a link in the FPC page, not to orthography! FPC is a collective project with a story and any non-trivial change to its purpose shoud be based on consensus. I ask politely User: GerardM to remove the link, I surely won't start and edit war. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Mules on hold :-). But I was not referring to you, but rather to this: (Move log); 17:14 . . Durova (Talk | contribs | block) moved Commons:Meet our restorers to Commons:Meet our restorationists over redirect (no consensus to move). Sorry about the misunderstanding! --Dschwen (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a great idea. We already have niches for Commons:Meet our photographers and Commons:Meet our illustrators. Restoration work from Commons contributors yields positive mention of this project, like this one Wounded Knee massacre: more bodies? In short, Commons:Meet our restorers is a worthwhile collaborative addition to the project and should most certainly be linked from COM:FP. Cirt (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    •   Info - That is not the point! The main problem is how to chose the members of MOR. Like it was proposed (I would rather say 'imposed'), members would join the club with some minimum number of promoted pictures. But the approach is not correct, since FPC assesses the value of the pictures, not the value of the restoration jobs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      •   Info Thank you for introducing TLA. When you address a picture, you have to assess it for what it is. There are good criteria for digital photography, there are good criteria for illustrations and there are good criteria for restorations. All of them are pictures and you cannot assess one with the criteria of the other. When you look at what pictures are selected for restoration, you find that they are useful as an illustration, you will find that they represent the best of what is available in the archives and museums where we may look. Among our restorations you find photos taken by professional photographers, you find that their work has deteriorated over time. The digital restorations that we perform bring important pictures to Commons and to the world. It takes skill and patience to do this work and we need much more of them. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Maybe my English is not good enough or I’m being too mellow. Or maybe people don’t want to recognize the problem. Let’s put it boldly so everybody understands. MOR was done in a way that strongly suggests self-promotion, with the candidates making their own rules. I couldn’t care less for self-promotion if the FPC page, and my own votes, were not used in the process. Let me say it again (for the last time): when I supported vintage images I voted for the pictures, not for the restoration jobs (as the large majority of the other reviewers, I believe). I can’t stop wondering why a specific proposal for creating a parallel process (or adapting FPC for the purpose) was not yet presented by the MOR. And I won't say anything more until that proposal is made. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Hoi, self promotion.. hmmm.. I am interested in seeing this thing happen. I do not restore, will not restore, so my name is in neon letters.. hmmm if you say so. Alvegaspar I think we should talk .. send me your telephone nbr and we will. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, posting again. This is a terrible day to be having system stability problems, but that's what's happening. I'm having a great deal of difficulty loading pages, much less posting. Please be patient and understanding. Durova (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's the matter in a nutshell: the restorationists are working to get Commons into a position where Commons becomes the go-to point when nonprofit archives release their collections to the public. At the mailing list today I pointed out an example where an archive went to Flickr instead (and Commons wasn't even considered in the running). That means more work for our volunteers to port that stuff over here, and ultimately a commercial site gets primary benefit instead of the educational nonprofit WMF. We need to do certain things in order to look credible when we approach historic archives. What we're doing with this effort is laying the groundwork. Please support our initiative because it serves the common good. Now I don't know how much else I'll be able to post today; need to do some troubleshooting to address these instability problems. If you have questions or misgivings, please post them and be patient. I will respond just as soon as I am able. Warmest regards, Durova (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think you and the restorationists are doing a fantastic job. I too saw the mailing list commentary about the Army Medical photo's. Part of the problem is that Flickr is a really big name, and Commons is over shaddowed by its 800 pound fat sister, Wikipedia. We've gotten a few groups of imports previously, and we just need to keep up with them and stealing any out on the net we can. Eventually we can steal attention away from Flickr with the hard work of people such as yourself. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank you very much. We're working toward gaining momentum (look for good press later this month ;) ) and are building structures to look credible as we approach this type of organization. Part of that has to do with enabling TIFF uploads. Another part has to do with putting restoration work on a credible footing. This is part of that. And if it succeeds Commons will see more events like the Bundesarchiv upload. Best, Durova (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Restoration work is crucial. Adam and Durova are doing groundbreaking work in this area and Commons needs to support them. Linking to a page at FP for the restorationists makes as much sense as linking resources for photographers and illustrators. Minimizing the role of the restorationists just results in misunderstandings like this one. Still, the matter of this link pales to the fact that valuable editors are subject to strange harassments: it's a shame that no one objects for days after CarolSpears - who's been, IIRC, permbanned from en wikipedia - belittles Durova's excellent work here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, I was asked to create the page by User:GerardM. He even blogged about his badgering of me and Durova to create pages here. I was actually rather reluctant to do it, but Gerard asked me, as a personal favour, to do it to try and increase the restorationist community.

However, in order to show that I did this simply to encourage restoration, I have just deleted my profile from the list of restorationists, leaving only Durova. I believe that this should, presumably, remove any attempts to cast this as promotion on my part.

If someone wants to restore my profile to the list, that is your concern. I, however, believe that by this action I have gained the right to step away from this battle, and would ask that further attempts to very publicly attack me over the crime of having created a useful page and set of templates cease.

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that Durova has done the same. How nice that Commons, yet again, manages to destroy a useful project by means of complaining and attacking anyone involved. We can only hope that future generations are inspired to redo a lot of work to get this project off the ground, at which point everyone will tear them back down again. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was pure coincidence that Adam and I did the same thing at nearly the same time. He and I have not discussed the decision. I have been spending most of the last day on different but related work, and earnestly regret the grade 2 storm this inadvertently caused. Asking all sides to bear in mind our project mission to provide quality media for other WMF projects. It's about the work, not about personalities. Durova (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW.[4] Durova (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Durova: After having both Alvesgaspar and Lycaon disrupt FPC to make a point, I'm the one you pull out for public humiliation? I will remind you that we are not friends anymore, and that you using me as a scapegoat is the specific reason why. I think you are a very good restorationist, and I support some of your goals, but I must remind you that any interactions we have are solely because of the shared goals, not because I like you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about the restoration project, not about personalities. Please move personal commentary elsewhere. Thank you. Durova (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
And having all my work on Meet the restorationists become for naught because two people decide it's better to take over a couple featured picture candidates in order to harass people involved with it, delink it, and generally harass and attack me and you is not a problem? I don't give a damn about your restoration project, what I care about is that I got put in the centre of a campaign of harassment and disruption - which, I might add, is still ongoing - and you think you have the right to speak for me about how I'm not upset, that my feelings don't matter, and we should just ignore the problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(discussion partially copied from File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png. Please feel free to add it all, if found relevant)

  • Please, please read the discussion page before commenting on this! It is precisely the object of evaluation in FPC that was implicitly subverted by the way the page was created! Sorry to be so bold but I'm already tired of repeating the same thing over and over again: one thing is to assess the value of a picture, a completly different thing is to assess the quality of a restoring. And these two things cannot be mixed up in FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Will you PLEASE stop disrupting FPC, and go to the talk page? Furthermore, as this message by Alvesgaspar continues his harassment and disruption campaign even after I disowned meet our restorationists and removed my name from that page, it is clear that appeasing Alvesgaspar is not going to work. I hence have resored my name to Commons:Meet our restorationists, and will fight for the right of restorationists to be recognised with every tooth and nail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar you conflate two issues and you are wrong in doing so. You can assess pictures that are to be featured, that is what this is about. If your point is that you cannot assess restorations, then do not do that. It is not possible to technically assess restorations anyway because Commons does not have the technology to make that possible. We are slowly moving in that direction because we can now upload the work files as a tiff. These file cannot be shown in a thumbnail or otherwise yet. This information is not new to you. Now desist of further nonsense, you agree that these pictures are important, the only argument you are left with is being uncomfortable that restorations are in a category of their own and that there has been no lengthy discussion about it. As you already implicitly agreed that restorations are in a category of their own, there is not much to discuss. My problem is that you make it seem as an "us and them" conflict. Commons needs digital photography, illustrations and restorations. We need a friendly atmosphere in order to do well and this bickering is counter productive. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If no one can assess restorations, how are the MOR members elected? By the number of FP's? Then, anyone who has uploaded at least five vintage pictures which have become FP's may claim a membership, provided he/she makes a statement that they were all restored by himself/herself (one to go, in my case). Better call the page "Meet Our Uploaders"! Can't you see that the absence of clear and just election criteria, based on the quality of the restoring job, makes the proccess arbitrary? Before accusing people of saying nonsense and trying to interpret their own discomforts, please have the humility to admit that you just don't understand (or don't want to). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Making this page the battle ground for this issue was inappropriate. At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations. The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present. This is the wrong place for this argument, this is the place to assess if this picture may become a featured picture. Now, let us discuss this at a proper place the criteria for what makes an appropriate and best practices based restoration. This seems like a good place to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- First let me cite two pearls from above (post-modern deconstruction?): At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations (in short: a does not equal b; but a may equals b); The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present (in short: the truth can either be true or not, depending on the place where it is stated). As you may imagine, this kind of word game is not my style and I’m quickly losing all hope of having a rational discussion on the subject, as well as the sympathy I first felt for the project. And will say no more, until the abusive edits are reverted and a solid proposal is presented for integrating a future MOR page in the FP environment (if that is what people want). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I am at a loss. I do not understand why Alvesgaspar moved this discussion here. As you can see in the text he copied, I proposed a different location, a location where I proposed criteria for evaluating restorations. I hope that this is an oversight. Let us *PLEASE* be constructive and let this be a good faith discussion. I do not try to play wordgames, I am not aware of having been abusive. Please indicate where I was abusive and I can make ammends. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I do object to the conflation of picures being featurable and criteria for assessing them as restorations. When old scanned material does not need a restoration, it may be featured when it has the necessary quality. For this reason as well this is the wrong place for this argument. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

POTY 2008 ... againEdit

What happened to POTY 2008? If there is a problem with the vote counting, or whatever, shouldn't the community be informed about it? Sorry to have to say it but responsability also applies to volunteer jobs, especially when they affect initiatives with the dimension and impact of POTY! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Alvesgaspar. So whose job is it? I assume someone can pick up where it left off. Bastique demandez 20:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, Bastique, nice to hear from you! Well, I don't think so, at least in a project as complex as this. Of course people can help but not without orientation. Where is the organizing committee, by the way? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Check (and join) Commons:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting/Voting checking, check Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2008/Voting#Discussion/work on round 1 votes. --Jklamo (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think I should, there are several pictures of mine in the contest -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Featured picture candidates/Archive 5".